Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that GM crops are an extension of a pesticide-dependent industrial agriculture model that fails to address hunger and harms the environment. It highlights that over 99% of GM crops are herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant, leading to increased pesticide use and the emergence of resistant weeds and pests. The report notes significant public and political resistance in Europe and Asia, and warns of the monopolistic power of six biotech giants over the global seed market. As an alternative, it advocates for agroecology and food sovereignty to ensure sustainable food systems and support small-scale farmers.

The document argues that the GM crop industry is based on myths, noting that nearly 99% of current GM crops are designed for herbicide tolerance or insect resistance rather than nutrition or climate adaptation. It highlights that GM crops have led to increased agrotoxic use due to weed and insect resistance, particularly in North and South America, and have caused negative environmental impacts, such as the decline of the monarch butterfly. The report also notes the market monopoly held by six multinational companies and the financial burden on small farmers. It concludes that agroecology is a more sustainable and effective solution for food security and hunger than GM technology.

The report argues that the GM crop industry is built on myths, with 99% of GM crops focused on herbicide tolerance and insect resistance rather than nutrition or climate adaptation. It highlights increased pesticide use in North and South America, environmental damage such as the decline of the Monarch butterfly, and the monopolistic control of the seed market by six multinational corporations. The document advocates for food sovereignty and agro-ecology as more effective and sustainable alternatives to combat hunger and malnutrition.

An anti-fracking coalition in South Africa opposes Minister Susan Shabangu's plan for shale gas exploration in the Karoo, describing it as an extractive process that benefits a small elite while threatening the natural environment and ignoring the needs of local residents for agrarian transformation and basic services.

The document examines the proliferation of glyphosate-resistant weeds across approximately 60 million acres of U.S. cropland, attributing the crisis to the 'perfect storm' of monoculture, overreliance on a single herbicide, and the neglect of nonchemical control methods. It criticizes the agribusiness industry's proposal to introduce crops resistant to more toxic herbicides like dicamba and 2,4-D, warning that this will accelerate the evolution of multiple-herbicide resistance and increase environmental and health risks. Instead, the authors propose agroecological solutions—such as crop rotation, cover crops, and biodiversity—which they claim could reduce herbicide use by over 90% while maintaining yields. The brief concludes with recommendations for the USDA and Congress to fund sustainable weed control and support organic farming transitions.

The document advocates for a shift from top-down development to a resilience-based approach in African agriculture, using conceptual models like the adaptive cycle and panarchy to understand systemic collapse and restoration. Through case studies in Zimbabwe, Tanzania, and Kenya, it demonstrates how political power, colonial legacies, and rigid policy frameworks can create poverty traps, while local leadership and enabling policies can restore ecological and social resilience.

The author contends that soil carbon markets are financially and technically unviable due to low carbon prices, measurement challenges, and the high cost of implementation. The text argues that pushing for emission reductions in agriculture burdens small farmers in India, Africa, and Latin America, potentially leading to the takeover of agricultural operations by non-farmers. It advocates for agro-ecological approaches and financial support for adaptation over market-based mitigation burdens.

The document argues that a green transformation requires a comprehensive political project combining technological innovation with social change. It examines the tension between 'green growth' and 'degrowth', the need for a European Green New Deal, and the role of federalism in managing ecological and social crises. The text also addresses the challenges of migrant integration and the necessity of expanding solidarity to include nature and future generations.

The author contends that the European food system is failing, as evidenced by the horsemeat scandal and the environmental impact of agriculture, which accounts for over 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The text advocates for a holistic approach to food policy that transcends narrow consumerist or ecological goals, emphasizing the need to place farmers at the center of change and promote food cooperatives to re-embed agriculture in society. It highlights a paradox where austerity leads to food bank reliance while obesity-related health costs rise, suggesting that food education and agro-ecological methods are essential for social justice and sustainable feeding of the global population.

The document advocates for a 'cultural and social revolution' in food systems to replace the industrial agro-industry, which it links to environmental degradation and public health crises. It critiques the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for favoring large-scale production over small farmers and biodiversity. Through various regional case studies—including France's 'malbouffe' crisis, land-grabbing in Hungary, and organic farming in Spain—it promotes short supply chains, agro-ecology, and the reconnection of consumers with producers. It also highlights specific Green political initiatives in Belgium and Germany aimed at promoting organic and GMO-free agriculture.

The report critiques 'sustainable intensification' as a productivist ideology that prioritizes high-tech solutions—specifically genetically modified (GM) crops and chemical inputs—over agro-ecological practices. It argues that this approach is driven by international donors and agribusinesses, often ignoring the expertise of small farmers and failing to deliver promised yield increases. The document contrasts this model with 'food sovereignty' and the recommendations of the IAASTD report, advocating for a shift toward agro-ecology, land rights, and the reduction of food waste and livestock consumption in the West.

The report critiques the concept of 'sustainable intensification,' asserting that it serves as a cover for conventional intensive agriculture and the expansion of genetically modified (GM) crops. It highlights how funding from entities like the Gates Foundation and the UK government prioritizes biotechnology over agro-ecological methods. The document argues that GM crops have not delivered promised yield increases or affordable climate adaptation, and instead increase seed costs and chemical dependency. It contrasts this approach with agro-ecology and 'food sovereignty,' which emphasize small-scale farmers' knowledge and traditional practices as more sustainable and productive alternatives.

The report argues that genetic engineering has provided modest results in addressing agricultural drought, exemplified by Monsanto's DroughtGard corn, which offers limited protection under moderate drought and no benefit in severe conditions. It finds that conventional breeding and improved farming practices are often more cost-effective and successful. The author highlights that drought tolerance is a complex trait involving many genes, making single-gene GE approaches limited, and notes a lack of evidence that GE has improved water-use efficiency (WUE). The report recommends increasing public support for conventional breeding, focusing on drought-tolerant 'orphan crops' from the Southern Hemisphere, and investing in soil and water conservation.

The report details a global movement of small-scale farmers and activists resisting the corporate power of agribusiness, specifically Monsanto. It highlights legal battles, moratoria, and direct actions against GM crops in Europe, India, Latin America, and Africa. The document argues that the 'green economy' and 'climate-smart agriculture' frameworks are being used to further corporate control over seeds and land through market-based mechanisms and carbon offsets, while promoting food sovereignty as a sustainable alternative.

The report details a global movement of peasants and civil society organizations resisting Monsanto's influence on agriculture. It highlights specific battles in Europe, India, Latin America, and Africa, where activists fight against GMO seeds, toxic pesticides like Roundup, and the corporate control of seed systems. The document argues that the 'green economy' and 'climate-smart agriculture' are market-driven frameworks that facilitate corporate land grabbing and the spread of biotechnology. It advocates for food sovereignty—the right of peoples to define their own food and production systems—as a sustainable path to mitigate climate change and ensure food security.

The report documents global opposition to Monsanto and other biotechnology firms, highlighting the social and environmental costs of GM crops. It details resistance movements in Europe, India, Latin America, and Africa, while critiquing the 'green economy' and 'climate-smart agriculture' as market-driven mechanisms that reinforce corporate control. The authors advocate for food sovereignty and peasant-led agroecology as the only viable paths to climate resilience and food security.

The Union of Concerned Scientists argues that U.S. agricultural policies currently favor an industrial model that prioritizes corporate profit over health and the environment. The brief highlights a significant disparity in subsidies, noting that corn and soybean growers receive over ten times the support of all fruit and vegetable growers combined. This system is linked to water pollution and high energy consumption, accounting for nearly 16 percent of total U.S. energy use. The authors propose transitioning to agroecology—a science-based approach utilizing crop rotations, cover cropping, and integrated livestock management—to create a more resilient and nutritious food system. Key policy recommendations include increasing investments in local food hubs, providing new incentives for organic production, and requiring conservation standards for farmers receiving federal subsidies.

The document examines the increasing influence of multinational corporations and business lobby groups within the UN system, particularly in the lead-up to the Rio+20 summit. It argues that this 'corporate capture' shifts the UN's focus from sustainable development and human rights toward market-based solutions that benefit the private sector. Through a series of case studies, the report highlights how initiatives like the 'Green Economy', 'Sustainable Energy for All' (SE4ALL), and the UN Global Compact facilitate 'greenwashing' and 'bluewashing', allowing companies to avoid regulation while gaining privileged access to policy-making. The authors call for a fundamental overhaul of UN decision-making processes, including the removal of business representatives from national delegations and the establishment of a legally binding framework for corporate accountability.

The document examines the growing influence of multinational corporations and business lobby groups within the UN, claiming that this 'corporate capture' shifts the focus from public interest and sustainable development toward market-based solutions that benefit the private sector. It provides case studies on the 'Green Economy' concept, the Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) initiative, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's role in agricultural policy via IFAD, the commodification of biodiversity in the CBD, the privatization of water policy, and the lack of accountability in the UN Global Compact. The report concludes with a set of recommendations to limit corporate influence, increase transparency, and establish legally binding corporate accountability frameworks.

The document examines the increasing influence of multinational corporations within the UN, specifically regarding the 'Green Economy', 'Sustainable Energy for All' (SE4ALL), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), water policies, and the UN Global Compact. It contends that these partnerships lead to 'greenwashing' and the commodification of nature and water, while marginalizing civil society and the rights of the poor.