Search Climate Insights Directory

The document analyzes the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a strategic tool for China to export industrial overcapacity and expand global influence. It highlights a systemic lack of transparency, the dominance of state-owned enterprises, and significant environmental risks, particularly through the financing of coal and hydropower projects. While China promotes a 'Green BRI' and 'ecological civilization,' the report argues that actual implementation often lacks rigorous safeguards, leading to 'debt traps' and biodiversity loss. It calls for international civil society to push for binding treaties on multinationals and the adoption of higher environmental and social standards.

The report contends that global trade rules and agreements, such as the TTIP, CETA, and TISA, obstruct the transition to renewable energy and climate stability. It highlights how Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms allow corporations to sue governments over environmental policies, and criticizes 'false solutions' like carbon trading and REDD+. The authors call for a democratic, sustainable economic approach that prioritizes local resources and a binding global carbon budget.

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.

The fact sheet critiques the use of 'nature-based solutions' by major corporations to achieve 'net zero' targets without abandoning fossil fuels or changing core business models. It highlights Shell's plan to plant forests the size of Brazil and Nestlé's reliance on offsets despite its contribution to deforestation. The document contrasts these corporate strategies with 'real solutions' led by Indigenous peoples and local communities, such as agroecology and community forest management, which prioritize ecological governance over the commodification of carbon.

The document outlines the 'Renewables Done Right' framework, which seeks to prevent renewable energy projects from replicating the harms of fossil fuel systems, such as land grabbing and human rights violations. It emphasizes energy sovereignty, sufficiency, and circular economies, using examples from India, Palestine, and Scotland to illustrate the need for community participation, infrastructure investment, and the avoidance of overconsumption.

The document critiques carbon markets, specifically 'cap and trade' and 'carbon offsetting', as mechanisms that allow major polluters to avoid reducing emissions at the source. It highlights the failure of the EU ETS and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), noting that global emissions continue to rise. The briefing emphasizes the severe impacts on indigenous peoples and local communities, citing REDD as a driver of land grabbing and forced displacement. It specifically warns against the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which could institutionalize these markets, and calls for a transition to agroecology and a just energy transition instead.

Friends of the Earth International opposes BECCS, describing it as a 'dangerous distraction' from urgent emissions reductions. The document argues that the land requirements for BECCS at scale—up to 3,000 million hectares—would cause widespread deforestation, land-grabbing, and increased global hunger. It further contends that the technology is technically unproven, energy-inefficient, and carries significant risks of CO2 leakage, while potentially enabling corrupt carbon offsetting practices that allow polluters to avoid real emissions cuts.

The document critiques carbon emission markets, including 'cap and trade' and 'offsetting' mechanisms, as ineffective tools for climate action. It asserts that these systems allow historical polluters to avoid reducing emissions at the source while causing human rights abuses and 'climate colonialism' in the Global South. The briefing specifically warns against the adoption of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement at COP25, arguing that it would institutionalize these flawed mechanisms and prioritize corporate interests over climate justice.

The document is a compilation of 20 submissions from NGOs, private companies, and international organizations responding to a GCF call for input. The contributors provide detailed suggestions on how the GCF should evaluate funding proposals, with a strong emphasis on distinguishing between mitigation and adaptation. Key themes include the need for gender-sensitive indicators, the use of existing Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) methodologies to avoid 're-inventing' metrics, and the importance of prioritizing the most vulnerable populations and least developed countries (LDCs). Several submissions argue against using co-financing or leverage ratios as primary success metrics for adaptation, suggesting instead a focus on community-based adaptation and distributive justice.

The Green Economy Coalition and partner organisations highlight the link between inequality and environmental degradation, noting that green policies are not inherently fair. They call for a collaborative effort to integrate inclusion and sustainability, citing examples from Brazil, Tanzania, Kenya, and the UK to demonstrate how economic development can be both green and fair.

The Global Research and Action Network for a New Eco-Social Contract (GRAN-ESC) proposes a bottom-up, negotiated framework to address the 'polycrisis' by aligning social contracts with environmental sustainability. The briefing provides specific recommendations for the UN's Pact for the Future, emphasizing gender justice, international financial architecture reform, youth empowerment, and the inclusion of persons with disabilities to ensure a just transition toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The Global Research and Action Network for a New Eco-Social Contract is a collaborative alliance of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers aimed at developing a new eco-social contract to address social and ecological challenges. Hosted by the Green Economy Coalition (GEC) and the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), the network seeks to define terms for a just transition to green economies and integrate various forms of justice, including climate, racial, and intergenerational justice. Membership is free and open to individuals and organizations from the public, private, and civil sectors who commit to collaborative action and the diffusion of knowledge for eco-social transformation.

The policy brief contends that existing social contracts are broken due to rising inequality and distrust in institutions, which undermines climate resilience. It proposes building an intersectional alliance of climate and inequality champions to redefine a social contract that integrates climate justice, decent work, and human rights to facilitate a fair green transition. The document highlights various global examples of this shift, including citizen assemblies in France and legal challenges in South Africa.

The report argues that inequality and sustainability are deeply interlinked, with the wealthiest individuals contributing most to environmental degradation while the poorest bear the brunt of its impacts. Through case studies in the UK, India, and Kenya, and analysis of the energy, transport, waste, and food sectors, it identifies recurring patterns of 'double injustice' where marginalised groups are most vulnerable to climate change and pollution. The document highlights 'win-win' examples—such as distributed solar power in Bangladesh, Bus Rapid Transit in Bogotá, and insect farming in Thailand—to show that sustainable development can be designed to reduce inequality.

The report finds that most green economy plans lack meaningful participation from marginalised groups, fail to specifically target the poorest to reduce inequality, and do not sufficiently address the limits to growth or the urgency of the low-carbon transition.

The document provides a guide for using a metacoupling framework to analyze social-ecological systems (SES). It emphasizes systems thinking, the foregrounding of social justice and equity, participatory decision-making, the identification of leverage points, and adaptive management. These principles are applied by the Southern African Resilience Academy (SARA) to study export horticultural value chains and transboundary fisheries in Southern Africa to identify power dynamics and leverage points for resilience.

Global Witness criticizes the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) in Vietnam, stating that the $15.5 billion deal lacks sufficient protections for human rights and civil society. The organization highlights the imprisonment of environmental defenders and argues that a truly 'just' transition is impossible without the free participation of civil society and the release of unjustly arrested climate leaders.

Global Witness reports that 196 land and environmental defenders were murdered in 2023, bringing the total since 2012 to 2,106. The report highlights Latin America as the most dangerous region, with Colombia recording the highest number of deaths. It identifies mining as the primary sector linked to these killings and details a global trend of 'judicial harassment' and restrictive anti-protest laws in the UK, US, and EU. The document emphasizes the disproportionate targeting of Indigenous peoples and calls for the implementation of the Escazú Agreement and better corporate due diligence.

The 'Toxic Friends' campaign by Global Witness aimed to expose the relationships between politicians and corporate polluters, urging leaders to reject 'false solutions' and 'greenwashing' in favor of voices from the climate crisis frontline. The campaign utilized a simplified narrative and social media tactics to engage over 160 influential individuals and 100 organizations across 15 countries. Key strategic goals included delegitimizing corporate presence in policy spaces and highlighting the violence faced by environmental defenders.