Search Climate Insights Directory

The report critiques the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) framework, highlighting how its implementation often leads to the marginalization of indigenous communities and the privatization of forest resources. Through case studies in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Paraguay, it argues that REDD is being used by transnational energy companies to 'greenwash' their images while continuing fossil fuel extraction. The document warns that linking REDD to unstable carbon markets and allowing monoculture plantations may undermine actual emission reductions and exacerbate land conflicts.

The report critiques 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries' (REDD), claiming it risks exacerbating inequality and privatizing forest resources. It highlights how energy companies use REDD for greenwashing while continuing fossil fuel extraction. Through case studies in Indonesia, Mexico, Paraguay, and others, the document illustrates failures in community consultation, the risk of 'leakage' where deforestation simply shifts location, and the danger of including monoculture plantations in carbon accounting. It concludes that REDD should be decoupled from volatile carbon markets and instead based on public funding and the recognition of Indigenous land rights.

The report critiques the 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries' (REDD) mechanism, highlighting how it can exacerbate inequality and privatize forest resources. Through case studies in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Paraguay, it demonstrates that REDD projects often exclude indigenous communities from decision-making and serve as a 'greenwash' for fossil fuel and logging companies. The document warns that without reducing demand for agricultural commodities and timber, REDD may lead to 'leakage,' where deforestation simply shifts to other areas, rendering the mechanism ineffective for global climate mitigation.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) has withdrawn its membership from the IUCN, citing the IUCN's corporate partnership with Shell as the primary reason. FoEI argues that such partnerships serve as 'greenwash' for harmful corporate activities and undermine community struggles for environmental and human rights. The document highlights Shell's record on gas flaring, human rights abuses, and arctic drilling, and notes that a majority of IUCN non-government organizations and members voted to terminate the Shell agreement via Motion 107, though they were blocked by government delegates.

The report by Friends of the Earth International details 22 campaigns against multinational corporations across various sectors—including mining, oil, logging, and biotechnology—that are accused of destroying biodiversity and harming local communities. It highlights the failure of corporate self-regulation and 'greenwashing' strategies, specifically criticizing the outcomes of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and the approach of the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit. The document calls for the recognition of 'ecological debt' owed by Northern industrial nations to the Global South and demands a binding legal framework to ensure corporate accountability, including the right of communities to be consulted and to receive compensation for damages.

The document details a legal conflict between Mobil Chemical Company and several US state attorneys general over the claim that Hefty garbage bags were 'degradable'. While the bags were photodegradable, they did not break down in landfills, leading to charges of consumer fraud. The case is situated within a wider 1980s-1990s context of 'greenwashing', where vague environmental terms were used to meet consumer demand despite a lack of scientific substantiation or infrastructure for degradation.

The document argues that current government and platform policies have failed to curb climate disinformation, which is used by polluting industries and petrostates to delay the transition to a green economy. It proposes a framework based on safety, privacy, transparency, and accountability, calling for binding legislation rather than voluntary commitments. Key asks include requiring safety proofs for digital products, enacting strong privacy laws, mandating transparency from AI and social media companies, and regulating the advertising ecosystem similarly to financial markets. Additionally, it advocates for the protection of pluralistic media, funding for climate journalism, and industry adoption of UN-aligned definitions of climate disinformation.

The report examines the digital footprint of 15 major Brazilian companies in the agribusiness, mining, and fossil fuel sectors, finding a wide disparity in the volume of sustainability communications. While all analyzed companies acknowledge climate change, the report identifies significant signs of greenwashing, including the use of vague language and green imagery to mask negative environmental impacts. It highlights a contradiction between corporate narratives—which frame these sectors as 'part of the solution'—and actual records, such as Petrobras, Vale, and Shell being among the top 10 companies most fined by Ibama between 2000 and 2025. Additionally, the report notes the use of targeted Meta advertising and influencer partnerships, particularly by Petrobras, to amplify sustainability messaging to younger audiences.

The document argues that the European Commission's designation of 19 platforms under the Digital Services Act (DSA) provides a critical opportunity to address climate disinformation, which CAAD claims derails climate action and threatens democratic processes. CAAD calls for these platforms to go beyond minimum compliance and apply safety-by-design principles globally, specifically targeting the monetisation of disinformation and the influence of the fossil fuel industry.

The report details the persistence of climate disinformation across major platforms like X, Meta, TikTok, and YouTube. It identifies key narratives used to discredit renewable energy, the use of extreme weather events (wildfires and hurricanes) to fuel conspiracy theories and incite violence, and the extensive use of Meta's advertising tools by fossil fuel entities for greenwashing and lobbying. The authors argue that platform architectures reward engagement over truth, necessitating systemic policy changes to disrupt the economy of disinformation.

The report argues that 'Big Carbon' (fossil fuel and agribusiness) and 'Big Tech' collaborate to create a 'false social reality' that makes the vast majority of people who support climate action feel like a minority. It details a history of obstruction, from the 1959 warnings to oil executives to the 2009 'Climategate' hack-and-leak attack, and analyzes modern digital tactics used to sabotage UN COPs. The document highlights specific disinformation trends in Brazil leading up to COP30, including the use of generative AI to create fake flood imagery. It concludes by proposing structural solutions such as the EU's Digital Services Act, greenwashing laws in France, and the Global Initiative on Information Integrity on Climate Change (GIIICC).

The report details the strategies used by carbon-intensive industries and big tech to obstruct climate policies through disinformation, polarising narratives, and digital 'distortion mirrors'. It highlights specific cases in Brazil, the historical impact of the 'Climagate' scandal, and the systemic role of social media platforms in creating a 'false social reality' that makes the majority of people who support climate action feel like a minority. The document advocates for structural solutions, such as the Global Initiative for Climate Change Information Integrity (GIIICC) and legislative measures like the EU's Digital Services Act, to protect the information environment ahead of COP30.

The report details how fossil fuel companies use paid advertising and 'organic' content on platforms like TikTok, Meta, Google, and X/Twitter to control the narrative around carbon capture and storage (CCS). It highlights Chevron's use of a 'low-budget' aesthetic and diverse ambassadors on TikTok to target Gen-Z, and the prevalence of industry-sponsored results at the top of Google searches for 'carbon capture'. The analysis also notes a trend where organic opposition to CCS on social media is sometimes driven by conspiracy theories, such as those involving 'The Great Reset' or vaccines, alongside good-faith scientific criticism.

The report identifies a resurgence of climate denial and the rise of 'delayism' during COP27, highlighting how fossil fuel-linked entities used Meta's advertising tools for greenwashing and how Twitter's algorithms surfaced the #ClimateScam hashtag despite lower engagement than pro-climate terms. It details a 'narrative playbook' where climate action is framed as an elitist plot or a 'culture war' issue, often overlapping with anti-vaccine and right-wing conspiracy communities.

The report identifies three primary ecosystems driving climate mis- and disinformation: the 'attention economy' of online influencers, state-affiliated networks (specifically Russia), and the fossil fuel lobby. It details how the #ClimateScam hashtag has gained prominence on X, how ad tech companies monetise websites hosting climate denial, how Russian state media instrumentalises climate topics for geopolitical influence, and how fossil fuel companies use Facebook advertising for greenwashing. The document argues that these efforts undermine the public mandate for Net Zero and calls for structural changes to digital platform incentives and greater transparency in ad tech.

The document advocates for banning fossil fuel advertisements to prevent the industry from using greenwashing and disinformation to maintain its 'social license to operate'. It highlights existing partial bans in France and efforts in 10 countries, including Australia, Canada, Ireland, and South Africa, as well as over 50 cities. The text compares the fossil fuel industry to the tobacco industry, suggesting that similar regulatory tools are needed to protect public health and enable climate action. It also discusses the role of litigation, corporate campaigns like Clean Creatives, and the targeting of advertising finances to dismantle the industry's influence on public opinion.

The document argues that the rapid growth of generative AI is driving a significant increase in electricity demand, which threatens climate goals by incentivising the continued use of fossil fuels and diverting clean energy resources. It highlights a lack of transparency in corporate emissions reporting, where 'market-based' accounting masks actual grid impacts, and warns that 'moonshot' technology promises like nuclear fusion may act as mitigation deterrence. Specific examples include data centre growth in Ireland and Malaysia, and the rising emissions profiles of companies like Microsoft and Google.

The report by Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) analyzes the persistence of climate disinformation across digital platforms, highlighting how Big Tech infrastructure enables the spread of false narratives regarding renewable energy, extreme weather events, and fossil fuel industry claims. It details a growing crisis in researcher access to platform data and provides a set of policy recommendations to dismantle the 'economy of disinformation'.

The report by Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) analyzes ten 'misleading claims' used by fossil fuel interests to delay the energy transition. It argues that fossil fuels are the primary driver of climate change, with 36.6 billion tonnes of the 40.5 billion global CO2 emissions in 2022 originating from their use. The document debunks claims that emissions—rather than fossil fuels themselves—are the problem, and challenges the industry's focus on Scope 1 and 2 emissions, noting that Scope 3 emissions account for 80-95% of total carbon emissions for oil and gas companies. It further critiques technological 'solutions' like Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), Direct Air Capture (DAC), e-fuels, and 'blue' hydrogen, characterizing them as expensive, inefficient, or unproven at the scale required to limit warming to 1.5C. Finally, it argues that fossil fuel reliance hinders economic growth in Africa and Asia and exacerbates the global cost-of-living crisis.

The report by the Center for Countering Digital Hate and the Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) coalition finds that YouTube continues to monetize climate disinformation. Researchers identified 200 videos with 73.8 million views as of April 17, 2023, that carried ads. This includes 100 videos that explicitly breach YouTube's policy against content "contradicting authoritative scientific consensus on the existence of and causes behind climate change", amassing 18.8 million views. An additional 100 videos, which fit the broader CAAD definition of climate disinformation (including "discourses of delay"), amassed 55 million views. The report notes that major brands like Nike, Hyundai, and Costco have appeared in these ads. Furthermore, the report claims Google has failed to keep similar promises across other platforms, noting that 63% of popular climate denial articles still carry Google ads. The authors recommend that Google proactively enforce its policies and adopt the comprehensive CAAD definition of climate disinformation.