Search Climate Insights Directory

Friends of the Earth International asserts that humanity has entered the 'Decade Zero', the final window to prevent dangerous climate change through drastic action. The document criticizes the neoliberal economic system and the power of transnational corporations, which it claims drive the climate crisis and promote 'false solutions' like carbon markets and REDD. It proposes a transition to 'energy sovereignty', agro-ecology, and community forest management, while demanding that wealthy industrialised nations pay their 'climate debt' to support developing countries.

The report evaluates several major fossil fuel companies—including BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, and CONSOL Energy—on their accountability regarding climate change. It uses a scoring system to measure the accuracy of their public statements, their governance policies to prevent disinformation, and their responses to shareholder resolutions. The findings indicate a wide disparity in corporate behavior, with some companies like Shell and BP acknowledging the need for emissions reductions, while others like ExxonMobil and Chevron are flagged for misrepresenting science or actively blocking shareholder efforts to address climate risks.

China experienced rapid wind power growth from 1.26 GW in 2005 to 91.4 GW by 2013, but this expansion outpaced grid infrastructure. This led to significant issues with curtailment and delayed project connections, driven by a lack of coordination between wind farm construction and grid expansion, as well as insufficient state-level oversight. The Chinese government has acknowledged these gaps in its 2012 White Paper and 12th Five-Year Plan, emphasizing the need for better integration of supply and demand.

The paper assesses the alignment of Chinese green bond guidelines—primarily those from the People's Bank of China (PBoC)—with international practices. It finds strong alignment in the management of proceeds and reporting, but identifies significant divergence in green definitions, particularly regarding the inclusion of fossil fuel projects. The authors recommend adopting a scientific framework for project criteria, implementing a third-party certification model with approved verifiers, and standardising environmental impact reporting to reduce transaction costs for international investors.

The report finds a deep partisan divide in climate perceptions, with supporters of Democratic candidates (Sanders and Clinton) and some Republican candidates (Kasich and Trump) generally believing global warming is happening, while Ted Cruz supporters are the most skeptical. While a broad majority of voters support renewable energy research and tax rebates for energy efficiency, support for carbon taxes and strict emission limits on coal plants drops significantly among Republican supporters, particularly those of Ted Cruz. Global warming is viewed as a very important voting issue primarily by Sanders and Clinton supporters, whereas it ranks low for supporters of Republican candidates.

The report reveals a deep partisan divide in climate change perceptions. Supporters of Democratic candidates (Sanders, Clinton) and some Republican candidates (Kasich, Trump) generally believe global warming is happening, whereas a majority of Ted Cruz supporters do not. While there is broad support across most candidate groups for renewable energy research and tax rebates for energy-efficient products, significant gaps exist regarding carbon taxes, CO2 regulation, and the importance of climate change as a voting issue.

The report finds that while a majority of US registered voters believe global warming is happening and support various clean energy policies, significant ideological divides persist. Democrats and liberal/moderate Republicans generally align with the mainstream public in supporting climate action, whereas conservative Republicans remain the most skeptical group, though they have shown the largest increase in belief that global warming is occurring over a two-year period. Public awareness of the scientific consensus on human-caused warming remains very low across all political groups.

The author acknowledges the Paris agreement's goal to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees and achieve 'net zero' emissions by the end of the century as a landmark diplomatic achievement. However, the text highlights critical gaps, noting that the final agreement contains no mentions of fossil fuels or specific plans to curtail their production. To bridge the gap between rhetoric and reality, the author advocates for a comprehensive public engagement strategy based on people's values and lived experiences rather than scientific data alone.

Friends of the Earth International concludes that the Paris Agreement fails the 'People's Climate Test' due to its lack of binding emission targets, insufficient financial commitments for developing nations, and the absence of concrete mechanisms for loss and damage. The organization criticizes the agreement for not mentioning renewable energy or the phase-out of fossil fuels, while leaving the door open to 'false solutions' like geo-engineering and carbon markets.

Friends of the Earth International concludes that the Paris Agreement fails to provide climate justice, citing a lack of binding emissions targets for developed nations, insufficient financial commitments for developing countries, and the absence of concrete mechanisms for loss and damage reparations. The organization criticizes the agreement for not mentioning renewable energy or energy efficiency and for leaving the door open to 'false solutions' like carbon markets and geoengineering.

Friends of the Earth International concludes that the Paris Agreement fails the 'People’s Test on Climate' due to a lack of binding emissions targets, insufficient financial commitments for developing nations, and the absence of protections for vulnerable communities. The assessment highlights that the agreement does not mandate a phase-out of fossil fuels, lacks mentions of renewable energy or energy efficiency, and relies on unproven technologies like BECCS. Furthermore, it argues that the agreement weakens the principle of 'Common But Differentiated Responsibilities' and excludes compensation and liability for loss and damage.

The author asserts that the Paris agreement's success is rooted in the collapsing cost gap between clean and fossil energy and the increasing profitability of low-carbon investments. The text highlights that private sector investment is driving climate finance, which grew 18% to $391 billion in the previous year. Specific examples are provided of economic opportunities in the U.S., Europe, India, China, Indonesia, and Brazil, suggesting that the transition to low-carbon energy and sustainable agriculture can unlock trillions in economic value.

CIEL President Carroll Muffett critiques Secretary Kerry's COP 21 speech, stating that the US pledge to double grant-based adaptation assistance to over $800 million by 2020 is insufficient compared to the $100 billion annual pledge by developed countries. Muffett argues that US domestic politics have hindered ambitious international climate engagement and rejects the notion that the Paris outcomes are merely a "preamble," emphasizing the urgent human rights tragedies already caused by climate change.

A coalition of 121 civil society organisations calls for a robust Paris Treaty featuring 5-year commitment periods, a 2050 decarbonisation goal, and the exclusion of international carbon offsets. The letter advocates for a human rights-based approach, the integration of Sustainable Development Goals, and the recognition of Loss & Damage to ensure a just transition and environmental integrity.

The document is a call to action by cleantech entrepreneurs and supporting organisations directed at COP21. It argues that viable solutions for decarbonisation already exist but are hindered by policy influence and capital allocation favouring the fossil fuel industry. The signatories demand a global shift to 100% renewable energy by 2050, the redirection of finance away from fossil fuels, and the implementation of science-based targets and carbon pricing.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF), an operating entity of the UNFCCC, aims to support low-emission and climate-resilient development in developing countries. It operates through a 24-member Board divided equally between developed and developing nations and distributes funds via 'Accredited Entities' rather than directly. The fund maintains a 50/50 aspirational split between adaptation and mitigation, with half of adaptation funds targeted at particularly vulnerable countries. However, the document highlights concerns regarding the lack of an explicit exclusion list for fossil fuels, the potential for funding 'false solutions', and the limited requirements for national designated authorities (NDAs) to engage with civil society and affected communities.

The document details how FoE Timor Leste/Haburas partnered with local communities to establish eco-lodges and tourism operations. The Tutuala project has hosted over 4,000 tourists and generated funds for education and living standards. This model has since been replicated in Maubisse and Laloran, promoting skill acquisition in areas such as financial management and environmental management. The author recommends that the government prioritize community-based ecotourism as a non-fossil fuel sector in its national strategic development plan.

Earthjustice, representing several environmental and community groups, opposes the proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal's (OBOT) plan to export coal. The letter contends that coal shipment was never part of the original environmental reviews or development agreements, poses severe health risks through coal dust emissions, and lacks sufficient regulatory protections. It argues that the City of Oakland has the legal authority to prohibit coal exports to protect public health and safety without hindering the broader economic development of the former Army Base.

Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) calls for solidarity with refugees and demands systemic changes to prevent future displacement. The statement identifies the Syrian civil war, resource extraction, and climate change as primary drivers of the refugee crisis and urges governments to end conflicts, phase out fossil fuels, and pursue climate justice to reduce resource scarcity and volatility.

Friends of the Earth International calls for global solidarity with refugees, particularly those fleeing the Syrian conflict, and argues that preventing future displacement requires urgent action on climate justice, the end of resource exploitation, and the reform of unfair trade agreements.