Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that forest-based carbon credits should be treated as financial contributions to climate action rather than offsets for fossil emissions. It recommends shifting support from individual projects to jurisdictional programs to drive large-scale policy change, reduce leakage, and ensure better environmental integrity. The author emphasizes the need for conservative baselines, comprehensive social and environmental safeguards, and the full involvement of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including the requirement for Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

The document argues that New York's Draft Scoping Plan (DSP) relies too heavily on industry-biased accounting and voluntary measures. It recommends prioritizing forest preservation over harvesting, eliminating forest-based carbon offsets, implementing mandatory methane regulations for large concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and adopting specific statewide targets for soil health practices.

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 report 'Fuelling Failure' details how the fossil fuel industry sabotages the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through climate change, direct pollution, and corporate misconduct. It highlights severe impacts including 8.7 million premature deaths annually from air pollution, the destruction of marine and terrestrial biodiversity, and the exacerbation of global poverty and inequality. The authors argue that the 1.5°C target is impossible without a coordinated global phase-out of coal, oil, and gas, proposing a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty to manage non-proliferation, equitable phase-down, and a just transition for affected workers and nations.

The report argues that 'nature-based solutions' and carbon offsetting schemes promoted by governments and over 1,500 large companies are 'false climate solutions' that risk causing mass land grabbing and dispossession. It highlights that the land requirements for corporate net-zero promises are immense, citing examples from Nestlé and Shell. The document further asserts that these mechanisms benefit agribusiness, fossil fuel, and tech companies while forcing small-scale farmers into intensive practices, ultimately threatening to co-opt and weaken agroecology, which is presented as the genuine transformative alternative for food production and climate cooling.

The document argues that carbon markets, offsetting systems, and carbon credits are 'false climate solutions' rooted in capitalism, neocolonialism, and extractivism. It asserts that these mechanisms often violate the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, leading to land theft and environmental harm, and provides a framework to help these communities protect their rights and territories.

The report argues that 'nature-based solutions' and carbon offsetting used by corporations to achieve 'net zero' goals lead to land grabbing and the dispossession of indigenous and rural peoples. It highlights that the massive land requirements for these schemes—such as those proposed by Nestlé and Shell—threaten food sovereignty and risk co-opting agroecology, which the report presents as the only truly transformative way to produce food while cooling the planet.

The document reports on the third Sustainability School organized by COECOCeiba AT in the community of Juanilama, Costa Rica. It advocates for 'Buen Vivir' (Good Living) as a foundation for sustainability, emphasizing the role of popular education in descolonizing thought and empowering social movements. The text contrasts the community-led agroecological practices and forest management in Juanilama with the destructive impacts of industrial agribusiness, such as pineapple and sugarcane monocultures. It further calls for climate justice, the rejection of carbon offsets and free trade agreements, and the promotion of food sovereignty through peasant mobilization and the recovery of ancestral knowledge.

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.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) opposes REDD, arguing that carbon markets and financial incentives fail to address the root causes of climate change and instead lead to 'green grabbing' and the erosion of traditional forest management. The document contends that REDD shifts responsibility away from industrialized nations and threatens the land rights and cultural values of forest-dependent populations. FoEI proposes an alternative based on the legal recognition of Indigenous and community land rights, collective forest management, and a structural transition away from fossil fuels based on climate justice.

The document outlines the dangers of BECCS, highlighting its potential to cause massive deforestation, land grabbing, and food insecurity. It argues that the technology is inefficient, carries risks of CO2 leakage, and serves as a justification for continued fossil fuel use through carbon offsetting. The authors advocate for a systemic shift toward agroecology, community-managed ecosystems, and a just energy transition based on renewable sources like wind and solar.

The fact sheet criticizes the adoption of "nature-based solutions" by over 1,500 companies, asserting that these strategies allow firms to maintain polluting business models while claiming "net zero" targets. It highlights Shell and Nestlé as examples of companies using carbon offsets to mask continued emissions and environmental damage. The document advocates for "real zero emissions" through the cessation of fossil fuel extraction and the support of agroecology and community-led forest management led by indigenous peoples and local communities.

The document critiques soil carbon sequestration markets, asserting they allow major polluters to avoid real emission reductions while increasing corporate control over agriculture. It highlights how these systems favor large-scale industrial farms, marginalize smallholders, and rely on unreliable measurement methods. The text further details the role of governments and corporations, such as Yara, in promoting these mechanisms despite scientific evidence suggesting that 'climate-smart' practices do not significantly increase soil carbon storage.

The briefing by Friends of the Earth International critiques carbon trading and offsetting, specifically the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), as mechanisms that lock in fossil fuel dependency and facilitate human rights abuses. It warns that proposed expansions at COP 17—including sectoral crediting, soil carbon markets, and the inclusion of carbon capture and storage (CCS)—will further undermine global climate goals. The author advocates for a systemic transition to renewable energy and the provision of public, additional climate finance instead of market-based mechanisms.

The report 'Regulated Destruction' by Friends of the Earth International critiques biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism that enables corporate pollution and habitat destruction. It argues that by framing nature as 'natural capital' or 'ecosystem services', these instruments allow companies to circumvent environmental protections through promises of restoration or protection elsewhere. The document examines national implementations in India, Uganda, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Costa Rica, and highlights the role of the World Bank's IFC Performance Standard 6 in driving these practices. It further contends that offsetting leads to 'double land grabs' and is used by the aviation and agro-industry to maintain a social license to operate despite ongoing deforestation and emissions.

The document critiques biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism of 'regulated destruction' that allows companies to destroy nature in one location by promising to protect or restore it elsewhere. It argues that this approach redefines nature as 'natural capital' or 'ecosystem services,' reducing complex ecological systems to tradable units. The report examines national implementations in India, Uganda, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Costa Rica, highlighting how these schemes often lead to 'double land grabbing,' the displacement of local communities, and the failure to provide long-term protection. It specifically criticizes the World Bank's IFC Performance Standard 6 for enabling the financing of destruction in 'critical habitats.' Furthermore, it analyzes how the aviation and agribusiness sectors use carbon offsets and REDD+ to greenwash their operations while continuing destructive activities.

The report critiques biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism of 'regulated destruction' that replaces strict environmental limits with flexible, market-based compensation. It contends that these systems—including biodiversity banks and carbon credits—often lead to a net increase in environmental damage, facilitate land grabbing from indigenous and local communities, and provide a veneer of sustainability for destructive industries such as mining, agribusiness, and aviation. Through case studies in India, Uganda, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Costa Rica, the document demonstrates how the promise of future restoration is used to justify immediate, irreversible ecological loss.

The document critiques the EU-ETS for its failure to deliver necessary CO2 cuts due to over-allocation of permits, price volatility, and the use of offsetting. It argues that the system has become a profit-making tool for industry while increasing energy costs for consumers. Friends of the Earth Europe proposes replacing or supplementing the EU-ETS with binding national climate laws, mandatory energy savings targets, higher renewable energy goals, and a shift toward CO2-based taxation and direct public financing for emissions reductions.

The fact sheet critiques the adoption of 'nature based solutions' (NBS) by over 1,500 corporations, asserting that these strategies allow companies to maintain fossil fuel use and industrial growth under the guise of 'net zero' commitments. It highlights Shell's plan to plant trees on an area nearly the size of Brazil and Nestlé's reliance on offsetting to mask projected growth in animal product sourcing. The document contrasts these corporate approaches with community-led solutions like agroecology and community forest management, which it describes as essential for climate justice and food sovereignty.

The document critiques soil carbon farming as a mechanism for corporations and governments to offset emissions without making deep cuts. It contends that these schemes entrench industrial farming, facilitate corporate data grabbing, and marginalize smallholder farmers and traditional knowledge. The author asserts that soil carbon sequestration is technically unreliable, often overestimated, and cannot compensate for the long-term impact of fossil fuel combustion.