Search Climate Insights Directory

The document presents a manifesto for a 'just transition' of the energy system, arguing that the current capitalist model drives ecological collapse and social inequality. It advocates for energy to be treated as a common good rather than a commodity, calling for a shift toward 100% renewable energy through small-scale, decentralized, and community-managed technologies. The manifesto emphasizes 'energy sufficiency,' demanding a drastic reduction in overconsumption in the Global North to allow for equitable access to energy in the Global South. It links climate justice to broader social struggles, including feminist, anti-racist, and anti-capitalist movements, and calls for the redirection of public funds—such as military spending and taxes on the wealthy—toward a people-centered energy revolution.

This fact sheet by Friends of the Earth International examines the role of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) in the lead-up to the Paris Agreement. It argues that the current system of self-proposed national plans is insufficient to limit global warming to 1.5°C and that developed nations are failing to acknowledge their historical responsibility. The document advocates for a 'fair share' approach based on a global carbon budget to determine equitable national responsibilities for mitigation, adaptation, and finance.

The document asserts that the climate crisis is exacerbated by 'corporate and elite capture' of political processes, where narrow interests from polluting industries influence governments to resist urgent economic transformation. It highlights how this influence manifests through lobbying, funding, and 'revolving doors,' and argues that underlying power imbalances created by neoliberal trade and investment liberalisation prioritise short-term corporate profits over environmental protection and human well-being. The briefing specifically critiques the trajectory of the UNFCCC and the promotion of 'false solutions' like carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.

The factsheet defines Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) as national climate plans proposed by governments for the Paris agreement. It criticizes current pledges from developed countries as insufficient and narrow in scope, often ignoring adaptation and historical responsibility. The document advocates for a 'fair shares' approach, which involves setting a global carbon budget to limit warming to 1.5°C and dividing that budget among nations based on their responsibility and capacity, rather than relying on self-proposed contributions.

The document outlines a legal case brought against Shell in The Hague, asserting that the company is responsible for approximately 1.8% of historical human-caused CO2 emissions and currently contributes around 1% of global annual emissions. The claimants argue that Shell has known about the dangers of climate change since the 1950s but continues to invest heavily in fossil fuels, including shale gas and tar sands, thereby breaching its legal duty of care under the Dutch Civil Code. The summons demands that Shell reduce its CO2 emissions by at least 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050, based on IPCC scenarios, claiming that Shell's own 2017 ambition of a 50% reduction in carbon intensity by 2050 is inadequate.

The report analyzes the 'new generation' of mega-regional trade agreements—TTIP, TPP, and TiSA—characterizing them as a corporate blueprint to shift decision-making power from governments to transnational corporations. It highlights how these agreements use 'invitation only' negotiations to sidestep the WTO and counteract the influence of China and BRICS nations. The author details specific threats to public health, food safety, and environmental protections, including the use of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms that allow corporations to sue states over public interest laws. The document concludes by calling for a transition toward a trade regime based on human rights, food sovereignty, and sustainable local economies.

The document advocates for a global carbon budget distributed according to historical responsibility, capacity, and the right to sustainable societies. It asserts that developed countries owe a climate debt to developing nations and must provide funding and technology without intellectual property restrictions. It calls for a systemic shift away from neoliberalism and fossil fuels toward community-owned renewable energy and agroecology to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

The fact sheet critiques the INDC process, noting that many developed nations have submitted insufficient commitments that focus solely on mitigation while ignoring adaptation and historical responsibility. It argues that allowing countries to self-determine their contributions risks a global temperature increase of 4 to 6°C. As an alternative, it advocates for a 'fair share' system where a global carbon budget is allocated based on responsibility, capacity, and the right to sustainable societies, supporting a broader energy revolution focused on justice and community-owned renewables.

The document critiques the current global energy system as a tool of corporate and elite power that drives climate change, energy poverty, and human rights abuses. It identifies 'destructive energy sources'—including fossil fuels, nuclear power, industrial agrofuels, and mega dams—as causes of severe environmental and social harm. The author warns of a 'climate trap' where the transition to renewables could be co-opted by corporations to continue land grabbing and privatization. To counter this, the document advocates for a decentralized, democratically controlled energy system that treats energy access as a basic human right and ensures the free, prior, and informed consent of affected communities.

The document critiques the concept of 'no net loss' (NPN/NNL) and biodiversity offsetting, asserting that these mechanisms provide a 'green' image for a development model dependent on fossil fuels and nature destruction. It explains that NNL does not prevent loss but rather allows destruction in one area to be balanced by protection or restoration elsewhere through financial tools like biodiversity credits. The author warns that this approach leads to land grabbing, threatens the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities, and risks the economic valuation of nature. The briefing calls for a transformational system change and the exclusion of NNL from the new Global Biodiversity Framework, advocating for the avoidance of biodiversity loss rather than its compensation.

The document describes climate change as a result of an industrial development model dependent on fossil fuels and environmental destruction. It highlights the disproportionate responsibility of wealthy nations and the severe vulnerability of poor regions, particularly Africa. The text argues that government inaction is driven by the influence of powerful corporations and calls for a systemic shift toward renewable energy, forest protection, and sustainable food systems, while demanding that rich nations pay their 'climate debt' to poorer countries.

The document critiques the INDC process, noting that current commitments from developed nations are inadequate and often ignore adaptation, finance, and loss and damage. It argues that allowing countries to self-determine their contributions cannot guarantee the global effort needed to limit warming to 1.5°C. Instead, it proposes a "fair shares" approach, which involves establishing a global carbon budget and dividing it among countries based on their historical responsibility, capacity, and right to a sustainable society.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) opposes REDD, arguing that carbon markets and financial incentives fail to address the root causes of climate change and instead lead to 'green grabbing' and the erosion of traditional forest management. The document contends that REDD shifts responsibility away from industrialized nations and threatens the land rights and cultural values of forest-dependent populations. FoEI proposes an alternative based on the legal recognition of Indigenous and community land rights, collective forest management, and a structural transition away from fossil fuels based on climate justice.

The report advocates for climate justice, asserting that wealthy nations bear a historical responsibility for emissions and must provide financial and technological support to developing regions. It critiques market-based mechanisms like carbon credits and biofuels, labeling them as 'false solutions' that protect corporate profits while harming local communities and ecosystems. The text provides specific examples of climate impacts in Nigeria, Kiribati, and the Himalayas, and proposes a transition for Europe toward a low-carbon society based on drastic emission reductions and lifestyle changes.

The fact sheet criticizes the adoption of "nature-based solutions" by over 1,500 companies, asserting that these strategies allow firms to maintain polluting business models while claiming "net zero" targets. It highlights Shell and Nestlé as examples of companies using carbon offsets to mask continued emissions and environmental damage. The document advocates for "real zero emissions" through the cessation of fossil fuel extraction and the support of agroecology and community-led forest management led by indigenous peoples and local communities.

The document provides a comprehensive overview of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), describing it as a strategic framework for Chinese foreign investment and global influence. It highlights a systemic lack of environmental and social safeguards, the dominance of Chinese state-owned enterprises, and the tendency of BRI financing to favor fossil fuel projects over renewables. The briefing also details the 'debt trap' risks for recipient nations and the efforts of civil society organizations to advocate for a 'Green BRI' and greater corporate accountability.

The report contends that corporate-driven trade deals, such as TTIP, TISA, and CETA, obstruct the transition to renewable energy and empower corporations to sue governments over environmental regulations. It highlights the role of the WTO and Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms in protecting polluting industries and criticizes 'false solutions' like carbon trading and REDD+. The authors call for a democratic economic approach that prioritizes local resources and sustainable development over growth-at-all-costs trade regimes.

The report contends that mega-regional trade agreements and the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework obstruct climate action by protecting fossil fuel interests and limiting the regulatory capacity of governments. It highlights the role of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms in allowing corporations to sue governments over environmental protections. The document criticizes 'false solutions' like carbon trading and REDD+, advocating instead for a democratic economic approach based on local resources, agroecology, and corporate accountability.

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 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.