Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that the end of fossil fuel advertising is inevitable and that marketing agencies must proactively 'off-ramp' these clients to avoid financial and reputational damage. It estimates that the top 29 oil majors spent $6.97 billion on media, creative, and PR in 2024, with $3.03 billion going to major holding companies and $3.94 billion to independent agencies. The document highlights the risks of retention, citing Havas' loss of B Corp certification and Edelman's 5% revenue decline in 2024. It proposes a phased exit strategy ending in 2030, suggesting agencies pivot toward high-growth sectors including healthcare (projected $36.4 billion marketing value by 2030), renewables, and the circular economy (a $4.5 trillion global opportunity by 2030).

The report examines the role of social media platforms in spreading climate disinformation, highlighting how algorithmic systems and revenue-sharing models incentivise misleading content. It specifically assesses the compliance of Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) with the EU Digital Services Act (DSA), concluding that most have failed to identify or mitigate climate disinformation as a systemic risk.

The document argues for a shift from the 'compensation' model of carbon offsetting to a 'contribution' model known as beyond value chain mitigation (BVCM). It examines several climate impact funds—including 1% for the Planet, Frontier, and Milkywire—finding that while they generally support high-impact climate action and avoid misleading neutrality claims, there is a systemic need for clearer BVCM metrics and more explicit guidance on corporate claims to prevent greenwashing.

The report examines the intersection of biodiversity loss and human rights violations, asserting that transnational corporations (TNCs) drive ecological destruction through industrial agriculture, extractivism, and infrastructure projects. It critiques voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) and due diligence frameworks as 'false solutions' that facilitate corporate impunity. The document calls for a legally binding treaty on TNCs and human rights, the operationalization of a human rights-based approach within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the recognition of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities as rights-holders rather than mere stakeholders.

India has introduced the 2024 Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Greenwashing and Misleading Environmental Claims to protect consumers from deceptive environmental marketing. These guidelines, enforced by the Central Consumer Protection Agency, require businesses to substantiate claims with independent evidence and provide transparent disclosures. Complementing this is the updated Eco Mark certification, which labels products based on both environmental and quality standards. While large businesses welcome the move toward greater accountability, implementation challenges remain for SMEs and require increased public awareness and capacity building.

The report analyzes the 'petroganda' strategies of oil companies like Equinor, Shell, and BP, focusing on their use of community 'gifts' and cultural sponsorships to build social legitimacy and silence critics. It highlights specific cases in Norway and Brazil, such as the First Lego League and the Rouanet Youth Program, and discusses resistance strategies including civil disobedience and the 'Petroganda Prize'.

The document analyzes a 'cross-cutting disinformation network' involving corporations, the provincial government of Río Negro, and regional media to legitimize the Vaca Muerta Oil Sur (VMOS) project. It details how the repeal of Law 3308, which had protected the San Matías Gulf for over twenty years, paved the way for a 400 km pipeline and an oil port. The study identifies a pattern of 'Pink Slime' journalism, where newly created digital outlets with low organic reach use paid advertising to simulate social consensus and frame fossil fuel expansion as essential for regional development and public welfare, while omitting socio-environmental risks.

The report argues that Brazil's digital infrastructure development is characterized by a 'narrative of progress' that obscures ecological damage and marginalizes affected communities. Through media analysis, community surveys, and official information requests, the study finds a systematic lack of environmental impact assessments and a significant gap between the government's 'green' rhetoric and the reality of resource consumption. In Rio Grande do Sul, the Scala AI City project is situated in a flood-prone area, while in Ceará, the TikTok-partnered project by Casa dos Ventos faces opposition from the Anacé Indigenous community over land and water rights. The study concludes that the 'burden of the cloud' falls disproportionately on vulnerable populations through a combination of regulatory vacuum and strategic disinformation.

The report analyzes disinformation surrounding the Saguaro Project, finding that a significant portion of content on Facebook (43%) and YouTube (39%) used misleading narratives to frame the fossil gas project as a climate solution and driver of economic growth. Government accounts and media outlets were primary sources of this content, often employing 'transition fuel' rhetoric to legitimize the project despite its environmental impacts and legal challenges.

The document analyzes a coordinated communication strategy involving the Argentine government, YPF, and a network of newly created digital media outlets to legitimize the Vaca Muerta Oil Sur (VMOS) project. It argues that these actors use 'pink slime' tactics—creating low-impact local news sites funded by advertising—to frame fossil fuel expansion as essential for regional progress and employment while omitting environmental risks and legal controversies. The study highlights the derogation of Law 3308, which previously protected the Golfo San Matías, and the use of the RIGI framework to protect corporate interests for 30 years.

The research identifies that climate disinformation in southwestern Uganda is propagated by authority figures—including politicians, religious leaders, and traditional elders—who exploit cultural norms and farmer vulnerability. Key narratives include framing climate change as a "Western agenda," carbon markets as a form of neo-colonialism, and environmental disasters as divine punishment. These narratives, combined with political greenwashing (such as promoting unsuitable eucalyptus trees or commercial crops without soil research), lead to agricultural failure, financial loss, and a distrust of scientific adaptation. The study emphasizes that countering these trends requires trust-building, youth engagement, and climate literacy programs delivered in local languages and relatable formats.

The document investigates the environmental footprint of hyperscale data centers in Brazil, arguing that the government's push to become a global hub via the REDATA regime overlooks significant ecological and social costs. It highlights the creation of 'green sacrifice zones' where marginalized communities bear the burden of infrastructure, the extractive nature of the mineral supply chain for hardware, and the high energy and water demands of AI. The paper also critiques the 'myth' of permanent job creation and the exclusion of environmental authorities from policy-making, while detailing the specific ecological trade-offs associated with solar, wind, and hydroelectric power used to fuel these facilities.

The report finds that international reporting of military greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is generally poor, with significant under-reporting in data submitted to the UNFCCC. A comparison of five top military spenders showed that defence ministry reports for direct emissions were, on average, 95% higher than UNFCCC figures. The report highlights a critical lack of Scope 3 (supply-chain) reporting, noting that less than 10% of military carbon footprints typically appear in UNFCCC data. It identifies systemic loopholes in reporting guidelines and instances of 'greenwashing,' specifically by the UK military, and recommends mandatory, explicit military emissions reporting within National Inventory Reports.

The statement critiques the 'like-for-like' principle in climate policy, which suggests matching the atmospheric lifetime or carbon cycle of emissions with corresponding removal types. The author contends that this logic allows industries to use cheap, temporary, and vulnerable removals to avoid deep emission cuts. It specifically highlights the danger of offsetting methane emissions with temporary storage, noting that methane has a permanent climate impact as it breaks down into CO2. The document also discusses the EU Green Claims Directive, noting a divide between the European Parliament's preference for permanent removals for fossil emissions and the more permissive stance of the European Commission and Council. The author concludes that all residual emissions should be balanced only by high-quality removals that lock away CO2 for centuries or millennia.

The report examines 'coal transition credits' (CTCs) as a mechanism to accelerate the phase-out of coal-fired power plants in Southeast Asia. While proponents suggest CTCs can unlock private finance for early retirement and just transition measures, a survey of 10 experts reveals widespread skepticism. Key concerns include the risk of carbon leakage, where retired capacity is replaced by other fossil fuels, and the difficulty of establishing conservative baselines to prove additionality. Experts warn that CTCs could create perverse incentives, rewarding polluters and encouraging the delay of retirements to maximize credit issuance. Furthermore, the report highlights structural barriers in Southeast Asia, such as young coal plant fleets and rigid power purchase agreements, and notes that current methodologies, including Verra's VM0052, may have loopholes regarding 'captive' coal plants. The findings suggest that without rigorous guardrails and a focus on public finance, CTCs risk being a tool for greenwashing rather than a driver of genuine climate impact.

The report examines 'coal transition credits' (CTC)—carbon credits generated by retiring coal plants early and replacing them with renewables—as a way to fund the energy transition in Southeast Asia. Based on a survey of 10 experts, the document finds deep skepticism regarding the instrument's effectiveness. Key concerns include 'carbon leakage' (where retired capacity is replaced by other fossil fuels), the subjectivity of baseline scenarios leading to over-issuance, and the risk of 'greenwashing' or rewarding polluters. Experts highlight that only 2 out of 10 view CTCs as effective, warning that without strict safeguards, these credits could undermine genuine decarbonization and fail to provide a 'just transition' for affected workers and communities.

The report argues that transnational corporations (TNCs) like Chevron, Total, and Shell maintain a 'global architecture of impunity' through sophisticated lobbying networks that capture international governance. It specifically highlights the role of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) in influencing the UN Human Rights Council's negotiations for a binding treaty on TNCs and human rights. The document details environmental and human rights violations in the Global South, including oil pollution in Ecuador and Nigeria, and fossil fuel projects in Uganda and Mozambique, while demanding the exclusion of corporate lobbyists from treaty negotiations to ensure accountability.

The report argues that TNCs like Chevron, Total, and Shell maintain a 'system of impunity' by leveraging powerful lobbying organizations, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), to shape international law. It documents severe human rights and environmental abuses linked to these companies in Ecuador, Mozambique, Uganda, Nigeria, and Palestine. The document specifically critiques the current UN negotiation process for the Binding Treaty, claiming that the inclusion of corporate lobbyists as 'stakeholders' creates a conflict of interest that dilutes accountability mechanisms and prioritizes corporate profit over human rights and planetary health.

The report argues that multinational corporations use lobbying networks like the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) to undermine the creation of a legally binding UN treaty on business and human rights. It documents environmental and human rights abuses by Chevron in Ecuador, Total in Uganda and Mozambique, and Shell in Nigeria, illustrating a systemic 'architecture of impunity'. The authors call for the exclusion of corporate lobbyists from UN negotiations to ensure the treaty prioritizes human rights over corporate profit.

The policy brief by Friends of the Earth International advocates for a UN Binding Treaty to replace corporate self-regulation with enforceable legal obligations for transnational corporations (TNCs). It argues that TNCs across sectors like fossil fuels and agribusiness have driven the climate crisis and used 'green' branding to evade responsibility. The brief outlines five key recommendations: recognizing environmental rights as human rights, establishing direct corporate obligations for global value chains and emissions, mandating prevention and precaution measures, ensuring full ecological reparation and restoration, and rejecting ESG schemes as 'false solutions'.