Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines how the neoliberal trade and investment regime prioritizes the economic profitability of transnational corporations (TNCs) over human rights and food security. It contrasts the 'Agribusiness Model', characterized by large-scale monocrops and investor protections, with an 'Agroecology Model' based on food sovereignty and environmental justice. The document highlights how specific legal clauses in trade agreements—such as National Treatment and Investor-State dispute settlement—create a 'regulatory chilling-effect' that prevents states from protecting small-scale producers. It specifically identifies the European Union as a driver of this system through its trade strategies and funding of agroindustrial projects in Africa. The report concludes with recommendations to reform investment regimes, prioritize small-scale producers, and establish legally binding instruments to hold TNCs accountable for human rights violations.

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 provides a detailed comparative analysis between the Kyoto Protocol's flexibility mechanisms (CDM, JI, and IET) and the emerging frameworks under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement (specifically Articles 6.2 and 6.4). It examines differences in purpose, governance, and accounting, highlighting the shift from a bifurcated system of Annex I and non-Annex I countries to a universal application for all Parties. The paper emphasizes the need for 'robust accounting' and 'environmental integrity' to avoid double counting and the transfer of 'hot air', while outlining critical unresolved questions for UNFCCC negotiations regarding the nature of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs) and the scope of eligible activities.

Carbon Market Watch outlines specific requirements for the three frameworks under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement: cooperative approaches, the Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM), and non-market approaches. The organization emphasizes the need for robust accounting to prevent double counting and 'hot air' trading, the integration of human rights safeguards, and the principle of supplementarity to ensure domestic emission reductions are prioritized over the purchase of compliance.

Friends of the Earth International asserts that the Paris Agreement fails to deliver the scale of action required to limit global warming to 1.5°C, noting that current national pledges could lead to warming of around 3°C. The organization warns that terms like 'climate neutrality' may justify the use of dangerous geoengineering, carbon markets, and nuclear energy. To achieve climate justice, the document advocates for a just global energy transformation characterized by community-owned renewable energy, the blocking of dirty energy projects, and financial support from developed to developing nations.

Nigel Topping asserts that carbon pricing is a critical tool for meeting the Paris Agreement's objectives, noting that over half of national pledges submitted before COP21 reference market mechanisms. He highlights a growing global momentum, including China's planned national emissions trading scheme and the private sector's shift toward internal carbon pricing. Topping advocates for significantly higher price levels—specifically at least $30-40 per tonne to facilitate a switch from coal to gas—and promotes the updated Carbon Pricing Pathways to guide governments and investors toward prices sufficient to limit global temperature rises to below 2°C.

The Paris Agreement represents a milestone in global climate policy by establishing a universal, hybrid framework for climate action. While it lacks binding implementation of national targets to ensure the participation of major emitters like the USA and China, it introduces a mandatory five-year cycle of review and increased ambition to close a 15-gigatonne emissions gap. The agreement aims to limit global temperature rise to 2°C, with an aspiration for 1.5°C, requiring net-zero emissions from 2050 onwards. It also reaffirms a collective goal of mobilizing $100 billion annually for developing countries from 2020, with a planned upward review by 2025.

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 author asserts that the Paris agreement's success is rooted in the collapsing cost gap between clean and fossil energy and the increasing profitability of low-carbon investments. The text highlights that private sector investment is driving climate finance, which grew 18% to $391 billion in the previous year. Specific examples are provided of economic opportunities in the U.S., Europe, India, China, Indonesia, and Brazil, suggesting that the transition to low-carbon energy and sustainable agriculture can unlock trillions in economic value.

The Paris Agreement establishes a global commitment to limit warming to well below 2°C, pursuing efforts for 1.5°C, and introduces a five-year ambition ratcheting mechanism. It creates a new mitigation mechanism that moves beyond pure offsetting and includes human rights protections in its preamble. While it acknowledges international aviation and shipping emissions, these remain outside national targets. The agreement necessitates an update to the EU's 2030 climate target to align with the 1.5°C goal.

Carbon Market Watch criticizes a proposed 'mechanism to support sustainable development' in the Paris climate treaty negotiations, asserting that it allows developed countries to generate and use carbon offsets without restriction. The organization warns that including land use carbon offsets for non-permanent sequestration would create a 'gigatonne loophole' and undermine climate targets. Additionally, the statement notes the removal of a proposed financial levy on carbon prices and highlights a counter-proposal from an alliance of developing countries (LMDC, Arab Group, and ALBA Group) to remove the offsetting mechanism in favor of cooperative approaches for mitigation and adaptation.

Carbon Market Watch expresses concern over the potential for continued offset credit trading in the L.6 text, arguing that offsets reduce the ambition of emissions caps and hinder the goal of limiting temperature increases to 1.5ºC. The author suggests that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) structures should be repurposed as a channel for climate finance rather than an offset mechanism to support mitigation outcomes and avoid double counting.

The document warns that the Paris climate treaty risks failure if it allows 'hot air' (non-real emission reductions) to be used for compliance. Drawing on failures of the Kyoto Protocol's CDM and JI mechanisms, and the oversupply of permits in the EU ETS, the author advocates for the cancellation of surplus permits, the creation of a robust international accounting system to prevent double counting, the end of carbon offsetting in favor of direct finance for developing countries, and the exclusion of non-permanent land use offsets from carbon markets.

The document outlines a diverse landscape of climate financing for cities, categorised into local internal revenues, external third-party sources, and international funds. Local options include property and land taxes, user fees, development charges, and Tax Increment Financing (TIF), as well as 'intracting' for energy retrofits. External sources feature Energy Performance Contracting (EPC), green bonds, and crowdfunding. International support is available through climate funds like the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and Global Environment Facility (GEF), Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), and philanthropic organisations, though the authors note that most international funds require cooperation with national governments due to strict fiduciary and creditworthiness standards. The guide emphasizes that while international funds are necessary for large-scale projects, local sources foster greater municipal autonomy and sustainability.

The briefing argues that carbon markets have historically failed to increase climate commitments and have often undermined emissions reductions through 'hot air' loopholes. It recommends that the Paris agreement prevent double counting, ensure that international trading is supplementary to ambitious domestic action, and restrict market mechanisms to countries with adequate carbon budgets. The text notes a shift from a single global UN-led market toward a fragmented landscape of national and regional initiatives, while advocating for a transition from carbon offsets toward direct financial support for climate actions in developing countries.

The report finds that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) achieved an unintended net mitigation impact of approximately 480 MtCO2e in 2014, reducing global emissions by about 1% because projects continued operating mitigation equipment without issuing offsets due to low market prices. It further analyzes how different Certified Emission Reduction (CER) price points would affect this unintended mitigation, noting that a price of EUR 5 would reduce the unintended impact by over 50% compared to a EUR 2 scenario.