Search Climate Insights Directory

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 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.

Friends of the Earth International proposes a revised Target 8 for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The briefing argues that the target should focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and deforestation, ensuring mitigation measures do not harm biodiversity, and prioritizing ecosystem-based approaches. It specifically calls for the removal of a quantitative carbon sequestration goal of 10 GtCO2-e per year, arguing that carbon accounting is an imprecise metric for biodiversity and risks promoting monoculture plantations or the commodification of nature.

The briefing recommends that Target 8 focus on reducing biodiversity threats from climate change and ensuring mitigation efforts do not harm ecosystems. It specifically argues for the removal of a 10 Gt CO2-e annual mitigation target, asserting that carbon is an inappropriate metric for biodiversity and could incentivize the destruction of species-rich ecosystems in favor of monoculture plantations or BECCS projects.

The briefing note proposes that Target 8 should focus on reducing biodiversity threats from climate change and ensuring that mitigation efforts do not harm ecosystems. It specifically argues for the removal of a target to contribute '10 Gt CO2-e per year', asserting that carbon is an inappropriate metric for biodiversity and could incentivize the destruction of species-rich ecosystems in favor of monoculture plantations or BECCS projects.

The briefing details advancements in extreme event attribution, updated temperature datasets, and refined climate sensitivity models. It highlights the shrinking carbon budget for the 1.5°C target, the risks of climate tipping points, and the critical role of non-CO2 greenhouse gases like methane. Additionally, it discusses the scientific requirements for net-zero targets and the limitations of carbon dioxide removal and geoengineering.

The World Climate and Security Report 2021 assesses how climate change acts as a threat multiplier for global security, emphasizing the urgent need to move from strategic planning to concrete implementation. It introduces a new Climate Security Risk Matrix to evaluate comparative risks among countries and presents a risk perception survey where experts predict severe-to-catastrophic risks by 2031. The report details regional vulnerabilities, specifically in sub-Saharan Africa and the European Union, and analyzes the role of militaries as first responders and contributors to emissions. It concludes with recommendations for updating international law regarding the law of the sea and geoengineering governance, and calls for deeper integration of climate security into UN and EU institutional frameworks.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and the expansion of carbon markets, distinguishing between 'real zero' (immediate emission cuts) and 'false zero' (reliance on offsets). It asserts that fossil fuel emissions cannot be physically offset by natural ecosystems and warns that the drive for 'nature-based solutions' leads to land grabbing and the financialization of nature. The report calls for a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels and a transition to a just, community-led energy and food system.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and carbon offsetting, distinguishing between 'true zero' (rapidly eliminating fossil fuel emissions) and 'false zero' (relying on offsets). It asserts that fossil carbon cannot be absorbed by natural cycles and that the demand for offsets leads to the financialization of nature and the dispossession of indigenous and local communities.

The document critiques the concept of "net zero," distinguishing between "real zero" (immediate deep emission cuts) and "fake zero" (reliance on offsets). It asserts that carbon offsets do not reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations and that the land required to meet corporate offset demands would be ecologically and socially catastrophic. The report specifically highlights the role of the financial sector and fossil fuel majors in rehabilitating voluntary carbon markets to maintain business-as-usual operations.

The report advocates for the establishment of a UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Climate Change to address the holistic impact of the climate crisis on human rights. Based on consultations with 157 participants across 55 countries, it argues that a dedicated mandate would ensure consistency in how the Human Rights Council addresses climate change, increase accountability for state and non-state actors, and protect vulnerable groups, including Indigenous Peoples and environmental defenders. The document outlines regional priorities—such as addressing climate debt in Africa and climate displacement in Asia and the Pacific—and emphasizes the need for the role to be supported by sufficient financial resources and political will from Member States.

The report advocates for the establishment of a UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and climate change to address the existential threat of the climate crisis and its disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations. Based on consultations with 157 participants from 55 countries, the document outlines the need for a dedicated mechanism within the Human Rights Council to ensure a coordinated approach to climate-related human rights violations. Key priorities identified include holding state and non-state actors accountable, protecting environmental defenders, and ensuring that climate actions—such as carbon trading and nature conservation—do not further violate human rights. The report emphasizes that such a mandate requires strong political support and sufficient resources to be effective, while working in synergy with existing UN mandates and institutions like the UNFCCC.

The report outlines a framework for 'rights-based climate finance,' emphasizing that funding from developed to developing countries must be ambitious in volume, equitable in distribution, and provided as grants to avoid increasing debt. It advocates for the categorical exclusion of 'false solutions' like large-scale hydropower and geoengineering, while demanding robust social and environmental safeguards, including free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for Indigenous Peoples and independent grievance redress mechanisms to ensure accountability.

The report argues that emissions trading mechanisms under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement risk undermining global mitigation ambition and causing human rights violations. It proposes three essential policy pillars—robust public participation, social and environmental safeguards, and independent grievance mechanisms—as prerequisites for any such framework. The document highlights failures in previous systems like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and provides examples of 'good policies' from development finance institutions to guide the UNFCCC in creating a rights-compliant rulebook.

The briefing expresses concern that ISO/WD 14082, intended to standardize the measurement of non-greenhouse gas climate forcers, may be used to create markets for 'climate coolants'. This would allow entities to offset greenhouse gas emissions by emitting reflective pollutants, potentially delaying decarbonization in sectors like shipping and aviation and undermining international climate accounting methods.

The document outlines principles for financial institutions (FIs) to align with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, specifically referencing the IPCC SR1.5 pathway 1. It demands the immediate cessation of financing for new fossil fuel exploration and infrastructure, a rapid phase-out of coal financing by 2030 in OECD countries and 2040 globally, and the prohibition of financing for projects causing deforestation or ecosystem degradation. FIs are urged to disclose their full carbon footprint, set science-based targets to reach zero impact by 2050, and avoid reliance on offsets or untested negative emissions technologies.

The author contends that the military-industrial complex operates under a 'regime of exception' that allows it to evade environmental regulations and carbon accounting, specifically citing exemptions in the Kyoto Protocol. The text highlights the contradiction of using militarization to address climate-induced security threats while the military itself remains a massive emitter of greenhouse gases. It calls for a 'military degrowth' approach, including a moratorium on the arms race, to ensure that security strategies are compatible with the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

The author contends that the military-industrial complex operates with a level of impunity that allows it to bypass environmental regulations and the polluter-pays principle. While the military frames climate change as a 'threat multiplier' to justify budget increases, the document asserts that militarisation is fundamentally incompatible with a decarbonised economy. It calls for a 'manifesto for military degrowth,' including a moratorium on arms races and the suspension of energy-intensive 'force projection' to mitigate climatic disruption.

The report evaluates global security threats under two warming scenarios: a 'Near Term' scenario (1-2°C) and a 'Medium-Long Term' scenario (2-4+°C). It concludes that even low levels of warming present high to very high risks, while higher warming levels pose catastrophic and potentially irreversible threats to global stability. The analysis is structured around U.S. Geographic Combatant Command areas, detailing how climate-induced physical shocks and social tensions act as threat multipliers that can lead to state failure, resource conflict, and the breakdown of international alliances.