Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that corporate interests have systematically captured CBD processes to avoid stringent regulation and protect profits. It details how business lobby groups, such as Business for Nature and the WBCSD, use tactics like 'multistakeholderism', the promotion of vague terms like 'Nature Positive', and the advocacy for voluntary reporting over mandatory impact reductions to shape the Global Biodiversity Framework. The document highlights the role of the CBD Secretariat in facilitating this access and warns that the resulting framework fails to address the underlying economic drivers of biodiversity loss.

Friends of the Earth International calls for a Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) based on environmental integrity, human rights, and binding government regulation of business. The organization rejects 'false solutions' such as offsetting, 'Nature Positive' concepts, and corporate self-regulation, arguing that these facilitate continued biodiversity loss. Key demands include the recognition of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) as primary guardians of biodiversity, a transition from industrial agriculture to agroecology, and the provision of new, additional public financial resources for developing countries based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

Friends of the Earth International calls for a Global Biodiversity Framework based on environmental integrity and human rights, rejecting corporate self-regulation and 'false solutions' like nature-based offsets. The organization advocates for the recognition of indigenous peoples' land rights, a transition to agroecology, and the provision of new, public international financial resources for developing countries to implement biodiversity goals.

The report argues that large corporations and their lobbying groups have systematically co-opted the CBD and the GBF process. It details strategies such as 'revolving doors', privileged access to the CBD Secretariat, and the promotion of ambiguous terms like 'nature positive' and 'nature-based solutions' to replace binding regulations with voluntary reporting and self-certification. The document highlights the role of groups like Business for Nature and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in steering the GBF away from addressing structural drivers of biodiversity loss.

The 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar highlights the increasing risks of extreme heat and humidity for athletes, spectators, and outdoor workers, necessitating adaptations such as rescheduling the tournament to November and December. FIFA reports that the 2022 event will generate record-high emissions of approximately 3.6 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents, primarily from travel, though the organization aims for carbon neutrality through offsetting. The document also notes that heat-related risks will continue to affect future global sporting events in regions like Australia, Europe, Mexico, the U.S., and Canada.

The We Mean Business Coalition's "4 As of Climate Leadership" framework provides a strategic guide for companies to achieve net-zero emissions. It emphasizes setting science-based targets (Ambition), integrating climate goals into core business operations and supply chains (Action), aligning corporate lobbying with climate targets (Advocacy), and maintaining transparent ESG reporting (Accountability).

One year after COP26, GFANZ has expanded to over 150 trillion USD in assets but faces criticism for uneven progress across its sectoral alliances and a weakened link to the Race to Zero campaign. The author contends that the alliance's reliance on voluntary carbon markets and vague targets—such as those from Vanguard and BMO Global Asset Manager—undermines its goals, urging leadership to 'name and shame' members who fail to align their portfolios with net zero emissions.

Carbon Market Watch criticizes the ICAO General Assembly for weakening the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) by lowering its emissions baseline to 85% of 2019 levels. The author contends that CORSIA is an ineffective tool relying on low-quality offsets and is susceptible to industry influence. Consequently, the document urges the EU to stop relying on this global system and expand the EU ETS to cover all long-haul flights departing and arriving in the EU.

The document argues that the Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) must prioritize deep emission reductions over removals and exclude the use of removal offsets to avoid carbon pricing or emission cuts. It calls for a strict definition of permanence in storage, the exclusion of short-term bio-based materials from permanent storage targets, and the removal of Voluntary Carbon Markets (VCM) from the CRCF's scope. The authors emphasize that certification should be limited to low-reversal risk approaches—such as geological storage and rewetted peatlands—while requiring robust social and environmental safeguards to prevent land grabbing and biodiversity loss.

Carbon Market Watch (CMW) argues that the proposed "REDD+ Project in Oro Province of Papua New Guinea" by Kanaka Management Services Private Limited should be rejected by Verra due to significant "red flags" in its Project Description Document (PDD). CMW highlights a lack of evidence for the project's baseline deforestation estimates, additionality assumptions, and stakeholder consultation processes. The project, which would be the second largest Verra VCS project if approved, aims to generate 8.1 million credits annually for 100 years, but CMW contends that the PDD fails to provide the necessary data, maps, and justifications to verify these claims. Furthermore, CMW notes that a moratorium issued by Papua New Guinea's Ministry for Environment, Conservation and Climate Change on March 2, 2022, likely renders the project ineligible.

The document establishes a framework for Coal Transition Mechanisms (CTMs) to ensure they deliver real emissions savings, align with 1.5°C goals, and support a just transition. It outlines eight specific guidelines across four 'stage gates': plant eligibility, transition pathways, social protection, and accountability. The framework is illustrated through a real-world case of ratepayer-backed bond securitization in the United States and hypothetical scenarios involving a sovereign sustainability-linked bond in Indonesia and a managed transition vehicle for an Independent Power Producer (IPP).

The document argues that 'net zero' targets are a 'smoke screen' allowing corporations to maintain fossil fuel and industrial agriculture business models. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' (NbS) and carbon offsets as mechanisms that lead to land grabbing, the displacement of Indigenous and peasant communities, and the co-optation of agroecology. The report highlights the technical failures of carbon offsets, the volatility of biological carbon storage compared to fossil carbon, and the risks of 'digital soil carbon' platforms that allow agribusinesses to control farmer data and land use.

The document argues that 'net zero' strategies serve as a 'smoke screen' for large corporations to continue fossil fuel extraction and industrial agriculture. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' and soil carbon sequestration as mechanisms that facilitate land grabbing, data appropriation, and the co-optation of agroecology, ultimately benefiting agribusiness and tech firms while undermining the rights of small-scale producers and Indigenous peoples.

The document argues that 'net zero' targets are deceptive tools used by fossil fuel and agribusiness giants to avoid radical emission cuts. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' (NBS) and soil carbon sequestration as mechanisms that facilitate land grabbing, marginalize small-scale farmers, and prioritize corporate profit over genuine agroecology and food sovereignty.

The document argues that 'net zero' promises act as a 'smoke screen' for multinational corporations to maintain fossil fuel and industrial agriculture growth. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' and soil carbon sequestration as mechanisms that facilitate land grabbing, data extraction from small farmers, and the marginalization of agroecology. The report contends that these market-based approaches prioritize carbon metrics over food sovereignty and ecological justice, calling instead for a transition to agroecological systems and the abandonment of industrial food models.

The document critiques the reliance on 'net zero' frameworks, carbon offsets, and technological fixes, asserting that these mechanisms allow polluters to continue emissions while risking land grabbing and violating indigenous rights. It specifically analyzes the implications of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and the promotion of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) and geoengineering, calling instead for a systemic shift toward energy sovereignty and the phased elimination of fossil fuels.

The document critiques the 'net zero' framework and the expansion of carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, labeling them as 'false solutions' used by the fossil fuel industry to avoid drastic emission cuts. It specifically warns that 'nature-based solutions' (NBS) lead to land grabbing and that geo-engineering technologies are unproven and risky. The briefing outlines the outcomes of COP26 and the expected agenda for COP27, advocating instead for a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels, support for agroecology, and the recognition of indigenous land sovereignty.

The document critiques the 'net zero' narrative, asserting that it relies on unproven carbon removals and offsets that allow polluters to continue emissions. It specifically highlights the risks of 'Nature Based Solutions' (NBS) leading to land grabbing in the Global South and the dangers of techno-fixes like BECCS and DACCS. The briefing details how the Article 6 'Rulebook' agreed at COP26 facilitates global carbon markets and warns that COP27 may further entrench these mechanisms. It concludes by advocating for 'real solutions' centered on a coordinated fossil fuel phase-out, food sovereignty, and Indigenous rights.

The document argues that 'net zero' pledges act as a 'smokescreen' for corporations to continue fossil fuel extraction and industrial agriculture. It specifically critiques nature-based solutions (NbS) and soil carbon sequestration, claiming these mechanisms facilitate land grabbing, data harvesting by agribusiness and IT firms, and the co-option of agroecology. The report contends that carbon offsetting relies on a false 'equivalence' between volatile biomass carbon and long-term fossil carbon, ultimately benefiting corporate power over small-scale food producers.

The report argues that 'net zero' targets are a 'smokescreen' allowing corporations to maintain fossil-fuel-based business models through carbon offsetting and 'nature-based solutions'. It contends that these mechanisms lead to land grabbing, the dispossession of Indigenous and peasant communities, and the co-option of agroecology. The document specifically highlights the risks of soil carbon farming as a means for agribusiness and IT companies to harvest farm data and exert control over land use. It concludes that real climate justice requires a transition to food sovereignty and a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels rather than reliance on unverifiable carbon credits.