Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing advocates for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty to address the climate crisis by targeting the supply side of fossil fuels. It argues that existing frameworks like the Paris Agreement are insufficient because they focus on emissions rather than production. The proposed treaty would focus on three pillars: non-proliferation of new fuels, an equitable phase-out of existing production, and a global just transition. The document outlines necessary international cooperation, including new coalitions like the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) and tools like the Global Fossil Fuel Register, while drawing parallels to successful treaties on nuclear weapons and landmines.

The Energy Policy Simulator (EPS) is a free, open-source System Dynamics model created in Vensim to help policymakers assess the effectiveness of climate and energy policies. It allows users to model policies such as renewable portfolio standards and fuel economy standards across sectors including transportation, electricity, and agriculture. The model tracks 12 pollutants, economic impacts on GDP and jobs, health outcomes, and energy sector composition. Its methodologies have been peer-reviewed by experts from institutions such as MIT, Stanford, and various national laboratories.

The briefing assesses the intersection of climate change and U.S. national security, noting progress in regional strategies and whole-of-government planning while highlighting critical gaps in climate finance and implementation. It recommends that the U.S. institutionalize climate security through expanded personnel training, the development of a National Adaptation Plan, and the use of strategic foresight tools like wargaming to prepare for worst-case climate scenarios.

The document argues that carbon markets and offsetting mechanisms are ineffective 'false solutions' that allow major polluters to continue emitting while causing harm to ecosystems and communities, particularly in the Global South. It details the mechanisms of the UNFCCC's Article 6, various regional and national carbon pricing initiatives, and provides strategies for civil society to resist these systems through advocacy, legal action, and community mobilization.

The document argues that carbon markets and emission offsets are ineffective at reducing emissions and instead serve as a distraction for major polluters while enabling extractivism and neocolonialism, particularly in the Global South. It details the mechanisms of the UNFCCC's Article 6, including the cooperative approaches of 6.2 and the UN-managed market of 6.4, as well as various regional and national systems in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas. The guide concludes by offering strategies for opposition, such as policy advocacy, community awareness, and legal challenges, while providing resources for tracking carbon projects.

The Energy Policy Simulator (EPS) is a free, open-source tool developed by RMI and Energy Innovation to model the environmental, economic, and health impacts of energy policies across the lower 48 US states. The tool supports the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant (CPRG) program by enabling states to calculate GHG inventories, project emissions through 2050, build scenarios to meet reduction targets, and quantify the co-benefits of mitigation measures, such as public health improvements and economic development.

The document critiques the reliance on 'net zero' frameworks, carbon offsets, and technological fixes, asserting that these mechanisms allow polluters to continue emissions while risking land grabbing and violating indigenous rights. It specifically analyzes the implications of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and the promotion of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) and geoengineering, calling instead for a systemic shift toward energy sovereignty and the phased elimination of fossil fuels.

The document critiques the 'net zero' framework and the expansion of carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, labeling them as 'false solutions' used by the fossil fuel industry to avoid drastic emission cuts. It specifically warns that 'nature-based solutions' (NBS) lead to land grabbing and that geo-engineering technologies are unproven and risky. The briefing outlines the outcomes of COP26 and the expected agenda for COP27, advocating instead for a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels, support for agroecology, and the recognition of indigenous land sovereignty.

The document critiques the 'net zero' narrative, asserting that it relies on unproven carbon removals and offsets that allow polluters to continue emissions. It specifically highlights the risks of 'Nature Based Solutions' (NBS) leading to land grabbing in the Global South and the dangers of techno-fixes like BECCS and DACCS. The briefing details how the Article 6 'Rulebook' agreed at COP26 facilitates global carbon markets and warns that COP27 may further entrench these mechanisms. It concludes by advocating for 'real solutions' centered on a coordinated fossil fuel phase-out, food sovereignty, and Indigenous rights.

The Center for International Environmental Law, FIAN International, and Earthjustice criticize the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee for failing to conduct meaningful consultations with Indigenous Peoples' organizations and rural communities regarding a study on 'new technologies for climate protection'. The organizations argue that the term is 'deliberately vague' compared to the established term 'geoengineering' and that the study's current outline is biased by assuming the benefits of such technologies rather than objectively analyzing their 'profound, large-scale, foreseeable and irreversible human rights impacts'.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) urges the Special Rapporteur on human rights and climate change to prioritize the voices of frontline communities and investigate human rights harms related to loss and damage, intergenerational justice, and the risks of geoengineering. CIEL specifically calls for a systematic examination of human rights violations linked to the fossil fuel industry and the impact of climate policies on land and tenure rights.

A collection of statements from global civil society organisations criticizing the Bonn climate conference for the failure of developed nations to provide loss and damage finance, their continued reliance on fossil fuels, and the promotion of 'false solutions' like geoengineering and carbon markets.

The document critiques the 'net zero' framework, asserting that it relies on the scientifically flawed assumption that ongoing fossil fuel emissions can be offset by carbon removals. It specifically analyzes how initiatives like ART-TREES and the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) attempt to standardize and merge different types of carbon credits—avoided emissions, reduced emissions, and removals—into single, fungible assets to increase market scale. The report warns that this 'house of cards' encourages continued fossil fuel use, risks creating a 'subprime carbon' financial crisis through derivatives and speculation, and threatens the rights of Indigenous peoples through land grabbing for nature-based solutions.

The CESCR referenced climate change in 81% of its state reporting outputs in 2020 and 2021, focusing on mitigation policies, extractive activities, climate finance, and adaptation measures. The Committee specifically urged developed states to increase the ambition of their emissions targets and questioned the compatibility of continued fossil fuel use with human rights obligations. Additionally, the CESCR addressed the 'right to science' in General Comment No. 25 and developed a draft General Comment on Land, emphasizing the nexus between land rights and the climate emergency.

The report identifies a multinational network of right-wing and libertarian actors in Latin America and Spain that amplify climate disinformation. These actors often translate English-language content and employ tactics such as coordinated sharing, recruitment of like-minded influencers, and the use of coded language to evade platform moderation. Key narratives include claims that 'global elites' fabricated climate change to consolidate power, that the UN's Agenda 2030 is a tool for population control, and that extreme weather is caused by geoengineering rather than climate change.

The document outlines the 30-year history of Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR), detailing its evolution from a merger of peace-oriented scientific groups in 1992 to its current role as an advocate for ethical science. Key activities include organizing the 'Climate Train to Kyoto' in 1997, publishing reports on the environmental impacts of the UK military and the risks of AI, and developing science education resources for schools. SGR has also contributed research to the campaign for the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and conducted critical assessments of the UK fracking industry.

Friends of the Earth International views the COP26 pledge to end public financing for overseas fossil fuel projects by 2022 as a positive step but criticizes the exclusion of countries like Japan and South Korea, the continued domestic fossil fuel extraction in the UK and US, and the lack of climate finance for the Global South. The organization advocates for community-based renewable energy systems and denounces 'false solutions' such as net zero and carbon markets, while specifically calling for the UK to end financial support for gas exploitation in Mozambique.

Friends of the Earth International critiques the COP26 pledge by the UK, US, and 18 other nations to end public funding for overseas fossil fuel projects by late 2022. While welcoming the inclusion of oil and gas, the organization highlights the hypocrisy of countries like the UK and US continuing domestic extraction. It further demands a transition to community-owned renewable energy in the Global South, the cessation of 'net zero' loopholes and geoengineering, and specifically calls for the UK to stop financing gas extraction in Mozambique.

The Center for International Environmental Law asserts that COP26 faces a critical 'ambition gap' and warns against 'false solutions' such as net-zero targets and carbon capture that distract from the necessary phase-out of fossil fuels. The statement emphasizes that legitimate outcomes require equitable participation, particularly for low-income countries and Indigenous Peoples, and calls for developed nations to fulfill their $100 billion annual climate finance promise. It specifically critiques the UK's leadership for continuing North Sea oil leasing while promoting global climate action. The document advocates for a rights-based approach to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to prevent land-grabs and double-counting of emissions, and demands the establishment of a dedicated loss and damage finance facility to support the most vulnerable communities.

The document characterizes "net-zero by 2050" pledges as a "dangerous greenwashing gimmick" that allows polluters to maintain a facade of climate action while protecting profits. It argues that net-zero is fundamentally different from "zero emissions" and relies on "unjust offsetting schemes," unproven technologies, and geoengineering. The authors contend that these schemes perpetuate environmental racism and injustice, particularly in BIPOC and low-wealth communities. The document demands that the United States, as a major historical polluter, achieve absolute greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2030, keep fossil fuels in the ground, eliminate industrial wood biomass and factory farming, and provide international finance and technical assistance to developing countries.