Search Climate Insights Directory

The document positions climate change as a major human rights challenge, noting that environmental degradation threatens fundamental rights such as life, health, and food security. It criticizes the UNFCCC for failing to operationalize human rights protections despite recognizing them in 2010. The authors propose a human-rights-based approach to climate action, emphasizing the need to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, provide compensation for loss and damage, and establish institutional safeguards, including a formal complaints mechanism and a dedicated work program on human rights and climate change.

The Lima COP 20 summit focused on defining the instructions for a legally binding global agreement to be finalized in Paris in December 2015. Key achievements included the agreement that Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) be presented by October 2015 and the shift away from the Kyoto Protocol's industrialisation-based differentiation, with major emitters like the USA and China showing willingness to reduce emissions. The summit also saw new contributions to the Green Climate Fund, which reached US$10.2m, and progress on the REDD+ mechanism and gender-responsive climate policies. However, issues regarding the International Mechanism for Loss and Damage, market mechanisms, and the Technology Mechanism remained unresolved.

The report asserts that the combined fortunes of the world's wealthiest individuals could fund a total transition to renewable energy in the Global South by 2030. It estimates that $5.15 trillion is required to meet the energy demands of Africa, Latin America, and non-OECD Asia (excluding India and China). The authors argue that the energy transition must go beyond substituting fuel sources to include democratic ownership of resources and the dismantling of corporate power to address the intersecting crises of climate change and extreme inequality.

The document argues that the 2015 climate change agreement requires a new mitigation architecture that balances national ownership with multilateral coherence to keep global temperature rise below 2°C. It suggests a system of "levels" of guidance for emission reduction offers, starting with simple common parameters and increasing in complexity, alongside a systematic and frequent approach to submitting and reviewing offers to drive necessary reductions.

The report argues for integrating a 'capabilities approach'—derived from the work of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum—into global climate policy, specifically the 2015 international climate agreement. It suggests that climate policies, such as renewable energy and carbon pricing, should be designed to strengthen the basic capabilities of the least well-off rather than diminish them. The document recommends that the UNFCCC incorporate capabilities into the evaluation of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and across all core agreement elements, including finance and technology, to achieve equitable climate action.

The Lima Declaration, issued during the 2014 People's Summit, rejects market-based climate mechanisms and the 'green economy' as false solutions driven by capital. It demands the recognition of historical ecological debts owed by developed nations to the Global South, the protection of ancestral territories from extractive industries, and a transition to a feminist, communal, and agroecological economic model. The statement specifically calls for a global financial transaction tax and compensation for non-industrialized countries that avoid exploiting fossil fuels, while criticizing the Peruvian government's role as COP 20 president for prioritizing private investment over human and environmental rights.

The document reports on a side event held during COP20 in Lima, where experts and community representatives argued that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) lacks sufficient social safeguards and sustainable development criteria. Presenters highlighted specific hydroelectric projects in Guatemala and Panama where the absence of free, prior, and informed consent led to human rights violations and loss of life. The event called for the integration of international human rights law into climate policies and the establishment of effective appeals procedures and procedural regulations to protect vulnerable communities and environmental defenders.

The statement emphasizes that climate change disproportionately increases the burdens and vulnerabilities of women, particularly regarding poverty, food and water shortages, and violence. It calls for future climate agreements to include equitable provisions and for governments to recognize and protect women's leadership in climate activism, noting that the systemic causes of violence against women and nature are identical.

The document serves as a toolkit for local communities to resist land grabbing by governments and corporations. It explains the conflict between customary and statutory law, outlines how to utilize international human rights mechanisms—including UN Special Rapporteurs—and critiques eleven common corporate promises regarding development, jobs, and food security. It specifically highlights the vulnerabilities of women and indigenous peoples and advocates for 'Free, Prior and Informed Consent' (FPIC).

The statement asserts that climate change exacerbates poverty, resource scarcity, and instability, which in turn increases the risk of violence against women. It also notes that women leading environmental protests against projects like fracking and mega-dams face persecution and harassment.

The report utilizes the Climate Equity Reference Calculator to determine national 'fair shares' of global mitigation efforts based on the UNFCCC principles of responsibility and capacity. It argues that for wealthy, high-emitting countries, fair shares often exceed domestic mitigation potential, necessitating the provision of international support. Conversely, for poorer countries, domestic potential exceeds their fair share, requiring international support to unlock further reductions. The analysis uses three ambition pathways (Strong 2°C, Weak 2°C, and G8) and an 'equity band' (Low, Medium, and High settings) to assess national contributions, concluding that current pledges, such as the EU's 40% target, are generally inconsistent with 2°C goals unless supplemented by significant international support.

The report argues that Anglo American and other dirty energy corporations have 'captured' climate policy-making, particularly within the UNFCCC, to protect their business models. It highlights the severe social and environmental damage caused by the El Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia, including water scarcity and the displacement of indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities. The document details Anglo American's use of a 'web of influence'—including memberships in groups like the ICC, WBCSD, and EUROMINES—to lobby for market-based mechanisms such as carbon trading and carbon capture and storage (CCS), which the authors term 'false solutions'. It concludes by calling for the removal of corporate privileged access to climate negotiations, the end of public subsidies for dirty energy, and increased lobby transparency.

The report denounces Anglo American for using its privileged access to governments and the UNFCCC to undermine genuine climate action in favor of 'false solutions' like carbon markets and carbon capture. It highlights the severe social and environmental impacts of the El Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia, including water scarcity and the displacement of indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities. The document argues that corporate capture of international climate negotiations prevents the addressing of systemic causes of climate change and calls for the complete removal of corporate influence from climate policy-making.

The report exposes the dual nature of Anglo American's operations: the severe human rights and environmental impacts of its El Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia, and its strategic lobbying within the UNFCCC and other international bodies to maintain a fossil-fuel-based energy model. It argues that the company promotes 'false solutions'—such as carbon markets and carbon capture and storage (CCS)—to avoid structural changes and continue profiting from pollution. The authors call for the removal of corporate privileged access to climate negotiations and the end of public subsidies for polluting energies.

The document critiques the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) mechanism, asserting that it prioritizes private finance and corporate interests over indigenous rights and genuine climate mitigation. Through case studies in Indonesia, Mozambique, and Peru, it demonstrates how REDD projects can exacerbate land conflicts, threaten food security, and fail to achieve carbon reduction goals. The report concludes that REDD is a 'false solution' that allows industrial polluters in the Global North to continue emitting via carbon offsets. It proposes an alternative based on community-led forest management, the resolution of land tenure issues, and a systemic reduction in the consumption of resources by rich countries.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) critiques the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) mechanism, claiming it exacerbates land tenure conflicts, threatens food security, and allows industrial polluters in the Global North to avoid domestic emission cuts. Through case studies in Indonesia, Mozambique, and Peru, the report illustrates failures in carbon accounting, financial instability, and the marginalization of Indigenous peoples. FoEI proposes an alternative model of community forest management, citing Bolivia's proposal to the UNFCCC as a viable path toward climate justice and sustainable forest preservation.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) contends that REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) fails to deliver permanent emissions reductions and often harms Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Through case studies in Indonesia, Mozambique, and Peru, the report illustrates how REDD+ can exacerbate land tenure conflicts, threaten food security, and facilitate continued pollution in industrialised countries via carbon offsets. FoEI proposes replacing these market-based mechanisms with community-led forest management based on traditional knowledge and a global reduction in the demand for forest-derived products.

The report explores diverse strategies to advance international climate policy, including the adoption of a 'green growth' narrative, the application of social psychology to fairness and equity, and the use of 'clubs' or public-private technology pools to bypass traditional negotiation impasses. It specifically examines the legal interpretation of 'common but differentiated responsibilities' (CBDR), the potential of green bonds to mobilize private finance, and the 'Quisqueya Platform' for creating synergies between mitigation and adaptation in developing countries.

The document explores diverse strategies to advance international climate policy, including the adoption of a 'green growth' narrative, the application of social psychology to fairness and equity disputes, and the use of 'clubs' or public-private technology pools to bypass traditional negotiation impasses. It specifically examines the legal interpretation of 'common but differentiated responsibilities' (CBDR), the potential of green bonds to mobilize private finance, and the 'Quisqueya Platform' for creating synergies between mitigation and adaptation in developing countries.

The document outlines methodological approaches for aligning national mitigation pledges with global temperature targets, discusses the challenges of integrating equity into these pledges, and proposes a minimum list of upfront information to ensure transparency in INDC reporting.