Search Climate Insights Directory

The document introduces a conceptual framework for evaluating gender equity and sustainable livelihoods in renewable energy value chains (REVCs). Using a social reproduction lens, it moves beyond simple employment metrics to examine the interplay between paid and unpaid labour, care responsibilities, and structural inequalities. The framework is structured around three dimensions: the global distribution of value, work and livelihoods, and ecological justice. It is intended as an assessment tool for policymakers and researchers to ensure that the transition to net zero emissions does not reproduce existing patterns of dependence or inequality, with illustrative applications mentioned for South Africa, Kenya, and Ghana.

The report argues that fossil fuel production subsidies in Colombia and Mexico are inefficient, as their associated environmental and value-added costs outweigh the benefits of investment. It proposes a definition of 'inefficient subsidies' that considers fiscal cost, environmental impact, and social targeting, and suggests redirecting funds to sectors like construction and agriculture to support a just energy transition.

The Global Digital Justice Forum, a coalition of civil society organizations from the Global Majority, argues that the 'Broligarchy'—Silicon Valley firms and US government leadership—has weaponized data and AI, leading to human rights abuses, ecological injustice, and the exclusion of 2.5 billion people from digital benefits. The coalition demands a transition to 'global digital constitutionalism' where digital infrastructures are treated as commons rather than commodities, urging governments to curb corporate monopolies and protect the rights of nature.

The Global Forum for Digital Justice argues that the internet has transitioned from a space of creativity to a tool for surveillance and oppression, driven by the profit-seeking motives of Silicon Valley companies and US foreign policy. The statement highlights that 2.5 billion people remain digitally excluded, exacerbating global inequalities. It calls for a 'new global digital constitutionalism' to replace corporate greed and state control with digital commons and policies that limit monopolies and protect ecological justice.

The Global Forum for Digital Justice, a coalition of Global South civil society organizations, argues that the 'Broligarchy'—Silicon Valley companies aligned with the US government—threatens international norms, human rights, and ecological justice. The statement claims that digital spaces have shifted from tools of creativity to instruments of surveillance and oppression, with AI and data being used as weapons that contribute to labor precariousness and climate catastrophes. It calls for a transition to digital infrastructures as common goods rather than commodities, urging international solidarity for a democratic digital order, government action to limit corporate monopolies, and global civic mobilization.

The Global Forum for Digital Justice argues that the 'Broligarchy'—a combination of Silicon Valley companies and US government leadership—threatens the rules-based international system, human rights, and ecological justice. The statement claims that digital spaces have shifted from tools of creativity to instruments of surveillance and violence, driven by corporate profit and US foreign policy. It highlights that 2.5 billion people remain digitally excluded, exacerbating global inequalities. The coalition demands a transition to digital infrastructures as 'commons' and calls for a new global digital constitutionalism, policies to restrict corporate monopolies, and worldwide civic action to protect the planet and empower people.

The document analyzes the 'Room for the River' project in the Noordwaard region of the Netherlands, where agricultural land was converted into a floodplain to reduce flood risk for over 60,000 people. It evaluates the project through the lenses of distributive, procedural, and ecological justice, noting that while biodiversity improved and flood risk decreased, the relocation process relied heavily on market-value financial compensation and lacked psychological support for displaced residents. The author argues that planned relocation, or 'managed retreat', is a necessary adaptation to sea-level rise and climate change, but requires a justice-oriented approach to avoid exacerbating social inequalities, particularly for tenants and vulnerable populations in the Global South.

The document outlines the challenges of the digital age—including the digital divide, data monopolies, and online violence—and proposes a set of principles to promote social justice in digital spaces. It emphasizes the need for a global movement involving civil society and faith communities to protect human rights, ensure equitable access to infrastructure and energy, and challenge the 'attention economy' and systemic inequalities embedded in algorithms.

The manifesto identifies how digital technologies, while offering tools for inclusion, also enable disinformation, surveillance, and the monetization of users through the 'attention economy'. It calls for a transformative movement involving faith communities, civil society, and governments to ensure digital rights are an extension of human rights, specifically addressing digital divides, gender-based online violence, and the ecological impact of technology.

The author critiques current foreign policy as anachronistic and dominated by neoliberal interests, calling for a 'Green Foreign Policy' (GFP) that transcends ecology to include human development, social integration, and the rights of all living beings. The text advocates for the creation of a Global Government with direct citizen participation to replace the perceived democratic deficit in international organisations like the UN, World Bank, and IMF. It positions the EU as a potential driver for this paradigm shift, moving from top-down advocacy to a model of human empowerment and collective consciousness.

The document examines the challenges European Green parties face in reconciling non-violence with the need to protect human rights in conflict zones. It argues for a shift in EU foreign policy from reactive crisis management to a proactive, multilateral approach that prioritizes ecological justice, nuclear disarmament, and the empowerment of civil society. Specific analyses cover the conflicts in Ukraine, Syria, and the Maghreb, as well as the strategic importance of South East Asia.

The document critiques the 'Green Economy' and the financialization of nature, specifically the creation of markets for environmental services. It argues that by dividing nature into measurable units, these markets allow corporations to use 'offsetting' as a 'permit to pollute or destroy' in one area by promising protection elsewhere. The author contends that this process ignores the complex, dynamic nature of ecosystems and the social, cultural, and spiritual values of land. The report highlights the negative impacts on indigenous peoples, who lose control over their territories through restrictive contracts, and provides examples of the failure of biodiversity offsets in the EU, Australia, Brazil, and Costa Rica.

The document critiques the 'green growth' paradigm and the financialization of nature, specifically the creation of markets for ecosystem services. It argues that these mechanisms, such as biodiversity offsets and carbon credits, do not stop environmental degradation but instead provide corporations with a 'social license to destroy' by allowing them to compensate for damage in one area by protecting another. The report highlights the negative impacts on Indigenous territories, the failure of existing offset programs in the EU and Australia, and the risk of 'devaluation' when economic priorities shift, as seen in Costa Rica. It concludes that these financial tools are instruments for capital accumulation and cost reduction rather than genuine ecological protection.

The document critiques the 'Green Economy' and 'green growth' frameworks, asserting that they redefine nature as a collection of 'ecosystem services' to create new financial markets. It argues that these markets, particularly biodiversity and carbon offsets, serve as cost-cutting tools for corporations to bypass environmental regulations and maintain industrial production. The report highlights the risks to indigenous and traditional communities, including loss of territorial control and the imposition of opaque contracts. It provides examples of failed offsetting programs in the EU, Australia, Brazil, and Namibia, concluding that financialization is a 'false solution' that exacerbates ecological crises.

The paper argues that renewable energy value chains (REVCs) often replicate existing global inequalities, where Global South countries are relegated to low-value-added activities like mineral extraction while Global North countries capture high-value R&D and manufacturing. By applying a 'social reproduction lens'—which examines the intersection of paid and unpaid work and the organization of everyday life—the authors highlight how these structural asymmetries, combined with the 'feminisation of informality,' create barriers to gender equity and sustainable livelihoods. The proposed framework consists of three dimensions: global distribution of value, work and livelihoods, and ecological justice. It emphasizes that a 'just transition' requires moving beyond individual capabilities to address systemic issues such as 'ecologically unequal exchange,' where the Global North appropriates land, labour, and materials from the South. The document concludes with an assessment matrix to guide policymakers in creating high-quality, formal jobs that are compatible with the social reproduction needs of marginalized groups.

The report argues that biomass co-firing in East Java is plagued by economic failure, ecological damage, and illegal practices. It finds that Perum Perhutani's energy plantation forests (HTE) have caused significant economic losses for local farmers and are financially unviable for the company. Furthermore, it reveals that PLTU Paiton relies on sawdust from illegal sawmills, often involving stolen timber, and that some suppliers manipulate biomass weight by adding water with the complicity of plant officials. The report also notes that major wood pellet exporters, such as PT Kaliandra Merah Nusantara, primarily export to South Korea rather than supplying domestic power plants.

The document outlines the challenges and opportunities of digital technologies from a social justice and theological perspective. It identifies systemic inequalities—such as digital divides, gender-based violence online, and the 'attention economy'—and proposes a set of communication rights and principles to create a digital ecosystem based on equity, transparency, and the common good.