Search Climate Insights Directory

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) is a global federation of 76 autonomous environmental groups with over 2 million members. Founded in 1971, the organization has evolved from a small group of activists into a decentralized network that prioritizes environmental and social justice. FoEI's current strategy, 'mobilise, resist, transform', focuses on challenging the neoliberal economic model, which it identifies as the driver of climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion. The federation advocates for key concepts such as 'environmental space', 'ecological debt', and 'food sovereignty' to create sustainable societies. Its work spans several core areas, including climate and energy justice, forest protection, food sovereignty, and resisting extractive industries like mining, oil, and gas.

The document outlines the 40-year history and strategic framework of Friends of the Earth International (FoEI), a global federation of 76 member groups. It argues that environmental destruction, poverty, and human rights violations are systemic issues rooted in a neoliberal economic model. FoEI's approach focuses on 'mobilizing, resisting, and transforming' through key concepts such as climate justice, ecological debt, and food sovereignty. The report details specific campaigns against extractive industries, GMOs, and deforestation, while highlighting the role of grassroots activism and international solidarity in achieving policy changes and protecting indigenous rights.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) marks 40 years as a global federation of 76 member groups and over 2 million collaborators. The organization advocates for environmental and social justice by opposing neoliberal economic models and 'false solutions' to the climate crisis. Its strategic framework focuses on three pillars: mobilizing public support, resisting the root causes of environmental degradation, and transforming societies through concepts like ecological debt, food sovereignty, and climate justice. FoEI's work spans diverse sectors, including opposing industrial mining and fossil fuels, protecting biodiversity and forests, and promoting sustainable, local food systems.

The document argues that climate finance priorities should be driven by local environmental and developmental needs rather than donor preferences. It advocates for a bottom-up approach, the delinking of public and private funding to prevent profit-driven motives from overriding social needs, and the implementation of rigorous safeguards to ensure the integrity of emission-reducing projects. The brief emphasizes the need for downward accountability to affected communities, inclusive decision-making, and the protection of indigenous livelihoods to prevent climate finance from becoming a source of social instability or conflict.

The report finds a robust consensus across four different analyses that developing country mitigation pledges are greater in absolute terms than those of developed countries. It argues that Annex 1 pledges are insufficient and could be further diminished by lenient accounting rules regarding LULUCF and surplus allowances. The authors conclude that current global pledges are consistent with a temperature rise between 2°C and 5°C, necessitating higher ambition and stricter accounting from developed nations based on principles of equity and historical responsibility.

The report concludes that the Hong Kong Convention does not provide an equivalent level of control to the Basel Convention and therefore fails to ensure the environmentally sound management of shipbreaking. It argues that the Hong Kong Convention undermines key Basel protections through narrower scope, a weaker notification system that allows tacit consent, a lack of criminalization for illegal traffic, and the absence of a duty to re-import waste. Furthermore, the analysis finds that the Hong Kong Convention fails to sufficiently consider the interests of developing countries, where most shipbreaking occurs, by lacking funding mechanisms and mandatory minimum standards to phase out dangerous 'beaching' practices.

The research evaluates whether economic efficiency and international equity lead to different conclusions regarding who should pay for climate mitigation. By calibrating the Climate and Regional Economics of Development (CRED) model to match the scenarios of the Greenhouse Development Rights (GDRs) framework, the authors find that both approaches converge on a similar result: high-income countries should bear approximately 60% of the global mitigation responsibility by 2030. The paper argues that the two perspectives are consistent because both imply significant resource transfers from wealthy to poor nations—GDRs based on responsibility and capacity, and CRED based on the diminishing marginal utility of income.

The paper analyzes international climate finance, distinguishing between mitigation and adaptation transfers. It argues that while mitigation transfers are generally Pareto-improving due to global public good benefits and cost-effectiveness, adaptation transfers primarily provide local benefits and thus lack direct allocative efficiency for donors. However, the author posits that adaptation funding can serve as a strategic tool for 'confidence-building' by addressing historical unfairness (the polluter-pays principle), which may increase the willingness of developing countries to participate in global mitigation agreements. The document evaluates the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), and the Adaptation Fund (AF), concluding that the AF's governance structure is most effective for raising trust among developing nations.

The document critiques carbon markets, specifically the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), as tools that perpetuate dependence on fossil fuels and facilitate 'carbon colonialism'. It highlights how offsetting allows rich nations to outsource their climate responsibilities to developing countries, often resulting in human rights violations, land grabbing, and the funding of projects like coal plants or gas flaring. The author advocates for a systemic transformation based on energy efficiency, renewable energy, and public climate finance instead of market-based mechanisms.

The report documents a 2010 conference of the South African Civil Society Energy Caucus, focusing on the lack of transparency and public participation in the development of the second Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2). It critiques the government's continued reliance on coal and nuclear power, highlighting the failures of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) and the environmental risks of radioactive waste in the Witwatersrand goldfields. The document advocates for a 'just transition' toward renewable energy, specifically wind and solar, while calling for an independent system operator to resolve conflicts of interest within Eskom.

The report argues that carbon trading is an ineffective and often corrupt mechanism for addressing climate change in Africa. It examines the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and voluntary markets, finding that they frequently favor large industrial polluters over sustainable development and marginalize local communities. Through case studies in South Africa, Uganda, and Ethiopia, the authors illustrate how 'additionality' is often fabricated and how projects can lead to land grabs or the subsidization of fossil fuel expansion. The document concludes that the carbon market is structurally flawed and should be abolished in favor of direct public funding and low-carbon development pathways based on historical responsibility.

The document analyzes four studies to determine that developing countries have pledged more absolute mitigation than developed countries, though global pledges remain insufficient to limit warming to 2°C. It argues that developed countries must increase their ambition and tighten accounting rules to reflect their greater historical responsibility and financial capacity.

The report criticizes the Copenhagen Accord for promoting private finance and market mechanisms over binding public commitments. It highlights how investment banks like Barclays and Santander, and companies like Shell and Lafarge, use carbon trading and REDD projects to generate profit or 'greenwash' their images. The authors advocate for a transition to climate justice, proposing a 'Robin Hood Tax' on financial transactions and the replacement of REDD with UN-wide negotiations to stop deforestation.

The document criticizes the 'Copenhagen Accord' for shifting the burden of climate action to developing nations and promoting private finance over public obligations. It highlights how global banks like Barclays and Santander, and corporations like Shell and Lafarge, use carbon markets and REDD projects for 'greenwashing' and profit. The report concludes that climate finance should be mandatory, public, and managed by the UN to ensure it serves the most vulnerable populations rather than corporate interests.

The authors argue that current community-scale emissions targets, such as 80% reductions by 2050, do not account for the UNFCCC principle of "common but differentiated responsibility." By applying the Greenhouse Development Rights (GDR) framework to Seattle, the study finds that an equitable global obligation would require the city to become carbon "negative" before 2020. This does not imply physical sequestration but rather a role where wealthy cities dramatically reduce their own emissions while financing low-carbon transitions in developing regions. The paper suggests that communities can use offsets or direct technology and financial transfers to meet these obligations and recommends that local governments integrate global equity into their official climate action plans.

The document critiques carbon trading as an unreliable mechanism that shifts the burden of mitigation to developing countries and benefits the Northern financial industry. It proposes a comprehensive package of alternatives: for mitigation, it suggests global feed-in tariffs for renewables, energy efficiency standards, sustainable small-scale agriculture, and the protection of Indigenous forest rights. For climate finance, it identifies a potential US$420 billion per year in new funding through a global Financial Transaction Tax, cracking down on tax evasion, redirecting fossil-fuel producer subsidies, issuing new Special Drawing Rights, and implementing carbon and energy taxes.

The report critiques carbon trading as a 'risky, irresponsible and dangerous' tool that diverts attention from viable solutions. It proposes a comprehensive package of alternatives: investing US$100 billion annually in renewable energy feed-in tariffs, transitioning to small-scale sustainable agriculture, protecting forests by addressing drivers like agrofuels, and implementing international industrial standards for the 'best available technologies'. For climate finance, it suggests a combination of a global financial transaction tax, combating tax evasion, redirecting fossil fuel subsidies, issuing Special Drawing Rights, and implementing carbon and energy taxes, which could collectively provide at least US$420 billion annually for developing nations.

The report critiques carbon trading as a high-risk distraction that allows developed nations to avoid domestic emissions reductions and undermines the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. It proposes a comprehensive package of alternatives, including a global feed-in tariff for renewable energy, a transition to small-scale sustainable agriculture, and the implementation of common industrial standards for best available technology. To fund these transitions and support developing countries, the report suggests generating at least US$420 billion per year through a global financial transaction tax, cracking down on tax evasion, redirecting fossil-fuel producer subsidies, issuing new Special Drawing Rights, and implementing carbon and energy taxes.

The document critiques carbon trading as a 'dangerous obsession' that allows developed nations to avoid domestic emission reductions and fails to provide predictable financing for developing countries. It proposes a transition to a low-carbon economy through a 'Just Transition' framework, emphasizing the historical responsibility of rich nations. Key mitigation alternatives include a global feed-in tariff program for renewables, sustainable small-scale agriculture, and the adoption of 'Best Available Techniques' in industry. For financing, the report suggests a combination of a global financial transaction tax, combating tax evasion, redirecting fossil fuel subsidies, and issuing new Special Drawing Rights, estimating a potential for US$420 billion in annual new climate finance.

The document highlights the accelerating loss of Arctic sea ice and the resulting threats to indigenous communities and global populations as evidence of the climate crisis. It argues that while law alone cannot solve climate change, international law is a vital instrument for achieving justice and protecting the rights of those most vulnerable to environmental degradation. The text frames the mission of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) as using transformative legal approaches to hold powerful entities accountable and protect human health and the environment on a global scale.