Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines several deceptive strategies used by corporations at COP to appear environmentally friendly while continuing harmful practices. It specifically critiques the promotion of natural gas and 'blue' hydrogen as low-carbon solutions, the use of 'net zero' and 'nature-based solutions' to mask continued pollution, and the use of 'green finance' and voluntary anti-deforestation pledges by banks to hide ongoing investments in fossil fuels and deforestation.

Global Witness predicts that climate disinformation will increase in 2025, driven by extreme weather events, the monetization of climate denial via AdTech and generative AI, and targeted campaigns against climate defenders during COP30 in Brazil. The organization calls for the robust enforcement of the EU's Digital Services Act to hold social media platforms accountable.

COP30 resulted in the Mutirão Decision, which Global Witness criticises for omitting any mention of "fossil fuels" and failing to establish a transition roadmap despite initial ambitions from the Brazilian Presidency. The summit saw significant human rights progress, including the recognition of Indigenous land rights and the launch of the Leaders Action Network for Environmental Activists and Defenders (LEAD). Financial outcomes included an agreement to mobilise $1.3 trillion annually for climate action by 2035 and the tripling of adaptation finance, though the Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF) received only $6.6 billion of a desired $125 billion. The document highlights a contradiction between official negotiations and the influence of approximately 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists, while noting the launch of the Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change to combat disinformation.

The report identifies a resurgence of outright climate denial and the rise of 'culture war' narratives used to delay climate action. It highlights systemic greenwashing by fossil fuel entities on Meta and the algorithmic amplification of the #ClimateScam hashtag on Twitter. The analysis reveals that climate misinformation is increasingly integrated into broader 'anti-woke' and conspiratorial communities, with a small number of high-influence actors driving a significant portion of the engagement.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denial to 'discourses of delay'—narratives that accept climate change but justify inaction. During COP26, four primary delayist narratives trended: 'Hypocrisy and Elitism', 'Absolutionism', 'Unreliability of Renewables', and 'Ineffective Electric Vehicles'. The authors argue that a small group of 'repeat offender' influencers and right-wing media outlets drive the majority of this content, often leveraging algorithmic amplification on platforms like Facebook and Twitter. The report concludes with seven policy recommendations, including the adoption of a unified definition of climate disinformation and stricter enforcement against repeat offenders.

The provided text is a comprehensive list of citations and references used in a report by Mighty Earth. These references document General Motors' (GM) corporate activities, including its electric vehicle (EV) sales, sustainability reports, and supply chain links to lithium mining in Nevada, aluminum and steel production in China and the US, and associated human rights and environmental concerns.

The report outlines 17 specific measures to protect the integrity of environmental information in France. These include institutionalizing the monitoring of media coverage via the Observatoire des Médias sur l’Ecologie, protecting environmental spokespeople from harassment, and integrating climate disinformation as a systemic risk under the EU's Digital Services Act. It advocates for stronger editorial safeguards against shareholder conflicts of interest, mandatory 'climate contracts' to fight greenwashing, and specialized training for public officials, journalists, and students. Internationally, it urges France to lead the Global Initiative for Climate Information Integrity (GI3C) and coordinate with European regulators via the EU Media Board.

The document argues that the original SFDR framework led to confusion and greenwashing due to vague criteria for fund classification. It recommends that the proposed SFDR 2 exclude fossil fuel developers from all categories—including 'ESG'—and establish clearer, data-driven definitions for 'transition' funds based on emissions, targets, and investments. Additionally, it warns against reducing transparency requirements, such as Principle Adverse Impacts (PAIs), and opposes clauses that would prevent EU Member States from implementing more ambitious national transparency rules.

The document outlines a step-by-step process for participating in an EU consultation and provides template answers advocating for stricter regulations on the financial sector. It argues for the creation of a 'brown taxonomy' to identify and exclude fossil fuels and polluting activities, the implementation of a 'social taxonomy' to protect labor rights, and the alignment of all EU financial activities with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. It specifically suggests that the European Central Bank's monetary policy and post-COVID-19 recovery measures should exclude the most polluting sectors.

The fact sheet argues that many climate scenarios used by financial actors act as 'greenwashing tools' by underestimating renewable energy, relying on unlikely negative emissions technologies, and omitting significant portions of global greenhouse gas emissions. It asserts that these scenarios often lead to warming exceeding 1.5°C and calls for a complete phase-out of fossil fuel financing by 2040 in Europe and 2050 globally.

The document argues that many climate scenarios used by financial actors and large companies serve as tools for greenwashing by underestimating renewable energy and relying on improbable negative emissions to justify continued fossil fuel investment.

The document outlines a step-by-step process for responding to a consultation on the EU's sustainable finance strategy and provides model answers. It argues that the EU needs major additional policy actions to align finance with the Paris Agreement, specifically calling for a 'brown taxonomy' to identify harmful activities, a legal prohibition on financing new fossil fuel projects, and the establishment of a social taxonomy to identify socially abusive activities. It further suggests that the European Central Bank's monetary policy should exclude polluting sectors and that COVID-19 recovery funding should be tied to social and environmental conditions.

A coalition of 133 civil society organizations, financial institutions, academics, and experts calls for the exclusion of fossil fuel developers from all SFDR fund categories, specifically targeting the "ESG basics" category to prevent greenwashing and align EU finance with climate goals.

A survey of 1,026 French citizens reveals that 60% believe sustainable or ISR-labeled investments should not finance oil companies developing new fossil fuel fields, and 64% consider such financing to be a form of greenwashing.

The document explains the mechanics of carbon credits, distinguishing between regulated markets under the Paris Agreement and voluntary markets. It highlights that while Latin America and the Caribbean accounted for 22% of global carbon credit sales in 2021, the region lacks the robust regulation needed to prevent environmental and social risks. The guide warns against over-reliance on the forestry sector, the risk of 'greenwashing' in voluntary markets, and the potential for 'double counting' of emission reductions. It recommends establishing transparent national registries, ensuring fair benefit-sharing with local communities, and prioritizing structural decarbonization over simple offsetting.

This report by Trend Asia, CELIOS, and CREA identifies the 20 most toxic coal-fired power plants (CFPPs) in Indonesia, termed the "Toxic Twenty." It analyzes the severe public health, economic, and environmental costs associated with these facilities, arguing that current government retirement roadmaps are insufficient and often delayed by a reliance on unproven technologies like co-firing and CCS/CCUS. The report provides detailed case studies for several plants, documenting widespread respiratory illnesses, loss of traditional livelihoods in fisheries and agriculture, and significant negative impacts on regional GDP.

The document argues that Indonesia is facing a climate emergency, evidenced by record temperatures in Larantuka and high greenhouse gas emissions. It criticizes the government's continued investment in coal-fired power plants (PLTU), the use of biomass co-firing which leads to deforestation, and the environmental damage caused by nickel mining for electric vehicle batteries. The guide advocates for community-based renewable energy and provides a roadmap for individuals to reduce their carbon footprint and engage in collective political pressure to demand accountability from policymakers.

The guidebook outlines a framework for apparel companies to transition to circular reuse models while avoiding greenwashing. It emphasizes increasing garment utilization, ensuring a lower lifecycle impact compared to traditional models, and displacing the sale of new clothing to decouple business success from resource consumption.

The report highlights how disparate product-level GHG accounting tools and frameworks undermine climate mitigation efforts, especially in agriculture. It identifies key areas of variability—system boundaries, allocation methods, and data requirements—that lead to incomparable results and potential greenwashing. The author advocates for globally standardized methodologies, improved quality control, pre-competitive collaboration, and increased transparency to ensure that corporate Scope 3 emissions reductions are real and verifiable.

The document outlines a rising wave of legal actions and regulatory requirements in the food supply chain, specifically in the U.S. and EU. It highlights the growth of climate-related litigation, the risk of import bans due to deforestation and forced labour, and the gap in climate expertise among corporate board members. To mitigate these risks, the text suggests developing legal repositories, increasing on-the-ground resources, and utilizing risk assessment toolkits from WWF and WBCSD.