Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines the progress of the Sharm el-Sheikh joint work on implementation of agriculture and food security (SSJA) following SB62, where a draft was adopted without objection. It highlights a divide between the G77, China, and LDCs—who prioritize food security, adaptation for smallholders, and non-conditional finance—and developed nations like the EU, UK, and Australia, who favor market-linked mechanisms and climate-smart agriculture. The briefing notes that while parties recognize the need to align agriculture finance with climate goals, significant funding gaps remain as they prepare for COP30 in Belém.

The report contends that carbon offsets in agriculture fail to reduce absolute emissions due to measurement uncertainties, lack of permanence, and issues with additionality. It highlights how these schemes often benefit agribusinesses while undermining food security, increasing land financialization, and locking in industrial farming models. The authors recommend excluding the land sector from international carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and redirecting finance toward agroecological practices.

The Human Rights and Climate Change Working Group and associated organisations call on EU leadership to champion human rights within the Paris Agreement. They argue that climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable populations and that climate actions themselves can cause human rights abuses without safeguards. The letter specifically requests support for an amended Article 2(2) of the draft text to recognise the protection of human rights, indigenous peoples' rights, gender equality, and a just transition for the workforce.

The handbook evaluates six carbon removal methods: BioCCS, afforestation/reforestation, biochar, terrestrial enhanced weathering, DACCS, and soil carbon sequestration. It highlights the trade-offs between permanence, cost, and ecological impact, emphasizing that land-based solutions often conflict with planetary boundaries and food security, while technological solutions like DACCS face high energy and cost barriers. The document recommends prioritizing sustainable feedstocks, rights-based approaches for local communities, and the development of standardized monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) frameworks.

The document critiques agricultural carbon offsets, stating they risk harming farmers' autonomy, fail to provide permanent carbon sequestration, and may actually increase overall emissions. It recommends that governments and international bodies exclude land-based offsets from carbon markets and instead fund agroecological transitions.

The document argues that climate change is the biggest health threat of the 21st century and that health professionals are uniquely positioned as trusted voices to build public support for climate action. It provides a framework for communicating these risks and benefits, emphasizing simple, human-centric messaging over technical jargon or alarmist language. The toolkit outlines specific health risks—such as air pollution, heatwaves, and food insecurity—and highlights the 'win-win' nature of climate solutions, noting that every dollar spent on reducing emissions saves approximately $2 in health costs.

The report, produced by a consortium of medical societies, alerts the public and policymakers that climate change is already causing direct and indirect health harms across the United States. It identifies vulnerable populations, such as children and the elderly, and details how extreme heat, weather events, air pollution, and the spread of infectious diseases impact public health. The document advocates for the acceleration of a transition to clean renewable energy as the most critical action to protect health and provide immediate co-benefits like improved air and water quality.

The document outlines how biodiversity loss in forests undermines societal stability and global security. It identifies five key mechanisms: the role of pollinators and seed dispersers in food security, the capacity of diverse forests for carbon storage to mitigate climate change, the function of healthy forests in flood prevention, the reduction of zoonotic disease spillover through intact ecosystems, and the overall resilience of biodiverse systems against disturbances.

The document defines climate change as a "threat multiplier" that creates direct risks to critical infrastructure and indirect risks by stressing resources like food, water, and energy. It argues that while climate change is unlikely to be the sole cause of war, it increases the likelihood of conflict in unstable regions. The guide details the specific impacts on military readiness, operations, and strategy, and emphasizes the need for a comprehensive risk management approach combining adaptation and mitigation.

The document examines the 'hunger-climate-conflict nexus,' where food insecurity acts as a 'threat multiplier' for instability. It argues that while military forces have historically played ad-hoc support roles in humanitarian aid, the increasing frequency of climate-driven food crises necessitates a shift in military training, doctrine, and interagency coordination. The author highlights barriers to this transition, including the risk of 'over-securitisation' and existing institutional silos between defence and development agencies, while specifically noting the implications for the Irish Defence Forces regarding peacekeeping and domestic disaster response.

The document discusses how shifting rainfall patterns and rising carbon dioxide levels are increasing the frequency of extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods, leading to significant economic losses and threats to global food security. It attributes 90 percent of global warming to human activity and advocates for the deployment of emissions-reduction technologies and climate adaptation measures to minimize future risks.

The report warns that mega-mergers and the adoption of big data in the agro-industrial sector are intensifying the concentration of power, which harms the environment, public health, and small-scale farmers who produce over 70 percent of the world's food.

The document argues that current global models of production and consumption driven by neoliberal economic globalisation lead to increasing human and environmental rights violations. It advocates for the recognition of specific new rights, including the right to a sustainable livelihood, a clean and healthy environment, and the right to resist unwanted developments. It emphasizes that collective rights are essential for the survival and cultural preservation of indigenous peoples and minorities, noting that some legal recognition exists in Colombia, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Additionally, it highlights the necessity of the 'right to know' to counter corporate and government secrecy and the 'right to resist' as a fundamental democratic right, despite the risks faced by activists worldwide.

The report advocates for community-led forest management and agroecology as essential, interrelated political strategies to combat deforestation and malnutrition caused by industrial agriculture and corporate control. It asserts that these approaches outperform traditional conservation and technical models by prioritizing community rights, traditional knowledge, and the intrinsic value of nature over market profits.

The document argues that agrofuels significantly increase food prices and volatility, contributing to global hunger and poverty. It highlights how biofuel mandates, such as the European Union's 10% renewable transport fuel target, divert land and crops from food production. The report also links large-scale agrofuel production to 'land grabbing' and human rights abuses in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, recommending the elimination of biofuel subsidies in favor of energy efficiency and food sovereignty.

The document examines the link between agrofuels and rising food prices, asserting that biofuel production diverts crops from food use and increases market volatility. It highlights the resulting impact on the world's poorest populations, including increased chronic hunger and 'land grabbing' in Africa and Asia. The briefing refutes industry claims that agrofuels are benign, noting that they compete for land and water regardless of whether the crops are edible. It concludes by recommending the scrapping of agrofuel mandates, such as the EU's 10 per cent renewable transport fuel target, and the protection of community land rights to ensure food sovereignty.

This guide, published by Friends of the Earth International, explains the causes and impacts of climate change, emphasizing the disproportionate responsibility of wealthy industrialised nations and the severe risks faced by Africa. It criticizes government failures driven by corporate interests and proposes a systemic transition toward renewable energy and sustainable food systems.

The statement by Friends of the Earth International and partner organizations denounces the RAI framework as a tool to legitimize land grabbing. It argues that large-scale land acquisitions are driven by financial speculation and result in human rights violations, environmental degradation, and threats to food security. The authors demand the cancellation of existing land grab agreements and the adoption of food sovereignty and agroecological models based on small-scale farming.

The document outlines the dangers of BECCS, highlighting its potential to cause massive deforestation, land grabbing, and food insecurity. It argues that the technology is inefficient, carries risks of CO2 leakage, and serves as a justification for continued fossil fuel use through carbon offsetting. The authors advocate for a systemic shift toward agroecology, community-managed ecosystems, and a just energy transition based on renewable sources like wind and solar.

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.