Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that while the world faces unprecedented security risks from climate change, it also possesses unprecedented foresight through predictive modeling. However, a 'governance gap' exists because this information is not effectively translated for security decision-makers or aligned with security policy timelines. To address this, the authors propose the R2P2 framework, which consists of three principles: Assessment & Anticipation (creating a global climate security assessment hub), Elevation & Translation (establishing leadership by security practitioners to brief decision-makers), and Coordination & Alignment (bridging climate and security policy windows).

The statement criticizes Global North governments for declaring climate emergencies without implementing the systemic changes necessary to avoid catastrophe. It rejects 'false solutions' like carbon markets and geoengineering, advocating instead for a transition to 100% renewable energy managed as a common good by communities rather than corporations.

The statement contends that declarations of climate emergencies by global North governments are insufficient if they continue to fund fossil fuel infrastructure and rely on 'false solutions' like carbon markets and geoengineering. It advocates for a system change that treats energy as a human right and ensures a just transition to 100% renewable energy, emphasizing that rich nations must provide financial support to countries with less capacity to compensate for historical pollution and facilitate adaptation.

The statement criticizes governments in the Global North for declaring climate emergencies without implementing proportional measures, arguing that 'false solutions' like carbon markets and geoengineering serve corporate elites rather than the planet. It calls for a systemic change where energy is treated as a human right and a common good, demanding a just transition that ends fossil fuel extraction and provides financial reparations from rich nations to less fortunate ones.

The author describes a series of visits to mining and development sites in South Africa and Kenya, highlighting environmental destruction and human rights violations. The text criticizes the South African government's support for the mining industry and the New Development Bank's funding of coal-fired power plants, while warning against the dangers of geoengineering funded by carbon emitters.

CIEL responds to critiques of its report 'Fuel to the Fire', asserting that the fossil fuel industry has actively promoted carbon capture and storage (CCS), carbon dioxide removal (CDR), and solar radiation management (SRM) to entrench a fossil-based economy. The organization provides specific examples of industry-funded researchers and think tanks shaping geoengineering discourse and argues that these technologies are more likely to exacerbate the climate crisis by delaying the necessary phase-out of fossil fuels.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law examines the fossil fuel industry's involvement in the development and promotion of geoengineering technologies, arguing that these strategies are used to justify the continued use of carbon-intensive fuels and avoid systemic change.

Friends of the Earth U.S. proposes a Green New Deal centered on a total transition to 100 percent renewable energy and ecological agriculture. The platform advocates for the rapid phase-out of fossil fuels, the elimination of subsidies for carbon-intensive industries, and the rejection of unproven technologies like carbon capture and geoengineering. It emphasizes a 'just transition' based on energy democracy, food sovereignty, and the protection of worker rights and frontline communities, while calling for the United States to address its ecological debt to the Global South.

The CBD Alliance describes biodiversity as being in a "state of emergency" and criticizes COP 13 for prioritizing business interests, financial gains, and trade over ecological protection. The statement highlights failures in risk assessment for synthetic biology, the promotion of unsustainable agriculture and tourism, and the marginalization of indigenous peoples and developing country delegations.

Friends of the Earth International asserts that the Paris Agreement fails to deliver the scale of action required to limit global warming to 1.5°C, noting that current national pledges could lead to warming of around 3°C. The organization warns that terms like 'climate neutrality' may justify the use of dangerous geoengineering, carbon markets, and nuclear energy. To achieve climate justice, the document advocates for a just global energy transformation characterized by community-owned renewable energy, the blocking of dirty energy projects, and financial support from developed to developing nations.

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.

The Lima Declaration, issued during the Peoples Summit on Climate Change in December 2014, rejects market-based climate solutions and the 'capitalist-patriarchal system'. It demands the recognition of territorial property rights for indigenous and peasant communities, the reparation of 'historical ecological debt' owed by developed countries to the global South, and a transition to a communal, feminist economy based on food sovereignty and agro-ecology. The document specifically denounces the influence of transnational corporations on the UNFCCC and calls for the cessation of extractive industries and agrofuel production.

The Lima Declaration, issued during the 2014 People's Summit, rejects market-based climate mechanisms and the 'green economy' as false solutions driven by capital. It demands the recognition of historical ecological debts owed by developed nations to the Global South, the protection of ancestral territories from extractive industries, and a transition to a feminist, communal, and agroecological economic model. The statement specifically calls for a global financial transaction tax and compensation for non-industrialized countries that avoid exploiting fossil fuels, while criticizing the Peruvian government's role as COP 20 president for prioritizing private investment over human and environmental rights.

The document argues that the global energy system is driven by neoliberalism and extractivism, benefiting a small elite while causing climate devastation and energy poverty. It critiques both fossil fuels and certain 'clean' alternatives—such as mega-dams and industrial biofuels—as destructive. The authors advocate for a decentralized, democratically controlled energy system that prioritizes human rights and ecological limits over corporate profit.

The document argues that the global energy system is unsustainable and unjust, driven by neoliberalism and extractivism. It details the environmental and social harms of fossil fuels, nuclear power, and certain 'clean' alternatives, while warning against 'techno-fixes' and corporate-led transitions. It advocates for a decentralized, democratically controlled system that prioritizes basic human rights to energy and a just transition for workers.

The report details a global movement of small-scale farmers and activists resisting the corporate power of agribusiness, specifically Monsanto. It highlights legal battles, moratoria, and direct actions against GM crops in Europe, India, Latin America, and Africa. The document argues that the 'green economy' and 'climate-smart agriculture' frameworks are being used to further corporate control over seeds and land through market-based mechanisms and carbon offsets, while promoting food sovereignty as a sustainable alternative.

The report details a global movement of peasants and civil society organizations resisting Monsanto's influence on agriculture. It highlights specific battles in Europe, India, Latin America, and Africa, where activists fight against GMO seeds, toxic pesticides like Roundup, and the corporate control of seed systems. The document argues that the 'green economy' and 'climate-smart agriculture' are market-driven frameworks that facilitate corporate land grabbing and the spread of biotechnology. It advocates for food sovereignty—the right of peoples to define their own food and production systems—as a sustainable path to mitigate climate change and ensure food security.

The report documents global opposition to Monsanto and other biotechnology firms, highlighting the social and environmental costs of GM crops. It details resistance movements in Europe, India, Latin America, and Africa, while critiquing the 'green economy' and 'climate-smart agriculture' as market-driven mechanisms that reinforce corporate control. The authors advocate for food sovereignty and peasant-led agroecology as the only viable paths to climate resilience and food security.