Search Climate Insights Directory

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the COP26 deforestation pledge as a 'greenwashing' effort similar to failed REDD+ initiatives. The organization contends that the reliance on carbon offsets and private financing—exemplified by the UK's funding of the LEAF coalition—enables corporations like Amazon and Unilever to continue emitting while risking land grabs in the Global South. The statement highlights contradictions, such as the EU-MERCOSUR trade agreement's impact on the Amazon and Brazil's treatment of indigenous peoples, and calls for binding human rights instruments and immediate emission cuts over market-based sinks.

The document explains that the 1.5-degree-C target, established under the 2015 Paris Agreement, is a critical threshold to limit cataclysmic climate impacts. While the Earth has already warmed by 1.2 degrees C since the Industrial Revolution, reaching the 1.5-degree-C limit requires cutting global carbon emissions in half by 2030 and achieving net-zero by 2050. This necessitates a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels—specifically leaving 90% of coal and 60% of oil and gas reserves in the ground—and ending deforestation. The guide warns that the world has already experienced temporary breaches of this threshold and faces a 66% chance of doing so for at least one year between now and 2027. It advises journalists to communicate both the current impacts of 1.2 degrees C and the available solutions to avoid public paralysis while emphasizing that every fraction of a degree of warming increases global risk.

The document critiques the 'net zero' narrative promoted by the UK presidency of COP26, arguing that it ignores historical responsibility and relies on scientifically flawed assumptions about carbon removal. It warns that 'net zero' acts as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering and allows polluters to use carbon offsets to maintain business-as-usual emissions. The author calls for a shift toward 'real zero' targets, absolute emission reductions by the Global North, and the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26.

The document details ten significant legal cases across various countries—including China, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Belgium, Finland, Australia, Tanzania, the Philippines, and India—where courts intervened to protect biodiversity. Key legal strategies highlighted include the application of the precautionary principle, the recognition of nature as a legal subject (rights of nature), the use of public interest litigation, and the enforcement of international treaties like CITES and the EU Habitats Directive. These cases range from stopping hydroelectric projects to protect the green peacock in China and banning neonicotinoid pesticides to save bees in Costa Rica, to mandating the reintroduction of Asiatic lions in India.

The proposal outlines a framework for EU State aid in the fishery and aquaculture sectors, aligning financial support with the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the European Green Deal, and the Paris Agreement. It establishes strict criteria for compatibility, including the 'do no harm' principle, the prohibition of capacity-enhancing subsidies, and the requirement for beneficiaries to comply with EU environmental law. The guidelines detail specific types of compatible aid, such as those for natural disasters, adverse climatic events, and animal disease control, while mandating transparency and ex post evaluations for large aid schemes.

ClientEarth proposes a comprehensive overhaul of the EU Fisheries State Aid Guidelines to integrate strict environmental and climate protections. The document argues that State aid should be conditional on compliance with EU environmental law and the Common Fisheries Policy, specifically calling for a ban on subsidies for new fishing vessels, fossil fuel energy costs, and harmful fishing gear. It suggests introducing a 'greenwashing test' for sustainable seafood claims and requiring 'climate and environment compatibility' assessments for all aid measures to prevent overcapacity and support the transition to a sustainable blue economy.

The report analyzes the impact of Brazilian public policies on Amazon forest protection, highlighting the success of the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAM) and the use of real-time monitoring (DETER) in reducing deforestation between 2004 and 2012. It identifies a recent trend of increasing deforestation linked to weakened environmental governance and impunity. The author argues for a broader conservation agenda that includes monitoring forest degradation and secondary vegetation, as these are currently 'invisible' to official systems but critical for carbon sequestration and ecosystem restoration.

The document identifies six peculiarities of rural credit in the Amazon, noting that credit is heavily skewed toward cattle production, which is closely linked to illegal deforestation. It highlights that producers in the Amazon have less access to credit than those in other Brazilian regions, face low competition due to the dominance of public banks (Banco do Brasil and Banco da Amazônia), and operate with a less business-oriented approach. The brief argues that aligning credit access with Forest Code compliance and utilizing initiatives like the Green Credit Bureau (Bureau Verde) are essential to reducing deforestation and increasing agricultural productivity.

The report criticizes the EU's REDII sustainability criteria for forest biomass, arguing that they prioritize legal formality over actual ecological sustainability. It contends that the criteria allow destructive forestry practices to continue by equating the existence of national laws with sustainability, while failing to provide rigorous verification mechanisms or incorporate NGO evidence. Through five case studies in Canada, Estonia, France, Portugal, and Finland, the document demonstrates that current rules would not prevent the logging of old-growth or high-nature-value forests for energy production.

The report identifies a rural credit market in the Amazon characterized by low competition, limited access for producers, and a heavy concentration on livestock, which is strongly linked to illegal deforestation. It highlights that agricultural activity in the region is less entrepreneurial than in the rest of Brazil, with a predominance of public banks and a historical reliance on the Fundo Constitucional do Norte (FNO), though private resources like Letras de Crédito Agrícola (LCA) are increasing. The authors argue that aligning credit access with compliance with the Forest Code and utilizing tools like the Central Bank's Bureau Verde are essential to incentivize sustainable land use.

The document examines the social, economic, and environmental challenges of urbanization in Sweden and highlights specific municipal projects focused on energy efficiency, low-carbon transport, and nature-based solutions. It emphasizes the role of cities in achieving net-zero emissions by 2045 and the use of green bonds to finance these transitions.

The document identifies significant value gaps between Peruvian export data and the import data of its primary trading partners, suggesting patterns of under-invoicing and over-invoicing. These discrepancies serve as red flags for tax evasion, money laundering, and the abuse of export subsidies, all of which facilitate the illegal timber trade and deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon.

Carbon Market Watch argues against the use of 'net' targets in the EU Climate Law, asserting that carbon removals from forests cannot replace the need for gross emission reductions. The organization advocates for a 65% reduction in emissions by 2030 and the exclusion of carbon removals from the EU carbon market to prevent big emitters from using offsets to avoid cutting pollution.

ClientEarth argues that the draft Implementing Regulation fails to distinguish between legal harvesting and sustainable sourcing, relies on a 'box-ticking' approach to compliance, and excludes critical evidence provided by civil society organisations. The organisation calls for clearer definitions of 'significant lack of enforcement', a broader scope of applicable biomass facilities, and stronger obligations for Member States to verify information and maintain up-to-date databases.

The author contends that expanding carbon pricing to the transport and buildings sectors would shift the burden of emission reductions from polluting companies to consumers and undermine the EU's goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030. The text argues that the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR), which covers approximately 60% of EU emissions, should be improved by raising binding national targets and removing 'loopholes'—specifically flexibilities related to the EU emissions trading scheme and the land-use sector—rather than being repealed or reduced in scope.

The report examines the physical and economic consequences of delaying climate action. It argues that because CO2 persists in the atmosphere and natural carbon sinks are saturating, stabilizing concentrations requires emissions to reach nearly zero. Delaying this transition increases the risk of nonlinear 'tipping points,' such as methane release from the Arctic, and leads to higher costs due to the need for more aggressive deployment of clean energy and the premature retirement of polluting assets. Using the Energy Policy Simulator for the U.S., the report finds that delaying action until 2030 increases the net present value of expenditures by 72% compared to starting in 2021.

The report highlights the severe health risks posed by biomass burning in the Brazilian Amazon, noting that air quality often exceeds WHO safety limits during the burning season. It emphasizes the disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups, including a 25% increase in respiratory hospitalizations among indigenous people over 50. The document argues that these health crises are exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and limited healthcare access in remote regions, calling for a moratorium on deforestation-related fires and improved air quality monitoring.

The document examines the health consequences of biomass burning in the Brazilian Amazon, highlighting the vulnerability of children, the elderly, and Indigenous populations. It notes that air quality standards in Brazil are less stringent than WHO guidelines and that monitoring systems have not been widely implemented. The brief links these fires to land clearing for agriculture and ranching, which contributes to climate change. It recommends a moratorium on deforestation, improved public health advisories, and international cooperation to meet Paris Agreement goals.

The report examines the critical health crisis in the Brazilian Amazon caused by intentional forest fires used for agricultural land clearing. It highlights that smoke-related pollution frequently exceeds WHO safety guidelines, leading to increased hospitalizations for respiratory and cardiovascular issues. Indigenous populations are identified as particularly vulnerable due to pre-existing health conditions and limited access to healthcare, with a noted synergy between air pollution and COVID-19 severity. The document calls for an urgent suspension of deforestation and the implementation of stricter air quality monitoring and public health warnings.

The 2021 NYDF Assessment finds that while forests are recognized in the Paris Agreement, global forest loss is increasing and current government efforts are insufficient to meet 2030 targets. The report highlights a critical funding gap, where current investments cover only 5% of the required finance, and notes that government targets for high-mitigation potential countries capture only half of the available potential for emission reductions and carbon sinks. It further emphasizes that while legal frameworks for Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLC) exist, their implementation and tenure security remain weak, with only 11% of empowerment funding explicitly advancing tenure reform between 2011 and 2020.