Search Climate Insights Directory

The letter argues that greenwashing is a "widespread scourge across the EU" and calls for a ban on carbon neutrality claims in upcoming legislative proposals. The signatories demand that companies report emissions reductions separately from external climate financing and that any long-term net zero targets requiring carbon credits be subject to corresponding adjustments under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to prevent double counting. Additionally, the letter criticizes the European Commission's own 2030 climate neutrality target for being unspecific and urges the institution to prioritize absolute reductions over offsets.

The report finds that while 85% of the UK public recognizes human impact on climate change, significant gaps in understanding and a high prevalence of disinformation persist. 82% of respondents believe in at least one piece of climate disinformation, with common myths centering on the unaffordability of net zero and the inability of the electricity grid to support electric vehicles. Trust in corporate climate commitments is very low, with 91% of respondents not fully trusting brands to accurately portray their commitments. Social media is identified as the primary source of disinformation by 40% of the public.

The document outlines how marketers can leverage their roles as storytellers to drive climate action, avoid working with fossil fuel clients, and implement sustainable production and communication practices.

The document outlines how product managers can drive sustainable innovation by incorporating climate criteria into product life cycles, prioritizing energy efficiency and circularity, and influencing organizational culture. It emphasizes the business case for sustainability, noting that in 2022, sustainable products accounted for at least half of recent purchases for 60% of customers.

The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative submits that fossil fuel production is the primary driver of the climate emergency and directly violates numerous human rights, including the rights to life, health, and a healthy environment. The document argues that states have a legal duty under the American Convention on Human Rights to regulate, monitor, and ultimately phase out fossil fuel production. It emphasizes differentiated responsibilities, asserting that wealthy, developed nations must lead the phase-out and provide financial and technical support to less developed states. The brief further advocates for a 'just transition' that protects vulnerable populations and ensures transparency through active disclosure of fossil fuel production data.

A fact sheet by Friends of the Earth International critiquing biodiversity offsets and credits as ineffective and harmful mechanisms for biodiversity protection and financing.

The report critiques the 'no net loss' (NPN) biodiversity framework, characterizing it as a corporate tool for greenwashing that allows the destruction of ecosystems through flawed compensation mechanisms. It asserts that ecosystems are qualitatively unique and cannot be quantified or traded, and calls for the exclusion of NPN from the new Global Biodiversity Framework to facilitate a genuine systemic change.

This report examines how the fossil fuel sector utilizes voluntary carbon markets to justify the continued use of a fossil-fuel-based economy through carbon offsetting and 'greenwashing'.

This technical briefing, produced by a coalition of climate justice organizations including Friends of the Earth International and Action Aid, argues that 'net zero' targets are used by governments and polluting companies to mask political inaction and justify continued fossil fuel extraction.

The document argues that the financialization of nature allows companies to bypass strict environmental regulations through biodiversity offsets and carbon credits. It details the emergence of a 'conservation industry' comprising specialized NGOs, think tanks, and financial institutions that create the standards and accounting methods necessary for this system. The report highlights how extractive industries, aviation, and agribusiness use these mechanisms to access protected areas and 'greenwash' their activities, while noting that actual private investment in conservation remains a small fraction of global financial flows.

The report argues that the financialization of nature—transforming ecological functions into tradable units—serves corporate interests by facilitating greenwashing, easing regulatory compliance, and opening protected areas to extractive industries. It details the emergence of a new conservation industry comprising specialized NGOs, think tanks, and financial instruments like green bonds. The document contends that while these mechanisms are presented as solutions to the biodiversity crisis, they often act as a "mirage" of private investment, primarily benefiting corporations through improved credit ratings and a "social license to operate" while continuing environmental destruction.

The document critiques biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism of 'regulated destruction' that allows companies to destroy nature in one location by promising to protect or restore it elsewhere. It argues that this approach redefines nature as 'natural capital' or 'ecosystem services,' reducing complex ecological systems to tradable units. The report examines national implementations in India, Uganda, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Costa Rica, highlighting how these schemes often lead to 'double land grabbing,' the displacement of local communities, and the failure to provide long-term protection. It specifically criticizes the World Bank's IFC Performance Standard 6 for enabling the financing of destruction in 'critical habitats.' Furthermore, it analyzes how the aviation and agribusiness sectors use carbon offsets and REDD+ to greenwash their operations while continuing destructive activities.

The report argues that the 'financialization of nature'—the process of turning ecological functions into tradeable monetary units—primarily serves corporate interests rather than conservation. It details how companies in extractive industries, aviation, and construction use biodiversity offsets to bypass environmental regulations and greenwash destructive activities. The document also highlights the emergence of a 'new conservation industry' comprising NGOs, think tanks, and financial institutions that promote these market-based approaches. Finally, it contends that private sector investment in conservation is significantly over-hyped, serving as a facade to secure public subsidies and avoid stringent environmental laws.

The 'Toxic Friends' campaign by Global Witness aimed to expose the relationships between politicians and corporate polluters, urging leaders to reject 'false solutions' and 'greenwashing' in favor of voices from the climate crisis frontline. The campaign utilized a simplified narrative and social media tactics to engage over 160 influential individuals and 100 organizations across 15 countries. Key strategic goals included delegitimizing corporate presence in policy spaces and highlighting the violence faced by environmental defenders.

The report examines the rise of "responsibly sourced gas" certification, specifically focusing on the certifier MiQ and its clients ExxonMobil and EQT. It contends that these certifications focus narrowly on methane emissions to create a "responsible" image for companies with poor environmental justice records, while the goal of certifying the entire global gas market by 2030 necessitates an increase in production that is incompatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

Global Witness reports that between 2018 and 2025, banks provided $31 billion in sustainability-linked loans to palm oil companies facing deforestation allegations. The report highlights a systemic failure in the SLL model, where companies like Wilmar, Musim Mas, and Olam Group access 'green' funding while allegedly continuing deforestation through direct concessions or third-party 'shadow networks.' It criticizes the reliance on voluntary standards and the lack of public disclosure regarding Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), arguing that these loans often serve as greenwashing tools rather than drivers of environmental improvement.

The guide identifies evolving strategies used by fossil fuel lobbyists to disguise their influence, specifically highlighting the use of carbon capture and storage, blue hydrogen, and biomass as deceptive tools to prolong fossil fuel extraction and infrastructure use.

A Global Witness investigation of ChatGPT, MetaAI, Grok, and Gemini found that these AI tools often fail to adequately reflect the complicity of fossil fuel companies in the climate crisis. The report identifies instances of 'greenwashing'—where AI provides uncritically positive narratives about oil and gas firms—and 'bothsidesism,' where the tools present the industry's climate claims as having equal weight to evidence of their contribution to climate change. The investigation highlights that some models draw data directly from company websites, potentially allowing firms to influence the AI's output.

The report argues that BP and Shell engage in greenwashing by promoting environmentally friendly narratives on social media that are not supported by their core business investments. It finds that both companies disproportionately showcase green projects while continuing massive investments in fossil fuels, potentially breaching the UK's Green Claims Code. Additionally, it highlights Shell's failure to declare political ads on Meta platforms and Meta's failure to detect and enforce its own transparency requirements.

Global Witness and CLARA criticize the VCMI's Provisional Claims Code of Practice, arguing it enables greenwashing and ignores the scientific reality that avoided emissions cannot balance current emissions. They contend that the voluntary carbon market facilitates the appropriation of lands in the global South by the global North and distracts from the mandatory decarbonization and consumption reductions necessary to meet the 1.5C Paris Agreement target.