Search Climate Insights Directory

The report highlights a critical failure by major livestock-producing nations and corporations to address methane emissions, despite the gas's high potency and short atmospheric lifespan. It finds that most assessed countries lack absolute methane reduction targets and that the largest meat and dairy companies fail to report methane emissions separately or implement concrete abatement plans. The document advocates for a systemic transition toward plant-rich diets and the implementation of both technical and behavioral mitigation measures to meet Paris Agreement goals.

The document critiques the 'net zero' narrative promoted by the UK presidency of COP26, arguing that it ignores historical responsibility and relies on scientifically flawed assumptions about carbon removal. It warns that 'net zero' acts as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering and allows polluters to use carbon offsets to maintain business-as-usual emissions. The author calls for a shift toward 'real zero' targets, absolute emission reductions by the Global North, and the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) rejects Nature-based Solutions (NbS), characterizing the term as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing.' The organization contends that NbS is too vague, allowing harmful practices like industrial monoculture plantations to be labeled as 'natural.' FoEI argues that NbS serves as a greenwashing tool for fossil fuel and agro-industrial companies to justify 'net zero' claims through carbon offsetting rather than actual emission reductions. The document warns that the scale of land required for these projects leads to land grabbing and violates the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, particularly in the Global South. Instead of NbS, FoEI advocates for systemic change through agroecology, community forest management, and a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels.

Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) rejects Nature Based Solutions (NBS), characterizing it as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' that instrumentalizes nature to serve corporate profits and 'net-zero' offsetting schemes. The document contends that NBS promotes monoculture plantations, enables the financialization of nature, and threatens the sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. FOEI argues that NBS distracts from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels and instead advocates for systemic changes such as agroecology and Community Forest Management (CFM).

The briefing note critiques the 'net zero' agenda promoted by the UK presidency at COP26, arguing that the concept allows governments and corporations to maintain fossil fuel pathways through deceptive accounting and unproven technologies. It contends that net zero ignores historical responsibility, is inequitable to the global South, and relies on the physical impossibility of natural sinks absorbing all combusted fossil carbon. The author warns that the confusion between carbon removals and offsets is being exploited to create a carbon market potentially worth US$50-100 billion by 2030, which diverts investment from systemic transformation. Friends of the Earth International demands a focus on 'real zero', absolute emissions reductions by 2030, the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26, and the fulfillment of climate finance obligations by Northern countries.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) rejects Nature-based Solutions (NbS), characterizing the term as a "wolf in sheep's clothing" that masks neocolonialism and corporate greenwashing. The document contends that NbS promotes industrial monoculture plantations and the financialization of nature, which threatens the land rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities, particularly in the Global South. FoEI argues that NbS serves as a distraction from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels and instead advocates for systemic changes through agroecology and community forest management.

The document critiques the 'net zero' framework promoted by the UK presidency and the 'Race to Zero' initiative for COP26. It asserts that net zero ignores historical responsibility, relies on physically impossible natural carbon sinks, and serves as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering. The author distinguishes between 'removals' and 'offsets', arguing that the latter maintain the status quo and divert investment from systemic transformation. Friends of the Earth International demands a shift toward 'real zero' (absolute emissions reductions), the exclusion of polluting companies from COP26, and the fulfillment of climate finance obligations by Northern countries to support the Global South.

The statement calls for a transformation of water governance to protect food systems from climate-driven water cycle disruptions. It proposes six foundational attributes for water-resilient food systems: interconnected systems thinking, polycentric inclusive governance, continual innovation and learning, diversity and redundancy, system preparedness, and long-term planning. The authors emphasize that the climate crisis is effectively a water resilience crisis, requiring a shift from reactionary responses to proactive, robust, and flexible management strategies that prioritize equity and the inclusion of marginalized groups.

The Union of Concerned Scientists recommends strategic investments in USDA conservation programs, agricultural research, and debt relief for underserved producers to help the US reach its 2030 and 2050 climate goals. Key recommendations include $4 billion for the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and $9 billion for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), both of which are currently oversubscribed. The brief also calls for $500 million each for SARE and AFRI to address research gaps in agroecology and systems science, $50 million for USDA Climate Hubs, and at least $200 million for Conservation Technical Assistance to support the adoption of climate-beneficial practices.

Friends of the Earth International proposes a revised Target 8 for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The briefing argues that the target should focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and deforestation, ensuring mitigation measures do not harm biodiversity, and prioritizing ecosystem-based approaches. It specifically calls for the removal of a quantitative carbon sequestration goal of 10 GtCO2-e per year, arguing that carbon accounting is an imprecise metric for biodiversity and risks promoting monoculture plantations or the commodification of nature.

The briefing recommends that Target 8 focus on reducing biodiversity threats from climate change and ensuring mitigation efforts do not harm ecosystems. It specifically argues for the removal of a 10 Gt CO2-e annual mitigation target, asserting that carbon is an inappropriate metric for biodiversity and could incentivize the destruction of species-rich ecosystems in favor of monoculture plantations or BECCS projects.

The briefing note proposes that Target 8 should focus on reducing biodiversity threats from climate change and ensuring that mitigation efforts do not harm ecosystems. It specifically argues for the removal of a target to contribute '10 Gt CO2-e per year', asserting that carbon is an inappropriate metric for biodiversity and could incentivize the destruction of species-rich ecosystems in favor of monoculture plantations or BECCS projects.

Friends of the Earth International and over 500 other organisations are boycotting the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS), describing it as a "thinly veiled attempt" by corporations and philanthro-capitalists to dominate food governance. The group argues that the UNFSS promotes "failed and unjust corporate proprietary technologies" and "Nature Positive Food" narratives to allow corporations to continue destructive activities through offsets. In response, they are organising a "Peoples Counter Summit" to advocate for agroecology, food sovereignty, binding corporate regulations, and the protection of the Right to Food.

Friends of the Earth International denounces the United Nations Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) as a mechanism for large corporations, philanthropic capitalists, and Northern countries to dominate food governance. The organization argues that the UNFSS promotes failed patented technologies and 'nature-positive' narratives to protect corporate interests while excluding small-scale producers. In response, it advocates for a transformation based on agroecology, food sovereignty, and binding regulations on corporate power.

Friends of the Earth International is boycotting the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS), describing it as a tool for corporations and philanthropic entities like the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation to control food governance. The organization and over 500 partner groups are organizing an alternative summit to advocate for agroecology, food sovereignty, and binding regulations on corporate power, opposing the UNFSS's focus on commercial technological solutions and 'Nature Positive Food' narratives.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the draft Global Biodiversity Framework for adopting a utilitarian approach to nature, failing to regulate industrial drivers of biodiversity loss, and marginalizing indigenous peoples and Global South nations in virtual negotiations.

The Municipality of Rosario, Argentina, established the Urban Agriculture Program (PAU) in 2002 to combat food scarcity and unemployment following the 2001 economic crisis. The program provides low-income residents access to underutilized land for agroecological production, creating livelihoods for nearly 300 urban farmers, 65% of whom are women. Beyond social benefits, the program reduces greenhouse gas emissions by localizing food production and improves urban resilience to flooding by enhancing soil absorbency. The initiative has been institutionalized through the 2015 Green Belt Project, which designated 800 hectares of peri-urban land for agriculture, and is integrated into the city's strategic and environmental plans.

The document evaluates green technologies for urban food production in Cape Town, categorising them into incremental and transformational levels based on Gliessman’s framework. It analyzes the financial viability of hydroponics, aquaponics, and complete Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) systems, while also identifying investment opportunities for different farm scales, from community gardens to large-scale commercial operations.

The document critiques orthodox macroeconomic policies for ignoring social reproduction and gendered power dynamics, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in Africa. It argues that neoliberal austerity and financialisation have undermined public services and increased the burden of unpaid care on women. The authors propose a recovery based on a 'feminist green economy,' increased fiscal space through progressive taxation and debt cancellation, and a shift toward a social reproductive economy that prioritises basic income and universal access to essential services.

The document describes integrated agriculture-aquaculture (IAA) systems as a circular approach to food production that recycles nutrients between crops, livestock, and fish ponds to increase productivity and reduce external inputs. It highlights IAA's potential to adapt to climate change by diversifying livelihoods and managing saltwater intrusion in coastal areas, while potentially mitigating emissions by reducing the need for synthetic fertilisers and animal feed. The text advocates for the ASEAN Technical Working Group on Agriculture and Rural Development to lead knowledge-sharing and policy integration to promote IAA adoption, emphasizing the need for capacity-building and a focus on equity for the most vulnerable farmers.