Search Climate Insights Directory

The report documents how at least 39 oil and gas companies and 12 industry-tied organizations influence Canadian K–12 education through branded materials, government partnerships, and funding of third-party nonprofits. It argues that this 'petro-pedagogy' obscures the industry's role in climate change, promotes individual action over systemic change, and creates a conflict of interest in classrooms. The authors call for immediate policy action at federal, provincial, and local levels to implement comprehensive, science-based climate education free from corporate interference.

The report documents how at least 39 oil and gas companies and 12 industry-tied organizations influence Canadian school curricula through direct sponsorship, government partnerships, and funding of third-party nonprofits. It identifies 'petro-pedagogy' strategies—such as 'bias-balancing,' greenwashing, and a focus on individual rather than systemic action—designed to obscure the industry's role in driving climate change and delay the energy transition. The authors recommend that federal and provincial governments prohibit fossil fuel sponsorship in schools, mandate comprehensive climate justice education, and provide public funding for teacher training and resources to ensure education is free from corporate conflicts of interest.

The report argues that Arla Foods employs 'smokescreens' to hide its significant methane footprint and derail climate legislation. It highlights a gap between Arla's net-zero pledges and its actual practices, noting that the company prioritizes intensity-based targets for Scope 3 emissions rather than absolute reductions. The document details Arla's reliance on biogas as a 'silver bullet' solution, which the authors claim incentivizes industrialization and larger herd sizes over sustainable grazing. Furthermore, it documents Arla's direct and indirect lobbying in the EU to exclude agriculture from the Methane Strategy and block plant-based alternatives in school programs. The report also examines legal challenges in Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands regarding Arla's 'carbon neutral' marketing claims, which courts found to be misleading.

ClientEarth argues that the 'recklessness standard' in English law already protects companies from liability for honest but incorrect forward-looking statements in transition plans. It contends that detailed transition planning reduces risks related to greenwashing, breach of duty, and human rights harms, and opposes the introduction of 'safe-harbours' which would undermine market integrity.

The document identifies a strategic shift from outright climate denial to 'strategic doubt,' where influential economic and political actors—including fossil fuel companies and right-wing populist movements—deliberately spread misleading information to obstruct climate action. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of these campaigns, which are disseminated through traditional media, social media, and non-public corporate channels. The report notes a significant research gap in the Global South and proposes four policy interventions: mandatory standardized carbon reporting, litigation against greenwashing, the creation of cross-sectoral voluntary alliances, and the enhancement of scientific and media literacy for the public and officials.

The document analyzes how Colombia and Nigeria use narratives of development, energy security, and energy transition to maintain dependence on fossil fuels. It argues that these narratives are often inaccurate or outdated, contributing to 'carbon lock-in'. The briefing suggests that civil society and researchers can counter these claims by demanding transparency, highlighting the benefits of renewables, and promoting science-based alternatives for a just transition.

The French Financial Markets Authority (AMF) is adopting ESMA guidelines on ESG fund naming starting May 21, 2025, but Reclaim Finance argues these rules create uneven requirements that risk 'transition-washing'. The document notes a 24% decrease in 'Article 9' funds under SFDR due to reclassification to 'Article 8' to avoid sanctions. To combat greenwashing, the author proposes that the 2025 SFDR revision should mandate the exclusion of companies developing new fossil fuel projects for all funds claiming environmental or social objectives.

Reclaim Finance critiques the new ESMA guidelines adopted by the AMF for ESG fund naming, arguing they create unequal requirements that risk 'transitionwashing'. The organization urges that the 2025 revision of the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) must mandate the exclusion of companies involved in fossil fuel expansion to ensure genuine sustainability and protect investors from misleading claims.

A February 2025 survey of 1,000 Dutch citizens reveals strong cross-political support for measures to combat climate disinformation. A majority believe that banning misleading fossil fuel advertising (71%) and legally requiring Big Tech companies to stop spreading climate disinformation (79%) would be effective. While support is high, awareness of these specific policy options is lower, with only 30% of respondents having heard of increasing resources for fact-checking organizations. The report notes that older respondents are generally more convinced of the effectiveness of these measures than younger people, despite the latter being more exposed to online disinformation.

A survey of 1,000 Dutch citizens found broad cross-political support for regulatory measures to combat climate disinformation, including banning fossil fuel advertising and holding social media companies legally accountable for the amplification of false content. While a majority believe these measures are effective, awareness of specific policy options remains relatively low, particularly regarding the funding of fact-checking organizations.

The report exposes how Brazil's powerful agribusiness sector uses political capture and greenwashing to avoid climate accountability, specifically by omitting agricultural methane from the country's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and lobbying to weaken environmental protections ahead of COP30.

The report argues that Brazil's agribusiness sector, dominated by giants like JBS, MBRF, and Minerva, exerts systemic control over political and public narratives to avoid climate regulation. It highlights a critical 'blind spot' in Brazil's updated NDC, which omits agricultural methane emissions despite the sector accounting for 75.6% of the country's total methane. The document details how the 'ruralist caucus' (FPA) controls Congress and pushes for controversial methane metrics like GWP* to downplay warming impacts. It also exposes the 'AgriZone' and other industry-led events surrounding COP30 as tools for greenwashing, while noting that structural weaknesses in the Climate Plan, Tax Reform, and Forest Code continue to favour industrial agriculture over sustainable agroecological farming.

The 2025 F-List identifies 1,217 fossil fuel contracts held by 709 advertising and PR agencies. It introduces the Fossil Fuel Income Risk Exposure (FFIRE) index, which finds that Edelman has the highest financial vulnerability to fossil fuel revenue at 5.64%. The report highlights a conflict of interest regarding Edelman's role in the COP30 UN Climate Talks and notes that Omnicom Advertising Group now holds the most contracts on the list following its merger with IPG, being the only network with contracts across all 10 oil and gas majors.

The document critiques biodiversity offsetting and crediting mechanisms, asserting that they simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, facilitate greenwashing by corporations, and threaten the land rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. It argues that these market-based approaches are 'worse than nothing' because they provide an illusion of progress while bypassing the mitigation hierarchy. Instead, the authors advocate for transformational change, the redirection of harmful subsidies, and the provision of biodiversity finance through grants and direct access to Indigenous-led governance systems.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits, asserting that these mechanisms facilitate continued environmental destruction through 'greenwashing' and risk violating human rights. It argues that nature's complexity cannot be reduced to tradable units and suggests redirecting existing harmful subsidies toward indigenous-led conservation and direct grants instead of market-based instruments.

The document critiques biodiversity credits and offsets as illusory mechanisms that facilitate 'greenwashing' and allow destructive companies to avoid responsibility. It argues that these market-based tools simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, often leading to human rights violations, land grabbing, and the displacement of local communities. The text suggests that instead of market mechanisms, biodiversity should be funded by redirecting harmful subsidies and supporting indigenous-led governance.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits, describing them as 'false solutions' that facilitate continued environmental destruction through 'greenwashing'. It argues that these mechanisms simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, often fail to achieve actual ecological restoration, and risk causing human rights violations, including land grabbing and forced displacement of indigenous communities. The text advocates for transformative changes and direct funding—such as redirecting harmful subsidies—over market-based commodification of nature.

The report critiques debt-for-nature swaps as 'greenwashing' tools that benefit private creditors and international NGOs while stripping Global South countries of territorial control. It details how these financial instruments often replace old debt with new, higher-interest loans and divert funds into financial markets before they reach conservation projects. The document highlights specific cases in countries like Ecuador, Belize, and Gabon to illustrate the loss of sovereignty and the persistence of extractive industries. It concludes by calling for the cancellation of illegitimate debts and the recognition of the Global North's historical ecological debt to the South.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits as 'false solutions' that facilitate greenwashing and human rights violations while failing to restore ecosystems. It argues that these mechanisms allow companies to avoid responsibility for environmental destruction and suggests that funding for biodiversity should instead come from redirecting harmful subsidies and providing direct grants to indigenous-led initiatives.

The document argues that carbon markets are 'false climate solutions' that enable big polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases through 'greenwashing' while causing land grabbing and human rights violations in the Global South. It details how carbon credits are generated from nature-based solutions and 'techno-fixes', warns communities about deceptive contracts and the failure of industry 'safeguards', and provides a framework for resistance based on climate justice and the right to say no.