Search Climate Insights Directory

The report assesses voluntary sustainability certifications in fisheries, palm oil, and textiles, concluding that many schemes act as 'greenwash' and fail to prevent deforestation, overfishing, or pollution. It argues that the proliferation of labels creates consumer confusion and a 'race to the bottom' in standards. The authors call for the abolition of ineffective schemes and a transition toward science-based, transparent, and holistic regulations that cover the entire product life-cycle.

The report examines voluntary sustainability certifications in the palm oil, fisheries, and textile industries, concluding that these schemes often lack transparency, lower their standards to increase volume, and fail to prevent deforestation or overfishing. It argues that certifications are being used as 'greenwashing' tools by corporations and governments and calls for a shift toward strict, independent, and comprehensive standards that cover the entire product life cycle, while emphasizing that voluntary initiatives cannot replace government regulation.

The report investigates voluntary certification in three high-impact sectors: fisheries, palm oil, and textiles. It concludes that a proliferation of low-ambition schemes creates consumer confusion and allows companies to 'greenwash' unsustainable practices. In fisheries, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and Friend of the Sea (FOS) are criticized for certifying fisheries with high bycatch and destructive methods. In palm oil, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and government-led schemes like ISPO are found ineffective at stopping deforestation and peatland drainage. In textiles, the report highlights the lack of transparency in the Higg Index and the low standards of the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) compared to the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS). The authors call for the abolition of the least ambitious schemes and a shift toward mandatory due diligence, transparency, and science-based regulations.

Milieudefensie, an association representing 80,000 members, asserts that Royal Dutch Shell plc is legally liable for its substantial contribution to global climate change. The document claims Shell has been aware of the causal link between fossil fuels and global warming since at least 1986, yet continues to prioritize oil and gas growth over sustainable energy. Milieudefensie demands that Shell align its investment decisions with the Paris Agreement, phase out oil and gas production, and reduce scope 3 emissions to zero by 2050. The letter argues that Shell's current strategy—which assumes fossil fuels will meet over 50% of energy demand by 2050—is unlawful under Dutch law and violates human rights. It further alleges that Shell has engaged in misleading PR and lobbying to obstruct climate policies in the EU and US.

The report analyzes the growth of green bond markets in emerging economies, highlighting the critical role of national guidance and alignment with international standards like the Green Bond Principles. Through case studies of countries such as China, Indonesia, and Morocco, it identifies key barriers—including lack of capacity and limited investor demand—and proposes a 'Green Bond Market Development Toolkit' featuring a self-assessment matrix and a roadmap of milestones to accelerate sustainable capital flows.

Carbon Market Watch urges the end of the UN's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) following a European Commission study by the Öko-Institut. The study indicates that 85% of analyzed projects and 73% of the potential credit supply from 2013 to 2020 are unlikely to provide real, measurable, and additional emission reductions. Such credits could potentially increase global greenhouse gas emissions by over 3.5 billion tonnes of CO2. The organization specifically warns against the aviation industry using these ineffective credits through the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) to avoid greenwashing.

The report examines the carpet sector's failure to transition from a linear to a circular economy, highlighting that most carpets in Europe are incinerated or landfilled. It specifically critiques industry leaders Desso and Interface for 'greenwashing,' noting a significant gap between their sustainability goals and actual collection rates. The document also identifies the event industry as a major source of single-use carpet waste and proposes systemic changes in eco-design, collection infrastructure, and public policy to enable genuine closed-loop recycling.

The U.S. carpet industry is characterized by high waste, with 89% of discarded carpets ending up in landfills and 6% being incinerated. Despite the existence of the Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE), only 1% of carpet waste is recycled back into carpet in a closed loop. The report argues that major manufacturers, particularly Shaw and Mohawk, engage in greenwashing and actively lobby against Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation to maintain a wasteful linear model. In California, the AB 2398 law has failed to achieve meaningful recycling increases because it relies on consumer fees rather than producer funding, and is administered by CARE, which the report claims is under the influence of the industry's largest players.

The green bond market experienced substantial growth in 2016, with issuance on track to double from 2015 levels, driven largely by China and other emerging markets. While mitigation projects in clean energy and energy efficiency receive the majority of capital, adaptation financing is increasing, particularly through US municipalities. The private sector now accounts for 66% of issuance. To meet Paris Agreement targets, the report advocates for governments to develop green investment pipelines and implement five key actions: issuing demonstration bonds, applying green standards, enabling domestic verifiers, providing market infrastructure, and promoting international collaboration.

The statement criticizes the Paris Agreement for abandoning people and the planet, citing a lack of political ambition and the undue influence of corporate lobbyists. It contrasts this political failure with the rise of a global movement of indigenous peoples, youth, and activists who demand climate justice, agroecology, and community-managed forests over 'false solutions' and corporate greenwashing.

The statement asserts that the Paris climate negotiations were a failure of political leadership, characterized by a lack of ambition and the undue influence of polluting corporations. It highlights the rise of a global movement demanding climate justice, food sovereignty through agroecology, and community-led forest management, contrasting these grassroots efforts with 'false solutions' and cynical deforestation offsets promoted within the UN framework.

This collection of reports and interviews analyzes contemporary European resistance movements, focusing on struggles against extractive industries, infrastructure mega-projects, and economic austerity. It highlights specific cases in Romania, Greece, Scotland, France, and Turkey, while discussing the systemic role of the educated middle class in mobilization. The text argues that Green parties must reconnect with their radical roots and form transversal alliances with social movements to challenge the dominant neoliberal economic model and the 'sacredness of growth'.

The report argues that Anglo American and other dirty energy corporations have 'captured' climate policy-making, particularly within the UNFCCC, to protect their business models. It highlights the severe social and environmental damage caused by the El Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia, including water scarcity and the displacement of indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities. The document details Anglo American's use of a 'web of influence'—including memberships in groups like the ICC, WBCSD, and EUROMINES—to lobby for market-based mechanisms such as carbon trading and carbon capture and storage (CCS), which the authors term 'false solutions'. It concludes by calling for the removal of corporate privileged access to climate negotiations, the end of public subsidies for dirty energy, and increased lobby transparency.

The report denounces Anglo American for using its privileged access to governments and the UNFCCC to undermine genuine climate action in favor of 'false solutions' like carbon markets and carbon capture. It highlights the severe social and environmental impacts of the El Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia, including water scarcity and the displacement of indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities. The document argues that corporate capture of international climate negotiations prevents the addressing of systemic causes of climate change and calls for the complete removal of corporate influence from climate policy-making.

The report exposes the dual nature of Anglo American's operations: the severe human rights and environmental impacts of its El Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia, and its strategic lobbying within the UNFCCC and other international bodies to maintain a fossil-fuel-based energy model. It argues that the company promotes 'false solutions'—such as carbon markets and carbon capture and storage (CCS)—to avoid structural changes and continue profiting from pollution. The authors call for the removal of corporate privileged access to climate negotiations and the end of public subsidies for polluting energies.

Friends of the Earth condemns President Obama's endorsement of Walmart's sustainability efforts, citing the company's low actual renewable energy usage, failure to meet emissions targets, and a significant criminal fine for toxic pesticide dumping.

The report analyzes 28 S&P 500 companies to determine how they engage with climate science and policy. It finds a significant divide between companies that consistently support science-based policy and those that obstruct it. A large number of companies are identified as 'contradictory,' maintaining a public image of environmental concern while funding think tanks, trade groups, and politicians that undermine climate science. The authors argue that a lack of transparency in corporate political spending and risk disclosure allows this interference to persist, and they recommend stricter disclosure requirements for corporations and government contractors.

The document examines the increasing influence of multinational corporations and business lobby groups within the UN system, particularly in the lead-up to the Rio+20 summit. It argues that this 'corporate capture' shifts the UN's focus from sustainable development and human rights toward market-based solutions that benefit the private sector. Through a series of case studies, the report highlights how initiatives like the 'Green Economy', 'Sustainable Energy for All' (SE4ALL), and the UN Global Compact facilitate 'greenwashing' and 'bluewashing', allowing companies to avoid regulation while gaining privileged access to policy-making. The authors call for a fundamental overhaul of UN decision-making processes, including the removal of business representatives from national delegations and the establishment of a legally binding framework for corporate accountability.

The document examines the increasing influence of multinational corporations within the UN, specifically regarding the 'Green Economy', 'Sustainable Energy for All' (SE4ALL), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), water policies, and the UN Global Compact. It contends that these partnerships lead to 'greenwashing' and the commodification of nature and water, while marginalizing civil society and the rights of the poor.

The document examines the 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation' (REDD) framework, highlighting how its implementation often prioritizes corporate profit and carbon market volatility over the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Through case studies in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Paraguay, it illustrates risks such as 'leakage', the displacement of forest-dependent populations, and the lack of genuine free, prior, and informed consent. The report concludes that REDD should be decoupled from carbon markets and instead focus on reducing demand for agricultural commodities and timber while rewarding those who have historically conserved forests.