Search Climate Insights Directory

The document critiques soil carbon sequestration markets, asserting they allow major polluters to avoid real emission reductions while increasing corporate control over agriculture. It highlights how these systems favor large-scale industrial farms, marginalize smallholders, and rely on unreliable measurement methods. The text further details the role of governments and corporations, such as Yara, in promoting these mechanisms despite scientific evidence suggesting that 'climate-smart' practices do not significantly increase soil carbon storage.

The document provides a comprehensive list of requirements for a successful Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). It advocates for a rights-based approach, the adoption of a 'Whole Government Approach' to mainstreaming, and the prohibition of destructive activities like deep-sea mining and fracking. It argues against voluntary commitments, biodiversity offsetting, and the use of high-risk technologies such as geoengineering and synthetic biology, while calling for public finance from developed countries to support biodiversity conservation in developing nations.

The document argues that the Global Biodiversity Framework must be based on binding norms rather than voluntary commitments and must address the structural economic drivers of biodiversity loss. It advocates for a rights-based approach that protects indigenous peoples and environmental defenders, the elimination of harmful subsidies, and the prohibition of high-impact industrial activities like deep-sea mining and Arctic oil extraction. The text explicitly rejects the commodification of nature, biodiversity offsets, and the use of geoengineering or synthetic biology as solutions to the environmental crisis.

The document provides a comprehensive guide for the Global Biodiversity Framework, emphasizing the need for binding rules over voluntary commitments and the integration of human rights, especially for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. It argues that biodiversity loss is driven by the current economic system and unsustainable consumption, calling for a 'Whole Government Approach' to integrate biodiversity across all sectors. Key recommendations include the elimination of harmful subsidies for industrial farming and aquaculture, the prohibition of high-risk technologies like geoengineering, and the rejection of biodiversity offsetting and market-based solutions. The text stresses that conservation must prioritize existing habitats and be supported by public funding, particularly from developed nations to developing ones.

The document critiques the 'new' Green Revolution in Africa, which it describes as a corporate takeover driven by multinational agribusinesses and philanthropic foundations. It highlights the risks of genetically modified (GM) crops and synthetic fertilisers, contrasting these with the benefits of agroecology. The report argues that small-scale farmers, who produce 80% of the food consumed in Africa, are the key to food security and should be supported through policy reforms that prioritise public goods and ecological sustainability over private corporate profit.

The report contends that corporate-driven trade deals, such as TTIP, TISA, and CETA, obstruct the transition to renewable energy and empower corporations to sue governments over environmental regulations. It highlights the role of the WTO and Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms in protecting polluting industries and criticizes 'false solutions' like carbon trading and REDD+. The authors call for a democratic economic approach that prioritizes local resources and sustainable development over growth-at-all-costs trade regimes.

The report contends that mega-regional trade agreements and the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework obstruct climate action by protecting fossil fuel interests and limiting the regulatory capacity of governments. It highlights the role of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms in allowing corporations to sue governments over environmental protections. The document criticizes 'false solutions' like carbon trading and REDD+, advocating instead for a democratic economic approach based on local resources, agroecology, and corporate accountability.

The report contends that global trade rules and agreements, such as the TTIP, CETA, and TISA, obstruct the transition to renewable energy and climate stability. It highlights how Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms allow corporations to sue governments over environmental policies, and criticizes 'false solutions' like carbon trading and REDD+. The authors call for a democratic, sustainable economic approach that prioritizes local resources and a binding global carbon budget.

The fact sheet critiques the adoption of 'nature based solutions' (NBS) by over 1,500 corporations, asserting that these strategies allow companies to maintain fossil fuel use and industrial growth under the guise of 'net zero' commitments. It highlights Shell's plan to plant trees on an area nearly the size of Brazil and Nestlé's reliance on offsetting to mask projected growth in animal product sourcing. The document contrasts these corporate approaches with community-led solutions like agroecology and community forest management, which it describes as essential for climate justice and food sovereignty.

The fact sheet contrasts agroecology with 'nature based solutions' (NBS), asserting that NBS serves as a tool for agribusinesses and the finance sector to commodify nature and carbon. It claims that NBS focuses on narrow carbon sequestration metrics and specific practices like no-till farming to preserve corporate control, whereas agroecology seeks systemic change, food sovereignty, and land redistribution. The document warns that NBS integrates nature into corporate profit chains and provides carbon credits that allow fossil fuel corporations to pursue 'net zero' instead of real zero emissions.

The document critiques soil carbon farming as a mechanism for corporations and governments to offset emissions without making deep cuts. It contends that these schemes entrench industrial farming, facilitate corporate data grabbing, and marginalize smallholder farmers and traditional knowledge. The author asserts that soil carbon sequestration is technically unreliable, often overestimated, and cannot compensate for the long-term impact of fossil fuel combustion.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) provides a detailed critique and set of proposals to amend the first draft of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. FoEI argues for more ambitious targets, such as increasing the goal for ecosystem area gain from 15% to 20% and reducing invasive species introduction by 90% instead of 50%. The organization emphasizes the need to halt biodiversity loss entirely rather than just slowing its rate, and advocates for the explicit inclusion of human rights, the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs), and the phasing out of highly hazardous pesticides. FoEI also proposes a new 'Goal E' focused on a comprehensive implementation mechanism and suggests that financial resources for biodiversity should be significantly increased, citing a need to address 4-6 trillion USD in harmful incentives.

The fact sheet critiques the use of 'nature-based solutions' by major corporations to achieve 'net zero' targets without abandoning fossil fuels or changing core business models. It highlights Shell's plan to plant forests the size of Brazil and Nestlé's reliance on offsets despite its contribution to deforestation. The document contrasts these corporate strategies with 'real solutions' led by Indigenous peoples and local communities, such as agroecology and community forest management, which prioritize ecological governance over the commodification of carbon.

The fact sheet critiques the trend of presenting agroecology as a subset of 'nature-based solutions' (NbS), asserting that this framing serves the interests of fossil fuel companies, agribusiness, and the financial sector. It argues that while agroecology seeks systemic change and social justice, NbS focuses narrowly on carbon capture to create new financial assets and 'green' credentials for industrial actors. The document highlights the incompatibility between the emancipatory goals of agroecology and the market-driven approach of NbS, which it claims facilitates land displacement and the continuation of destructive business models.

The document argues that the current global economic system, driven by neoliberal ideology, has failed by causing environmental destruction and extreme inequality. It proposes five key pillars for transformation: ensuring universal public services through tax justice, scaling up social ownership and cooperatives, supporting local markets and fair trade, adopting wellbeing-based economic indicators instead of GDP, and establishing binding international rules to hold transnational corporations accountable for human rights and environmental abuses.

The report critiques neoliberalism for causing environmental destruction and inequality, advocating for a transition to a sustainable economy. It proposes five key pillars: expanding public services through tax justice, scaling up cooperatives and solidarity economies, supporting local markets and fair trade, adopting wellbeing-based economic indicators instead of GDP, and establishing binding international regulations to curb the power of transnational corporations.

The document critiques neoliberalism for causing ecological destruction and deep inequalities, proposing a shift toward an economy that prioritizes people and the planet. It outlines five strategic pillars for transformation: ensuring universal public services through tax justice, expanding cooperatives and the social and solidarity economy, supporting local agroecological markets and fair trade, replacing GDP with wellbeing indicators (such as 'Buen vivir' or 'doughnut economics'), and establishing a binding UN treaty to hold multinational corporations accountable for human rights and environmental abuses.

The document critiques carbon markets, specifically 'cap and trade' and 'carbon offsetting', as mechanisms that allow major polluters to avoid reducing emissions at the source. It highlights the failure of the EU ETS and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), noting that global emissions continue to rise. The briefing emphasizes the severe impacts on indigenous peoples and local communities, citing REDD as a driver of land grabbing and forced displacement. It specifically warns against the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which could institutionalize these markets, and calls for a transition to agroecology and a just energy transition instead.

Friends of the Earth International opposes BECCS, describing it as a 'dangerous distraction' from urgent emissions reductions. The document argues that the land requirements for BECCS at scale—up to 3,000 million hectares—would cause widespread deforestation, land-grabbing, and increased global hunger. It further contends that the technology is technically unproven, energy-inefficient, and carries significant risks of CO2 leakage, while potentially enabling corrupt carbon offsetting practices that allow polluters to avoid real emissions cuts.

The document critiques carbon emission markets, including 'cap and trade' and 'offsetting' mechanisms, as ineffective tools for climate action. It asserts that these systems allow historical polluters to avoid reducing emissions at the source while causing human rights abuses and 'climate colonialism' in the Global South. The briefing specifically warns against the adoption of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement at COP25, arguing that it would institutionalize these flawed mechanisms and prioritize corporate interests over climate justice.