Search Climate Insights Directory

The paper critiques integrated assessment models (IAMs) for relying on controversial assumptions that often underestimate climate risks and ignore regional inequality. It advocates for cost-effectiveness analysis over cost-benefit analysis to implement precautionary climate targets and discusses various ethical frameworks for burden-sharing between industrialized and developing nations.

AB 32 mandates that California reduce its global warming pollution to 1990 levels by 2020 and further to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The law establishes a mandatory reporting system for large emitters and directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to implement a combination of regulations and a market-based cap-and-trade program to achieve these targets.

The paper argues that Negishi weighting is a critical but often opaque ethical assumption in climate-economics models that effectively freezes the current global distribution of income. By assigning higher weights to the welfare of richer regions, these models suppress the inherent tendency of utilitarian welfare functions to recommend income redistribution from rich to poor regions. The author contends that this creates a political bias in policy advice, as the resulting 'optimal' scenarios are only optimal in a world where income redistribution is considered impossible or forbidden. The document suggests alternatives, including increasing transparency, allowing for redistribution in models, optimizing for money rather than utility, or using non-welfare-optimizing IAMs.

The document argues that current adaptation funding is financially and technically inadequate, with a significant gap between the estimated USD 28–67 billion annual need for developing countries by 2030 and the limited disbursements from GEF-managed funds. It critiques the inefficiency of existing UNFCCC instruments and advocates for a consolidated, demand-driven financial mechanism based on equity and direct access for recipient countries.

The report argues that climate change is a significant threat to fundamental human rights and that States have legal obligations to protect individuals through effective climate action and human rights-compliant responses. It outlines five institutional approaches to integrate these regimes: utilizing existing human rights special procedures, establishing a new special procedure on climate change and human rights, maintaining direct engagement through the Human Rights Council (e.g., via Universal Periodic Reviews), engaging human rights treaty bodies through General Comments and Concluding Observations, and integrating human rights principles and specialized bodies within the UNFCCC framework. The document emphasizes the particular vulnerability of women, children, indigenous peoples, and small island nations, and calls for increased transparency and participation of affected communities in climate negotiations.

A group of Brazilian and international organizations opposes the approval of Plantar S.A.'s CDM project, "Cultivated Biomass as a Renewable Source of Energy for Pig Iron Production". The authors argue that the project lacks additionality because the company has already been planting eucalyptus since 2000 and that the operations cause significant environmental degradation and social injustices, including the displacement of indigenous and peasant communities.

The report examines the challenges of financing climate change adaptation in developing countries, focusing on the gap between estimated needs and available resources. It argues that an agreement on adaptation finance is essential for the success of broader climate negotiations. The authors advocate for a consolidated, country-driven governance model that devolves decision-making to the national level and suggests a multiplicity of funding sources, including nationally assessed contributions and international levies, to ensure predictable and additional financial flows.

The document argues that climate change is a profoundly ethical issue where the global North bears primary responsibility for emissions while the global South and marginalized groups suffer the most severe impacts. It advocates for 'climate justice'—a vision to alleviate unequal burdens through fair treatment and policies that address the structures creating inequality. The guide critiques market-based solutions like carbon trading and agrofuels, calling them 'false solutions' that allow rich nations to avoid responsibility. It highlights specific vulnerabilities, noting that women are disproportionately affected due to their roles in managing natural resources and limited access to decision-making. The text also introduces the Greenhouse Development Rights (GDRs) framework, which proposes a 'development threshold' to ensure the poor are not burdened by the costs of the climate transition. Finally, it provides practical advice for journalists to localize climate stories by amplifying the voices of the most vulnerable and comparing local environmental changes with global causes.

The document analyzes the 'Global Europe' strategy, which shifts the EU from multilateralism toward 'WTO+' bilateral free trade agreements. It argues that this approach focuses on 'competitiveness' and securing raw materials, often at the expense of social and environmental protections in the Global South. The report details negative impacts in Central America, Africa, the Caribbean, and Asia, specifically highlighting threats to food sovereignty, the displacement of peasant communities for agrofuels, and the erosion of domestic policy space through the liberalization of services and government procurement.

The report argues that REDD, as currently designed, focuses on reducing rather than stopping deforestation and risks becoming a tool for corporate profit rather than climate mitigation. It highlights significant risks to indigenous land rights, the potential for 'leakage' where deforestation simply moves to other areas, and the danger of replacing natural forests with monoculture plantations. The author criticizes the use of carbon markets to fund REDD, suggesting instead public funding derived from fossil fuel taxes and the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies.

The report critiques REDD, asserting that it is designed to reduce rather than stop deforestation and may incentivize the replacement of natural forests with carbon-poor plantations. It warns that financing REDD through carbon markets could allow industrialized nations to avoid reducing fossil fuel emissions, undermine national sovereignty in developing countries, and lead to the displacement of indigenous communities. The author argues that REDD's 'opportunity cost' calculations often benefit polluters and that the mechanism is susceptible to market volatility and corporate lobbying. The document advocates for a non-market, grant-based funding system managed by the UN, focused on ecosystem justice, the recognition of indigenous land rights, and the elimination of the underlying drivers of deforestation.

The Greenhouse Development Rights (GDRs) framework argues that an emergency climate stabilization program is only possible if the international effort-sharing impasse is broken by protecting developmental equity. It proposes a 'development threshold'—set indicatively at $7,500 per person per year (PPP)—below which individuals are exempt from the costs of climate mitigation and adaptation. National obligations are then calculated using a Responsibility and Capacity Indicator (RCI), which combines cumulative emissions since 1990 (responsibility) and income above the threshold (capacity), accounting for intra-national inequality. The report suggests that the United States and European Union bear the largest shares of the global burden, and that wealthy nations must fulfill a 'dual obligation' of aggressive domestic cuts and funding for international reductions to enable the South to decarbonize. To overcome North-South distrust, the authors propose a trust-building period until 2015 characterized by voluntary southern action and legally binding northern commitments.

Friends of the Earth has released a report titled “Voices from Communities Affected by Climate Change,” documenting first-hand experiences of climate impacts from diverse groups including indigenous peoples and small-scale fisherfolk across multiple continents. The organization uses these testimonies to call for a roadmap toward a post-Kyoto agreement in 2012, emphasizing that wealthy nations must lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and financing adaptation for poorer communities. The document highlights the need for climate justice through a moratorium on fossil fuel extraction, the promotion of energy sovereignty, and the fulfillment of UNFCCC obligations for wealthy countries to fund adaptation in developing nations, which may require an additional $50–100 billion annually.

The briefing contends that forests should not be treated primarily as carbon sinks and warns that market-based REDD mechanisms risk creating climate loopholes and displacing local communities. It advocates for funding forest conservation through national programs and carbon taxes in industrialized nations rather than carbon markets, emphasizing the need to address the underlying drivers of deforestation such as agrofuels and industrial logging.

This briefing by Friends of the Earth International contends that forests provide value beyond carbon sequestration and warns that integrating REDD into carbon markets threatens indigenous land rights and climate goals. It advocates for direct funding of community-led conservation, the recognition of territorial rights for over one billion forest-dependent people, and a shift in responsibility toward industrialized nations to reduce emissions and address the root causes of deforestation, such as biofuels and industrial extraction.

The fact sheet contends that treating forests primarily as carbon sinks undermines biodiversity and the rights of indigenous peoples. It argues against the use of carbon markets and REDD, suggesting instead that industrialized nations provide direct financial support and address the root causes of deforestation, such as industrial logging and unsustainable consumption of meat and paper.

The report critiques the DfT's cost-benefit analysis for Heathrow expansion, arguing that the projected ₤9 billion in 'generated user benefits' is based on speculative and biased assumptions regarding airfare, fuel costs, and passenger demand. It contends that without these theoretical benefits, the project's costs would outweigh its benefits by ₤3-5 billion. The authors highlight ethical concerns, noting that the benefits accrue primarily to wealthy travelers and aviation investors, while the environmental and social costs are borne by local low-income communities.

The report analyzes DEFRA's 2007 approach to setting the UK's internal carbon price at £25 per tonne of CO2e. The authors argue that DEFRA's 'shadow price of carbon' (SPC) is fundamentally flawed because it is based on an assumed future stabilization trajectory of 550ppm CO2e rather than the actual 'business-as-usual' trajectory. This circular logic creates a low price that fails to discourage high-carbon projects. The report further critiques DEFRA's use of a 3.5% discount rate over the lower rate suggested by the Stern Review, and argues that the UK's carbon price should reflect historical responsibility and the need for early technological innovation.

The document critiques 'oil aid'—public financing for fossil fuel infrastructure in the Global South—arguing it exacerbates the 'resource curse', benefits wealthy nations and corporations over the poor, and undermines climate action. It calls for a shift in public subsidies toward renewable energy to achieve a socially just energy transition.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) demands that industrialized countries reduce emissions by at least 40% by 2020 and provide large-scale financial transfers to developing nations based on climate debt. The organization rejects carbon offsetting, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and the inclusion of forests in carbon markets, arguing that such mechanisms undermine real emission cuts and threaten indigenous land rights. FoEI advocates for the conservation of old-growth forests, the protection of climate refugees, and the removal of the World Bank from climate financing roles due to its undemocratic structure and continued investment in fossil fuels.