Search Climate Insights Directory

The document critiques the current global energy system as a product of patriarchal extractivism and capitalism that disproportionately harms women, particularly in the Global South. It warns against 'greenwashing' (maquillaje verde) and 'purplewashing' (maquillaje violeta), where corporations use environmental and gender-equality narratives to mask continued exploitation. The authors advocate for a 'just and feminist energy transition' centered on the sustainability of life, public ownership, and the recognition of care work, rather than market-driven technological fixes.

The document outlines five primary concerns regarding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement: the lack of buyer demand compared to sellers, the prevalence of unregulated private sector greenwashing, the oversupply of low-quality credits, the struggle to find high-integrity removal credits, and the risk of legacy credits from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) undermining new climate targets.

The document alleges that BP knew about the devastating consequences of fossil fuels as early as 1991 but engaged in a campaign of deception to protect profits. It highlights the contrast between BP's 'Beyond Petroleum' branding and its actual capital expenditures, noting that the company spent $12 billion on oil and gas in 2002 compared to $45 million in solar. The briefing also criticizes BP for pioneering the 'carbon footprint' concept to shift responsibility to consumers and for implementing a 'net zero' ambition that excludes an estimated 46% of the carbon it extracts, including joint ventures with Rosneft.

The Center for Climate Integrity asserts that the American Petroleum Institute (API) spent decades coordinating a campaign of deception regarding the dangers of fossil fuels despite early internal research predicting catastrophic climate events. The document claims API has evolved from outright denial to 'greenwashing' and continues to lobby against climate legislation and federal leasing moratoriums while providing political cover for its member companies.

The document argues that EU competition rules should move away from a "full compensation" theory for consumers and instead adopt a "fair share" approach to enable businesses to cooperate on climate and sustainability goals. It emphasizes that environmental benefits for society should be considered when granting exemptions under Article 101(3) TFEU, even if individual in-market consumers do not receive direct benefits. The authors also address the distinction between genuine sustainability cooperation and greenwashing, and call for greater transparency in the Commission's guidance to businesses.

Carbon Market Watch analyzed 18 "carbon neutral" fossil fuel claims, primarily involving liquefied natural gas (LNG), and found that every claim failed to meet basic criteria for environmental integrity and transparency. The report argues that fossil fuels cannot be carbon neutral because the firms involved are not aligned with 1.5°C pathways and rely on flawed "tonne-for-tonne" offsetting. Key failures include the omission of Scope 3 emissions in one-third of claims, a total lack of transparency regarding the price paid for carbon credits, and the use of impermanent nature-based sinks to offset long-term fossil carbon emissions. The report recommends that fossil fuel firms cease these claims, stop new exploration, and shift toward a "contribution" model for climate finance.

The fact sheet identifies six corporate entities—BP, Microsoft, IETA, BlackRock, Shell, and Drax—that the author claims are using "net zero" agendas to mask continued fossil fuel investment, rely on unproven technology, and influence policymakers through extensive lobbying and partnerships surrounding COP26.

The fact sheet details how six major corporate players—BP, Microsoft, Drax, IETA, BlackRock, and Shell—employ 'net zero' agendas to maintain business-as-usual operations. It contends that these entities promote 'false solutions' such as carbon offsets, BECCS, and hydrogen to delay emissions cuts at the source. The document further highlights the influence of these corporations on COP26 through sponsorship, lobbying, and participation in industry-led initiatives like the Race to Zero and the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets.

Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) rejects Nature Based Solutions (NBS), characterizing it as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' that instrumentalizes nature to serve corporate profits and 'net-zero' offsetting schemes. The document contends that NBS promotes monoculture plantations, enables the financialization of nature, and threatens the sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. FOEI argues that NBS distracts from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels and instead advocates for systemic changes such as agroecology and Community Forest Management (CFM).

The Union of Concerned Scientists documents how the fossil fuel industry in Colorado employs four primary disinformation tactics—The Fix, The Diversion, The Screen, and The Fake—to maintain political control and undermine public health and safety. The report details the industry's use of front groups, lobbying, and misleading economic claims to thwart regulations and ballot initiatives, while highlighting the disproportionate impact of pollution on communities of color and low-income residents. It concludes with recommendations for state regulators to prioritize science and community voices over industry profits.

Reclaim Finance claims that TotalEnergies is using 'climate-KPI linked' debt to fund a strategy that remains heavily reliant on oil and gas, arguing that these sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) lack the ambition required by the Paris Agreement and the 1.5°C trajectory.

The document provides evidence that major fossil-fuel companies had internal knowledge of anthropogenic climate change as early as the 1950s and 1960s, yet spent decades funding disinformation to manufacture public doubt. It details how these companies protected their own infrastructure from sea-level rise while publicly denying the science, and argues that current 'greenwashing' and 'carbon footprint' narratives continue this pattern of deception.

The document is an open letter from students and junior professionals in the advertising and PR industry demanding that agencies stop working with fossil fuel companies. The authors argue that the marketing industry facilitates climate inaction by amplifying disinformation and greenwashing for the world's largest polluters. They urge agency leadership to take a stand and encourage current employees to challenge their leadership or reject fossil fuel projects.

The brief contends that fossil fuel companies have engaged in a long-term strategy of deception, shifting from explicit denial to framing climate change as a manageable 'risk' and shifting responsibility to individual consumers. It provides evidence that companies like BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell promote themselves as clean energy leaders while maintaining massive investments in fossil fuels and funding third-party organizations to undermine climate science.

The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) addresses the lack of consistency and ambition in transition finance by introducing a certification framework for corporate transitions. The proposal argues that for a company's transition to be credible, it must meet five criteria: alignment with the Paris Agreement, a robust plan, tangible action, internal oversight, and external reporting. The document suggests a three-tier labeling system (Green, Green Transition, and Transition Transition) and outlines a two-step assessment method for complex companies to ensure their overall performance aligns with global net-zero goals by 2050.

The Climate Bonds Initiative proposes a certification framework to ensure corporate transitions are aligned with the Paris Agreement. The framework focuses on five hallmarks: Paris-aligned goals, robust plans, implementation action, internal monitoring, and external reporting. It distinguishes between 'Green Transition' (already aligned) and 'Interim Transition' (catching up) to provide clarity for investors and prevent greenwashing in the growing market of Sustainability-Linked Bonds (SLBs) and transition bonds.

The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) outlines a proposal to certify 'credible' corporate transitions by requiring companies to meet five specific attributes: Paris-aligned goals, robust plans, implementation action, internal monitoring, and external reporting. This framework aims to bridge the gap between high-level market guidance and complex corporate assessment frameworks, providing a standardized, science-based approach to evaluate whether a company's transition is sufficiently ambitious and robust to align with global net-zero goals by 2050.

The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) proposes a certification framework to ensure company decarbonisation is rapid and robust enough to align with the Paris Agreement. The proposal introduces five 'hallmarks' of a credibly transitioning company: Paris-aligned targets, robust plans, implementation action, internal monitoring, and external reporting. This framework aims to bridge the gap between light-touch market guidance and overly complex entity-level assessments. CBI suggests differentiating between 'Green Transition' (already aligned with sectoral pathways) and 'Interim Transition' (catching up, with a proposed grace period until 2025). The framework emphasizes absolute measures tied to common sectoral transition pathways over relative 'best-in-class' benchmarking and requires the inclusion of scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.

The report identifies 90 advertising and PR companies working for the fossil fuel industry, highlighting a conflict between the sustainability pledges of major holding companies and their continued representation of high-polluting clients. It details specific case studies of disinformation and lobbying efforts in the US, Australia, and the EU, while warning that the term 'Net Zero' is being used as a primary tool for greenwashing ahead of the 2021 Glasgow climate talks.

The document argues that 'Big Food' companies face escalating risks across three domains: waste, climate, and health. It highlights the 'Brussels Effect,' where strict EU directives on single-use plastics and chemical safety set global standards. The report warns that failure to transition from linear 'take-make-waste' models to circular reuse systems exposes companies to legal action, financial penalties, and loss of brand value, particularly among millennial and Gen Z consumers.