Search Climate Insights Directory

The document details the third pillar of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, focusing on a global just transition. It advocates for decentralized, people-centered renewable energy systems and the economic diversification of fossil-fuel-dependent nations. The text emphasizes that a successful transition requires wealthy nations to provide financial support and a 'fair share' of effort, while rejecting 'dangerous distractions' like carbon offsets and geoengineering. It calls for a fundamental shift from GDP-driven growth to 'well-being economies' to address the systemic root causes of the climate crisis.

The document outlines how a treaty could address the lack of official governance for a managed transition away from fossil fuels. It proposes three interconnected clusters of financial pathways: debt management to alleviate fiscal constraints, new forms of investment and trade to overcome barriers, and mechanisms to replace fossil fuel revenues at scale and speed. The brief suggests that a treaty could either directly establish these instruments or strengthen existing parallel processes to facilitate fund transfers, transparency, and economic diversification for developing countries.

The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative submits that fossil fuel production is the primary driver of the climate emergency and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of human rights law. The brief contends that States have a duty of prevention to regulate, monitor, and phase out fossil fuels to protect fundamental rights, including the rights to life, health, and a healthy environment. It emphasizes differentiated obligations, arguing that wealthy, developed States must act first and provide support to less-developed nations. The document also advocates for a 'just transition' and increased transparency regarding fossil fuel reserves and production.

The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative submits that fossil fuel production is the primary driver of the climate emergency and directly violates numerous human rights, including the rights to life, health, and a healthy environment. The document argues that states have a legal duty under the American Convention on Human Rights to regulate, monitor, and ultimately phase out fossil fuel production. It emphasizes differentiated responsibilities, asserting that wealthy, developed nations must lead the phase-out and provide financial and technical support to less developed states. The brief further advocates for a 'just transition' that protects vulnerable populations and ensures transparency through active disclosure of fossil fuel production data.

The document outlines various structural options for integrating principles into a Fossil Fuel Treaty, such as through dedicated provisions or preambles. It details 16 potential international law principles—including common but differentiated responsibilities, precaution, and just transition—explaining their legal nature, precedents in other treaties, and how they could be applied to regulate the phase-out of fossil fuel production.

The report examines various international legal frameworks and principles that could be incorporated into a future treaty to phase out fossil fuels. It discusses structural options for including these principles—either in a dedicated provision, the preamble, or substantive articles—and evaluates 16 specific legal principles, such as 'common but differentiated responsibilities' and 'intergenerational equity', detailing their legal status and potential application to fossil fuel production and a just transition.

The document outlines a framework for climate equity, asserting that developed nations owe an ecological debt to developing nations due to historical overconsumption. It advocates for a global carbon budget apportioned by responsibility, capacity, and the right to sustainable societies, while calling for a systemic shift away from neoliberalism toward community-owned energy and agroecology to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

The document advocates for a global carbon budget distributed according to historical responsibility, capacity, and the right to sustainable societies. It asserts that developed countries owe a climate debt to developing nations and must provide funding and technology without intellectual property restrictions. It calls for a systemic shift away from neoliberalism and fossil fuels toward community-owned renewable energy and agroecology to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

The fact sheet critiques the INDC process, noting that many developed nations have submitted insufficient commitments that focus solely on mitigation while ignoring adaptation and historical responsibility. It argues that allowing countries to self-determine their contributions risks a global temperature increase of 4 to 6°C. As an alternative, it advocates for a 'fair share' system where a global carbon budget is allocated based on responsibility, capacity, and the right to sustainable societies, supporting a broader energy revolution focused on justice and community-owned renewables.

The document defines climate equity as the fair sharing of the global carbon budget, emphasizing that developed countries bear a 'historical responsibility' due to their past emissions and resource exploitation. It advocates for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C, which requires an immediate revolution in energy, food, and transport systems. The text calls for a 'system change' over mere climate change, proposing a transition away from neoliberalism and fossil fuels toward community-controlled renewable energy and agroecology, while urging the UN to enforce equitable responsibility among nations.

The document critiques the INDC process, noting that current commitments from developed nations are inadequate and often ignore adaptation, finance, and loss and damage. It argues that allowing countries to self-determine their contributions cannot guarantee the global effort needed to limit warming to 1.5°C. Instead, it proposes a "fair shares" approach, which involves establishing a global carbon budget and dividing it among countries based on their historical responsibility, capacity, and right to a sustainable society.

The document argues that climate equity requires developed nations to take the lead in reducing emissions and providing financial and technological support to developing nations due to their historical responsibility. It advocates for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C through a carbon budget based on responsibility, capacity, and the right to sustainable societies. The text calls for a systemic economic transformation away from neoliberalism and fossil fuels toward community-led renewable energy and agroecology.

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.

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.

The Climate Change Act establishes a regulatory framework for decarbonisation in South Africa's extractives sector, mandating sector-specific emissions targets, carbon budgets, and reporting. While the mining industry is vital to the economy, it is a major GHG contributor, with 85% of emissions linked to the coal value chain. The report highlights challenges such as enforcement gaps, resource limitations for monitoring, and the high capital cost of transitioning. It emphasizes that compliance is a strategic necessity for maintaining export market access, particularly regarding EU CBAM requirements. The Green Transport Strategy (2017-2050) is identified as a key tool for reducing logistics emissions by shifting from road to rail. A case study of Anglo American illustrates effective adaptation through green hydrogen trucks and internal carbon pricing. Successful implementation requires collaboration between government, mining companies, investors, and civil society to ensure a just transition.

The document provides a high-level analysis of South Africa's carbon credit and REC markets, highlighting a significant supply deficit in the compliance market and the challenges of high project development costs. It details the transition to mandatory carbon budgets and the influence of the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and Article 6 of the Paris Agreement on the domestic landscape.

The IAI proposes transitioning to a distributed Directorate model to overcome human resource limitations and better translate global change science into policy. Under this plan, Brazil (via INPE) would lead science development and interdisciplinary integration; Uruguay would host the Operations and Finance Office to provide administrative stability; and Argentina would host the Science-Policy Liaison Office to manage communication and government outreach.

The document details a legal challenge against TGS Geophysical Company's proposed 3D seismic survey off South Africa's West Coast, arguing that the authorization was unlawful, ignored climate commitments, and threatened marine ecosystems and small-scale fisheries.

The document details a legal challenge in the Western Cape High Court against a proposed 3D seismic survey by TGS Geophysical Company. The applicants argue that the authorisation was unlawful due to a lack of proper delegation of authority and a failure to consider the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act. Key concerns include the physical and behavioural impact of airgun noise on marine mammals and fish, the creation of exclusion zones harming small-scale fishers, and the government's failure to account for climate change commitments under the Paris Agreement and the economic risk of stranded assets in a decarbonising world.