Search Climate Insights Directory

Friends of the Earth International calls for an immediate global shift away from 'dirty energy'—including fossil fuels, nuclear power, and large-scale hydroelectricity—toward community-led, decentralized energy systems. The statement emphasizes that the Global North must take primary responsibility for emission cuts and financial support for the Global South to achieve climate justice and prevent irreversible planetary tipping points.

Friends of the Earth International calls for a transition from 'Dirty Energy'—including fossil fuels, nuclear power, and large-scale hydropower—to decentralized, people-centered community energy. The statement criticizes 'false solutions' like BECCS and carbon offsets, highlighting the disproportionate responsibility of the global North for emissions and the need for a just transition that includes significant financial flows to the global South.

The document argues that tropical forests, mangroves, and peatlands can provide 23 percent of the cost-effective mitigation needed by 2030 to limit warming to 2°C. It highlights that deforestation impacts the climate not only through carbon emissions but also through non-radiative forcings like disrupted water cycles and surface albedo changes, which can lead to hotter and drier conditions locally and continentally. The authors emphasize that while reforestation has high potential, it faces uncertainties regarding land availability and competition with food security, whereas avoiding deforestation provides more certain mitigation benefits.

The report examines how Carbon Removal and Solar Geoengineering might interact with the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. It finds that at least 13 of the 17 SDGs would be affected by these technologies, with at least 9 facing significant risks. While these interventions could mitigate some climate-driven threats to development, they introduce novel physical, socio-economic, and political risks, including land-use conflicts, water scarcity, and international political tensions. The authors emphasize substantial knowledge gaps and call for transdisciplinary, geographically diverse research and robust global governance to ensure such technologies do not hinder sustainable development.

The report 'A Crack in the Shell' by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) uses internal documents to demonstrate that Royal Dutch Shell had early and urgent notice of climate risks associated with fossil fuels. It highlights a dichotomy between Shell's internal scientific understanding—which acknowledged the link between CO2 and global warming as early as the 1950s and 60s—and its public efforts to sow doubt through industry groups like the Global Climate Coalition and the American Petroleum Institute. The document further argues that Shell continues this pattern by promoting the 'Sky Scenario' to appear aligned with the Paris Agreement while continuing to invest in fossil fuel expansion, including in the Arctic.

The agriculture and land sectors (AFOLU) contribute approximately 24% of total GHG emissions, but also sequester about one third of annual anthropogenic emissions. While technical potentials for mitigation are high—with some estimates suggesting up to 23.8 GtCO2e yr-1 through conservation and restoration—significant uncertainties remain regarding the persistence of carbon sinks and the practical implementation of large-scale removals. Achieving Paris Agreement goals requires a combination of reducing deforestation, sustainable land intensification, and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, though these are often hindered by institutional, economic, and socio-cultural barriers rather than just technical limitations.

The report presents five scenarios demonstrating that global warming can be limited to well below 2 C° if the world leverages exponential technological improvements and S-curve market diffusion. It highlights that experts often underestimate the speed of energy transitions by ignoring learning rates and systemic feedbacks. The proposed pathways involve reducing energy demand by approximately 60% through efficiency and electrification, shifting the electricity supply to over 90% renewables by 2040 in aggressive scenarios, and transforming agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) into a net carbon sink by the mid-2040s.

The Climate, Land, Ambition and Rights Alliance (CLARA) provides recommendations for land-use policies within the UNFCCC framework. The briefing emphasizes the need for free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) for indigenous peoples, the protection of collective land rights, and the adoption of agroecological practices. It strongly opposes the use of terrestrial carbon sinks to offset industrial emissions, citing the non-permanence of such sinks and the unreliability of soil carbon accounting. Additionally, it warns against large-scale bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and 'Climate Smart Agriculture' due to risks of land grabs and corporate green-washing.

The United States Mid-Century Strategy (MCS) provides a roadmap for deep decarbonization by 2050, focusing on three primary pillars: transitioning to a low-carbon energy system, enhancing the land carbon sink, and reducing non-CO2 emissions. The strategy emphasizes a combination of aggressive energy efficiency, near-complete decarbonization of the electricity grid, and the deployment of carbon removal technologies like BECCS. It argues that these goals are compatible with robust economic growth and suggests that a carbon price starting at $20 per metric ton in 2017 could put energy CO2 emissions on a consistent pathway. The report also highlights the critical role of U.S. forests and soils in sequestering carbon and the necessity of international cooperation to drive down technology costs and prevent emissions leakage.

Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) asserts that humanity has entered 'Decade Zero,' a critical window for drastic action to prevent irreversible warming. The report advocates for a 'Fairshare' approach to the global carbon budget, where rich industrialised nations take the deepest cuts and pay their 'climate debt' to the global South. FOEI rejects 'false solutions'—including carbon markets, REDD, and 'net zero' technologies—arguing they protect corporate profits and lead to human rights violations. Instead, it proposes a transition to energy sovereignty, agroecology, and community forest management, underpinned by a shift away from neoliberalism toward an economic system accountable to people.

The document defines the 'Decade Zero' as the critical window to prevent irreversible climate warming. It critiques the current global energy system and neoliberal economic models, labeling market-based mechanisms like carbon trading and REDD as 'false solutions' that protect corporate profits while violating human rights. The report advocates for a systemic transformation centered on climate justice, where developed nations pay their 'climate debt' to the Global South and energy production is shifted to decentralized, community-owned, and sustainable models.

Friends of the Earth International asserts that humanity has entered the 'Decade Zero', the final window to prevent dangerous climate change through drastic action. The document criticizes the neoliberal economic system and the power of transnational corporations, which it claims drive the climate crisis and promote 'false solutions' like carbon markets and REDD. It proposes a transition to 'energy sovereignty', agro-ecology, and community forest management, while demanding that wealthy industrialised nations pay their 'climate debt' to support developing countries.

The document examines the limited global carbon budget available to restrict warming to 1.5°C and the resulting necessity for Australia to undergo a rapid energy transformation. It argues that current national pledges under the Paris Agreement are insufficient and that relying on future 'negative emissions' technologies is risky. For Australia, a 'fair share' of the carbon budget would be exhausted in less than six years at current emission levels, necessitating a shift away from fossil fuel extraction and exports.

The paper argues that relying on future large-scale negative emissions to 'undo' current carbon emissions is a high-risk strategy that may lead to insufficient near-term decarbonization. It identifies three primary risk types: technological/biophysical infeasibility, unacceptable social and ecological impacts, and the potential for sequestered carbon to be re-released or for climate impacts to become irreversible. The authors evaluate four land-based options, concluding that while ecosystem restoration and reforestation may provide some viable negative emissions, high-reliance scenarios (e.g., those requiring 1,000 Gt CO2) are likely unachievable. BECCS is highlighted as particularly risky due to unproven commercial scale and extreme land and resource requirements. The paper advocates for a 'zero fossil carbon' goal over 'net zero' to ensure aggressive immediate mitigation.

The document argues that relying on future negative emissions to offset current insufficient climate action is a high-risk strategy. It identifies three primary risks: technological and biophysical infeasibility, unacceptable social and ecological impacts, and the potential for these measures to be less effective than expected due to reversals or irreversible climate tipping points. The authors conclude that while some land-based sequestration is possible, it cannot reach the scales often assumed in climate models without severe trade-offs.

Friends of the Earth International concludes that the Paris Agreement fails the 'People's Climate Test' due to its lack of binding emission targets, insufficient financial commitments for developing nations, and the absence of concrete mechanisms for loss and damage. The organization criticizes the agreement for not mentioning renewable energy or the phase-out of fossil fuels, while leaving the door open to 'false solutions' like geo-engineering and carbon markets.

Friends of the Earth International concludes that the Paris Agreement fails to provide climate justice, citing a lack of binding emissions targets for developed nations, insufficient financial commitments for developing countries, and the absence of concrete mechanisms for loss and damage reparations. The organization criticizes the agreement for not mentioning renewable energy or energy efficiency and for leaving the door open to 'false solutions' like carbon markets and geoengineering.

Friends of the Earth International concludes that the Paris Agreement fails the 'People’s Test on Climate' due to a lack of binding emissions targets, insufficient financial commitments for developing nations, and the absence of protections for vulnerable communities. The assessment highlights that the agreement does not mandate a phase-out of fossil fuels, lacks mentions of renewable energy or energy efficiency, and relies on unproven technologies like BECCS. Furthermore, it argues that the agreement weakens the principle of 'Common But Differentiated Responsibilities' and excludes compensation and liability for loss and damage.

The document defines a net phase out of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as reducing anthropogenic emissions to a level equal to or smaller than anthropogenic removals. To maintain a likely chance of meeting the 2°C target, global GHG emissions must be net zero by 2100, while CO2 emissions specifically should reach net zero around 2070. If action is delayed until 2020, these deadlines accelerate to 2080 for all GHGs and 2065 for CO2. The briefing notes that technological options already exist for approximately 90% of current GHG sources, though the remaining 10% require further innovation or offsetting. It highlights the critical role of bio-energy and carbon capture and storage (CCS) for achieving these targets, noting that limiting bio-energy significantly increases mitigation costs and reduces the number of models that find the 2°C target feasible.

The paper examines the conflict between bioenergy production and the global need for food, feed, and carbon sequestration. It argues that dedicated land use for bioenergy—including crop-based biofuels and cellulosic energy crops—exacerbates a projected 70 percent crop calorie gap by 2050. The authors contend that bioenergy is an inefficient use of solar radiation compared to solar photovoltaics (PV), which can produce over 100 times more energy per hectare. Furthermore, the document identifies a systemic 'double counting' error in greenhouse gas accounting that erroneously treats biomass as carbon-free. It recommends phasing out subsidies and mandates for land-dedicated bioenergy while prioritizing 'additional' biomass sources such as municipal waste and specific residues.