Search Climate Insights Directory

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the COP26 deforestation pledge as a 'greenwashing' effort similar to failed REDD+ initiatives. The organization contends that the reliance on carbon offsets and private financing—exemplified by the UK's funding of the LEAF coalition—enables corporations like Amazon and Unilever to continue emitting while risking land grabs in the Global South. The statement highlights contradictions, such as the EU-MERCOSUR trade agreement's impact on the Amazon and Brazil's treatment of indigenous peoples, and calls for binding human rights instruments and immediate emission cuts over market-based sinks.

Recourse urges Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to stop all direct and indirect fossil fuel financing and to commit to ambitious climate finance targets at COP26. The statement argues that current pledges, such as the MDBs' $175 billion commitment by 2025, are inadequate. It specifically criticizes the World Bank for promoting gas as a transition fuel through Development Policy Finance, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) for a portfolio where fossil fuel spending nearly doubles renewable energy spending, and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) for approving nearly $5 billion in gas project financing since the Paris Agreement. Recourse also calls for the World Bank to match the African Development Bank's pledge of 75 million new off-grid connections by 2025 to address energy deficits in Sub-Saharan Africa.

ClientEarth argues that the recast Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) must remove support for fossil-fuel technologies, including natural gas and high-efficiency cogeneration, to avoid carbon lock-in. The organization recommends raising the 2030 EU energy efficiency target to at least 45% and making national contributions legally binding. It further advocates for the 'Energy Efficiency First' (EE1st) principle to be extended to all planning and investment decisions, not just 'major' ones, and calls for a more robust role for energy communities in achieving energy savings.

The briefing argues that the EMFAF is designed for outdated purposes and fails to address the climate and biodiversity crises. It urges EU Member States to use their discretion in operational programs to shift funding away from industrial fleets and toward small-scale fishers and ocean restoration. The author proposes a 'FAIR' framework (Fair, Ambitious, Innovative, Revitalising) and lists 15 specific recommendations, including allocating at least 25% of national budgets to marine conservation and improving traceability through digitalization.

The report provides a comprehensive 'behind-the-scenes' look at the litigation brought by Milieudefensie and over 17,000 co-plaintiffs against Royal Dutch Shell. On May 26, 2021, the District Court of The Hague ruled that Shell must reduce its net carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. The court based its decision on a 'duty of care' and the necessity to respect human rights, aligning corporate policy with the Paris Agreement. The document serves as a manual for other climate litigants, detailing strategies for funding, community mobilization, and legal argumentation, while analyzing Shell's defenses and the broader implications for corporate accountability and the energy transition.

The report by Friends of the Earth International contends that the current energy system is built on systemic oppression, including patriarchy and neocolonialism, which disproportionately affects women, indigenous peoples, and the Global South. It warns against 'false solutions' such as greenwashing and 'purplewashing' (superficial feminism), where corporations use renewable energy or gender equality rhetoric to mask continued exploitation. The authors advocate for a feminist energy transition centered on the 'sustainability of life,' public ownership, degrowth, and the recognition of care work, rather than market-led technical fixes.

The document critiques the current global energy system as a product of patriarchal extractivism and capitalism that disproportionately harms women, particularly in the Global South. It warns against 'greenwashing' (maquillaje verde) and 'purplewashing' (maquillaje violeta), where corporations use environmental and gender-equality narratives to mask continued exploitation. The authors advocate for a 'just and feminist energy transition' centered on the sustainability of life, public ownership, and the recognition of care work, rather than market-driven technological fixes.

The author asserts that the United States' ability to lead globally on climate at COP26 depends on the passage of the Build Back Better Act. The text highlights the Clean Electricity Payment Program (CEPP) as a key mechanism for accelerating renewable energy deployment and notes that 17 companies and the America is All In coalition have urged Congress to prioritize these climate provisions. The document warns that without legislative progress, the US will remain viewed with skepticism by the international community following its previous withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

The document alleges that BP knew about the devastating consequences of fossil fuels as early as 1991 but engaged in a campaign of deception to protect profits. It highlights the contrast between BP's 'Beyond Petroleum' branding and its actual capital expenditures, noting that the company spent $12 billion on oil and gas in 2002 compared to $45 million in solar. The briefing also criticizes BP for pioneering the 'carbon footprint' concept to shift responsibility to consumers and for implementing a 'net zero' ambition that excludes an estimated 46% of the carbon it extracts, including joint ventures with Rosneft.

The Center for Climate Integrity asserts that the American Petroleum Institute (API) spent decades coordinating a campaign of deception regarding the dangers of fossil fuels despite early internal research predicting catastrophic climate events. The document claims API has evolved from outright denial to 'greenwashing' and continues to lobby against climate legislation and federal leasing moratoriums while providing political cover for its member companies.

The Center for Climate Integrity presents evidence that Chevron and its predecessors were aware of the catastrophic effects of fossil fuels as early as 1980 but funded campaigns to discredit climate science and sow public uncertainty. The document highlights a contradiction between Chevron's public claims of leadership in clean energy and its actual investment patterns, noting that only 0.2 percent of annual capital expenditure was spent on low-carbon energy between 2010 and 2018. Additionally, it points to patents filed by Chevron and Texaco in 1974 for drilling equipment designed for warming Arctic conditions, suggesting the company prepared for the physical impacts of climate change while publicly denying them.

The document argues that Shell engaged in a campaign of deception regarding climate change despite internal reports as early as 1988 warning that impacts could be the greatest in recorded history. It highlights a contradiction between Shell's public net-zero pledges and its financial investments, noting that between 2010 and 2018, only 1.3% of capital expenditures went to low-carbon projects. Furthermore, the briefing asserts that Shell's nature-based offset plans are unrealistic, requiring forest planting on a scale comparable to the size of Spain or Brazil.

The report consists of several independent briefers analyzing how climate change acts as a threat multiplier across various domains. Key analyses include the evolution of 'environmental terrorism' from a tactical to a strategic threat, the need to integrate peacebuilding with climate adaptation in fragile regions like the Sahel, and the shifting geopolitics of energy security as the world transitions to renewables. It also assesses specific vulnerabilities of U.S. Space Force infrastructure to sea-level rise and wildfires, the role of digital Earth observation technologies in anticipatory intelligence, and the gendered impacts of climate-induced resource scarcity. Regional case studies focus on the Arctic's changing geopolitical landscape and the influence of media reporting on climate-induced farmer-herder conflicts in Nigeria.

The fact sheet identifies six corporate entities—BP, Microsoft, IETA, BlackRock, Shell, and Drax—that the author claims are using "net zero" agendas to mask continued fossil fuel investment, rely on unproven technology, and influence policymakers through extensive lobbying and partnerships surrounding COP26.

The document critiques the 'net zero' narrative promoted by the UK presidency of COP26, arguing that it ignores historical responsibility and relies on scientifically flawed assumptions about carbon removal. It warns that 'net zero' acts as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering and allows polluters to use carbon offsets to maintain business-as-usual emissions. The author calls for a shift toward 'real zero' targets, absolute emission reductions by the Global North, and the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26.

The document critiques the negotiations surrounding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, specifically the market-based approaches of Articles 6.2 and 6.4. It argues that carbon markets are incompatible with the 1.5°C goal and serve as a tool for developed nations and fossil fuel companies to avoid direct emission reductions. The author highlights technical risks such as double counting and the lack of a legal mandate for demand, while advocating for non-market approaches under Article 6.8 and direct public climate finance from the Global North to the Global South.

The briefing note critiques the 'net zero' agenda promoted by the UK presidency at COP26, arguing that the concept allows governments and corporations to maintain fossil fuel pathways through deceptive accounting and unproven technologies. It contends that net zero ignores historical responsibility, is inequitable to the global South, and relies on the physical impossibility of natural sinks absorbing all combusted fossil carbon. The author warns that the confusion between carbon removals and offsets is being exploited to create a carbon market potentially worth US$50-100 billion by 2030, which diverts investment from systemic transformation. Friends of the Earth International demands a focus on 'real zero', absolute emissions reductions by 2030, the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26, and the fulfillment of climate finance obligations by Northern countries.

The document critiques the 'net zero' framework promoted by the UK presidency and the 'Race to Zero' initiative for COP26. It asserts that net zero ignores historical responsibility, relies on physically impossible natural carbon sinks, and serves as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering. The author distinguishes between 'removals' and 'offsets', arguing that the latter maintain the status quo and divert investment from systemic transformation. Friends of the Earth International demands a shift toward 'real zero' (absolute emissions reductions), the exclusion of polluting companies from COP26, and the fulfillment of climate finance obligations by Northern countries to support the Global South.

The report analyzes the energy portfolios of ten major private equity firms, finding that 80% of their energy assets are in fossil fuels. It highlights that these investments often yield low returns and disproportionately impact communities of color, while the industry's private nature allows these activities to avoid the public scrutiny faced by publicly traded oil majors.

Methane is the second largest contributor to climate change, with concentrations increasing faster now than since the 1980s. Human activities drive over half of global emissions, primarily through agriculture (40%), fossil fuels (35%), and waste (20%). The briefing highlights that cutting methane in these sectors could reduce human emissions by 45% by 2030, avoiding 0.3°C of warming by the 2040s. However, government action is currently insufficient; only nine of 174 countries with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) have set separate methane targets, and agricultural targets remain largely vague.