Search Climate Insights Directory

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and the use of carbon offsetting, distinguishing between 'real zero' (actual emission elimination) and 'false zero' (reliance on offsets). It asserts that carbon markets and 'nature-based solutions' are used as distractions by the fossil fuel industry and financial sectors to maintain the status quo, which risks further land grabbing and the violation of Indigenous and local community rights. The report emphasizes that fossil carbon cannot be simply absorbed by the biosphere and calls for a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels and a transition to a climate-just economy.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and carbon offsetting, distinguishing between 'true zero' (rapidly eliminating fossil fuel emissions) and 'false zero' (relying on offsets). It asserts that fossil carbon cannot be absorbed by natural cycles and that the demand for offsets leads to the financialization of nature and the dispossession of indigenous and local communities.

The document critiques the concept of "net zero," distinguishing between "real zero" (immediate deep emission cuts) and "fake zero" (reliance on offsets). It asserts that carbon offsets do not reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations and that the land required to meet corporate offset demands would be ecologically and socially catastrophic. The report specifically highlights the role of the financial sector and fossil fuel majors in rehabilitating voluntary carbon markets to maintain business-as-usual operations.

The document analyzes the private sector's complex relationship with sustainable development, noting a history of corporate disinformation and lobbying against environmental regulations. It identifies three primary modes of engagement: active obstruction, partnership with governments to implement Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the emergence of 'Sustainability-Oriented Hybrid Organizations' (SOHOs) that prioritize regenerative equity over profit. The author argues that while impact investing and 'greening' existing systems are valuable, they may be insufficient to achieve absolute decoupling of growth from emissions, recommending that policymakers support systemic transformations and SOHOs.

The document examines the role of nature-based solutions (NBS) in corporate net-zero strategies, emphasizing that while NBS can provide critical finance for conservation and significant co-benefits for biodiversity, they must not substitute for direct fossil fuel abatement. It details 'demand-side' risks, such as the potential for offsets to dilute corporate ambition, and 'supply-side' risks, including leakage, permanence, and additionality. The authors advocate for a 'both/and' approach combining aggressive internal decarbonization with high-quality NBS credits, preferably shifting from project-based to jurisdictional-scale crediting to improve integrity.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero deforestation,' arguing that it erroneously equates the protection of indigenous forests with the planting of new forests, which cannot replace the 'unrecoverable carbon' and ecosystem services of natural forests. It further asserts that agricultural certifications for soy, such as RTRS and Proterra, are insufficient because they represent only 1.5% to 3% of global production and often allow large-scale monocultures and pesticides. The author calls on banks, insurers, and investors to pressure soy traders like Cargill to stop purchasing soy from land converted after January 1, 2020.

The document highlights the role of the soya industry in driving deforestation in Brazil's Amazon and Cerrado regions, noting that tropical deforestation accounts for approximately 8% of global annual greenhouse gas emissions. It identifies the 'ABCD group' (ADM, Bunge, Cargill, and Louis Dreyfus) as key traders failing to prevent deforestation due to a lack of cut-off dates, standardized clauses, and traceability. The author urges financial institutions to require traders to implement a cut-off date no later than January 1, 2020, establish full traceability and independent monitoring, and respect indigenous human rights, threatening the suspension of financial services for non-compliance by January 1, 2022.

The Biden-Harris administration has issued a series of executive orders to reverse Trump-era environmental rollbacks, focusing on rejoining the Paris Agreement, canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, and reviewing methane and fuel economy standards. The administration is also reviewing chemical safety regulations, water protections, and wilderness conservation, including a moratorium on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. These actions are intended to restore science-based policy and environmental justice across federal agencies including the EPA, Department of Energy, and Department of the Interior.

Ember challenges the assumption that biomass is carbon neutral, noting that current practices may actually contribute to climate change. The organization argues that the scale of land required for energy crops to support BECCS would cause significant environmental and food security issues. Furthermore, Ember highlights the high public cost of subsidizing bioenergy, suggesting that funds would be more effectively spent on wind, solar, or forest restoration.

The document calls for a shift from a destructive extractive model to one that prioritises human well-being and environmental preservation. It highlights the severe impacts of mining on water, soil, and air, and emphasizes that global coal use must drop by 80% in the next decade to maintain a 1.5°C temperature limit. In South Africa, failure to adapt could lead to interior temperature increases of up to 7°C by 2100, threatening health and agriculture.

The author contends that the economic crisis caused by COVID-19 presents a unique opportunity for Spain to replace its unsustainable productive model with one based on environmental sustainability and social justice. By utilizing the EU's Next Generation funds and the European Green Deal, Spain can pursue a 'just transition' that mitigates the adverse effects of closing polluting industries, such as coal mines, while creating new employment in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The document highlights Spain's progress through the National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan (PNIEC) 2021-2030 and the establishment of 'Just Transition Agreements' in regions like Asturias and León, asserting that decarbonization can lead to a net gain in employment.

The analysis asserts that the current environmental acquis of the Energy Community Treaty is inadequate to prevent biodiversity loss and water deterioration caused by energy projects. It recommends the adoption of selected articles from the EU Birds, Habitats, and Water Framework Directives, arguing that such measures would not impose significant additional burdens since many Contracting Parties already have existing obligations under the Bern Convention or EU accession processes. The document details the specific risks posed by various energy sources—including coal, nuclear, wind, and hydropower—and provides a tailored legal framework for implementation within the Energy Community.

The BiH ESAP 2030+ is a strategic initiative supported by the Stockholm Environment Institute and funded by the Embassy of Sweden to align Bosnia and Herzegovina's environmental frameworks with European Union policies. The plan, developed between September 2019 and spring 2022, covers seven EU environmental policy areas and consists of four jurisdiction-specific strategies for the BiH level, the Federation of BiH, Republika Srpska, and Brčko District. The process employs a participatory approach involving 28 thematic working groups and two rounds of public consultations to define goals, targets, and measures to improve the environment and public health by 2032.

Thailand is promoting a bioeconomy centered on cassava and sugarcane to drive economic growth and social equity, though the industrial sector is more advanced than community-based efforts. While integrated into policies like Thailand 4.0 and the 20-year National Strategic Plan, the transition faces regulatory hurdles, such as the Cane and Sugar Act (1968), and environmental pressures including land and water scarcity. Social challenges include wage inequality for plantation workers and food security risks for farmers shifting from rice to sugarcane.

The COP26 Resilience Hub Synthesis Report outlines five core messages for advancing global climate resilience: the necessity of Locally Led Adaptation (LLA), the urgent need for diversified and increased adaptation finance (preferring grants over loans), the bridging of knowledge and implementation gaps, the role of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) across urban, coastal, and rural settings, and the requirement to center marginalized groups—including women, youth, and Indigenous peoples—in decision-making. The report details thematic insights across ten areas, including finance, water, food, energy, and health, while emphasizing the need to scale these efforts toward COP27.

The 2021 state of global environmental governance was characterized by a heavy reliance on voluntary commitments and a transition toward hybrid and virtual negotiation formats due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While some substantive outcomes were achieved—such as the finalization of the Paris Agreement rulebook at COP26 and the adoption of the Marseille Manifesto by the IUCN—many multilateral environmental agreements were limited to procedural decisions. The report highlights a growing gap between political promises and actual implementation, alongside increasing global inequalities in vaccine access and digital connectivity that hinder inclusive environmental governance.

The document argues that while ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) is a cost-effective pillar of nature-based solutions, it remains underused due to economic paradigms, lack of political will, and financing gaps. It positions the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process as the primary strategic vehicle to mainstream EbA across sectors and levels of government. The guide provides eight guiding principles for integration, ranging from using ecosystem-level vulnerability assessments to ensuring long-term financing and inclusive, participatory planning.

The document argues that ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) is a cost-effective pillar of nature-based solutions that can strengthen human and ecological resilience. It identifies barriers to scaling EbA—such as economic paradigms, lack of political will, and financing gaps—and proposes that the NAP process provides the necessary intersectoral and multi-level framework to overcome these. The briefing outlines eight guiding principles for integrating EbA into the NAP phases of planning, implementation, and monitoring, emphasizing the need for inclusive, long-term, and evidence-based approaches.

The document outlines eight key demands from Reclaim Finance and Les Amis de la Terre France addressed to BNP Paribas. It calls for the bank to strictly apply its coal exit policy, cease all support for hydrocarbon development, exit high-risk sectors like the Arctic and unconventional oil and gas by 2030, and vote against Total's climate strategy. Additionally, it urges the bank to withdraw from gas projects in Mozambique, strengthen exclusions on soy-related deforestation in the Cerrado, and formalize a policy to end support for oil drilling in the Amazon.

The document consists of formal inquiries directed at Natixis regarding its climate and environmental policies. The authors challenge the bank's delayed implementation of coal exclusions, its continued support for fossil fuel expansion, and its involvement in high-risk sectors such as Arctic drilling, shale gas, and Amazonian oil extraction. It specifically calls for the bank to oppose Total's climate strategy and cease financing for projects like EACOP and Tilenga, as well as gas developments in Mozambique. Additionally, it demands a 'zero deforestation' policy for imported soy and a detailed plan to end support for oil drilling in the Amazon.