Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that carbon markets are 'false climate solutions' designed by polluters to maintain profitable systems of capitalism and neocolonialism. It explains how carbon credits are generated through nature-based solutions (NBS) and technological fixes, which often lead to land grabbing and the violation of indigenous rights. The guide provides a framework for communities to identify 'red flags' in contracts, exercise their right to say no, and employ strategies of international solidarity to oppose the commodification of nature.

The document argues that carbon markets are a continuation of colonial and capitalist systems that allow major polluters to avoid reducing emissions through 'greenwashing'. It explains how carbon credits are generated—often through flawed calculations in nature-based solutions or technological fixes—and details the risks to communities, including land grabbing and the violation of indigenous rights. The guide provides practical advice for communities to identify predatory contracts, exercise their right to say no, and seek alternatives like community forest management and agroecology.

The document argues that carbon markets are 'false climate solutions' that allow major polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases through 'greenwashing' while causing harm to Indigenous Peoples and local communities. It describes how carbon credits are generated from projects—including nature-based solutions and technological patches—and warns that these often lead to land grabbing, human rights violations, and the failure to actually reduce global emissions. The guide provides a framework for communities to identify predatory contracts, demand Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), and organize international solidarity to oppose the financialization of nature.

The report identifies a crisis of information integrity about climate science, characterized by a shift from outright denial to more nuanced skepticism and 'response skepticism' regarding climate solutions. It documents how powerful economic interests, particularly the fossil fuel industry, and political actors use strategies like greenwashing, delay, and obstruction to undermine scientific consensus. The review highlights the role of social media algorithms, bots, and 'source media' (such as corporate reports) in amplifying misleading narratives. It concludes that while individual-level interventions like inoculation and education are valuable, systemic governance through public regulation, standardized corporate reporting, and litigation is essential to restore information integrity.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denial to 'strategic skepticism,' where powerful economic and political actors intentionally spread misleading narratives to obstruct climate action. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this disinformation, which is disseminated through corporate sustainability reports, lobby groups, and social media. The document argues that this environment erodes public trust in science and creates a feedback loop of political inaction. To counter this, the report recommends standardized carbon emission reporting, legal recourse against greenwashing, the creation of multi-stakeholder coalitions, and enhanced science and media literacy education.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denial to 'strategic skepticism,' where powerful economic and political actors—including fossil fuel companies and right-wing populist movements—undermine climate action by questioning the viability and cost of solutions. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this disinformation, which is disseminated through social media, traditional media, and corporate sustainability reports. This erosion of information integrity leads to a loss of public trust in climate science and a feedback loop of political inaction. The document recommends four key interventions: legislation for standardized carbon reporting and content labeling, judicial action against greenwashing, the formation of cross-sector coalitions, and enhanced scientific and media education for the public and policymakers.

The document identifies a shift from outright climate denialism to 'strategic skepticism,' where influential entities—including fossil fuel companies and right-wing populist movements—undermine climate action by questioning the economic efficiency and causes of climate change. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this disinformation, which is disseminated through social media, corporate sustainability reports, and interpersonal networks. The report argues that this environment erodes public trust in climate science and creates a cycle of political inaction. To combat this, the authors recommend standardized carbon reporting legislation, legal action against 'greenwashing,' the creation of multi-stakeholder coalitions, and the enhancement of scientific and media literacy for both the public and officials.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denial to 'strategic doubt,' where powerful economic and political actors—including fossil fuel companies and right-wing populist movements—deliberately spread misleading narratives to obstruct climate action. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this misinformation, which is disseminated through social media, traditional media, and corporate sustainability reports. This environment erodes public trust and creates a feedback loop of scientific denial and political inaction. The document recommends four key policy interventions: legislation for standardized carbon reporting and content labeling, litigation against greenwashing, the formation of counter-alliances by civil society, and the promotion of scientific and media literacy.

The document identifies a shift from absolute climate denial to 'strategic skepticism,' where powerful economic and political actors intentionally spread misleading narratives to obstruct climate action. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this disinformation, which erodes public trust in science and creates a feedback loop of political inaction. To counter this, the report recommends standardized carbon reporting legislation, litigation against greenwashing, the formation of multi-stakeholder coalitions, and enhanced scientific and media literacy.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denialism to 'strategic skepticism,' where powerful economic and political actors sow doubt about the feasibility and cost of climate solutions. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this misinformation, which is disseminated through corporate reports, lobbies, and social media, ultimately eroding public trust and delaying climate action. The document recommends four key policy levers: standardized carbon reporting legislation, litigation against greenwashing, the creation of multi-stakeholder coalitions, and enhanced science and media literacy.

The International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) urges the Australian government to implement mandatory standardized climate disclosure to stop greenwashing, create transparent tracking systems for climate communication funding to expose hidden influence networks, and integrate climate information literacy and 'inoculation' strategies into education curricula to build public resilience.

The report analyzes greenhushing in Colombia's financial sector, identifying key barriers to transparency such as fear of scrutiny over imperfect data, the desire to protect competitive 'know-how', and high market expectations for quantitative metrics. While Colombia's progressive regulation (Circular 031 of 2021) and lack of climate litigation have mitigated some pressures, the document argues that a shift toward flexible, standardized reporting and collaborative regulation is necessary to transform climate transparency into a strategic asset.

Mighty Earth's 2024 review highlights significant private sector shifts, including JBS dropping 705 suppliers linked to deforestation and the postponement of JBS's IPO due to climate concerns. The organization also focused on expanding plant-based protein offerings among major retailers, challenging biomass policies in Japan, and launching a rewilding initiative for mountain lions in the Eastern United States.

The document details a campaign of coordinated inauthentic activity on social media platforms—primarily X, Facebook, and YouTube—attributed to Azerbaijan during the lead-up to and duration of COP29. It highlights the use of thousands of bot-like accounts to amplify pro-government and pro-fossil fuel messaging while drowning out criticism of the regime's human rights record and climate policies. The report criticizes Big Tech companies for failing to enforce policies against coordinated inauthentic behavior and calls for better guardrails in the COP Presidency process.

Carbon Market Watch condemns FIFA's hosting decisions for the 2030 and 2034 World Cups, asserting that the events will cause severe environmental damage. The organization highlights the failure of the 2022 Qatar World Cup's carbon neutrality claims and warns that the 2030 tournament's multi-continental structure and Saudi Arabia's 2034 bid—which includes building 11 new stadiums—will lead to massive emissions from construction and air travel. The statement also links these decisions to the influence of polluting corporate sponsors like Aramco and raises concerns over migrant worker deaths in host nations.

This report by QuotaClimat examines how climate disinformation has moved from social media fringes into mainstream news outlets, particularly in France. It identifies structural vulnerabilities in the media industry—such as financial crises, the rise of 'infotainment', and a regulatory vacuum—that allow anti-science narratives to proliferate. The document argues that news media, despite their perceived credibility, often act as channels for disinformation through 'false balance' and selective framing. It concludes by advocating for a new legislative framework in France to mandate environmental coverage standards and strengthen the role of the regulator, Arcom.

The document advocates for the full implementation of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), arguing that they are essential for the European Green Deal and sustainable finance. It warns that arbitrary reductions in reporting obligations would create legal uncertainty and undermine the ability of investors to allocate capital to the green transition. The authors emphasize that the standards already include significant flexibility through materiality assessments and phase-in periods, and they propose improving usability through practical guidance, capacity building for Member States, and the development of sector-specific standards.

The report establishes a comprehensive framework for banks, investors, and insurers to create climate transition plans aligned with the 1.5°C goal. It details requirements for decarbonization targets, action plans, and engagement strategies, while providing 'red flag' indicators to identify greenwashing. The authors argue that current regulations are too vague and call for mandatory, standardized plans that include an immediate end to financing new fossil fuel production.

The document argues that terms like "net zero" and "carbon neutral" are often meaningless to consumers and prone to greenwashing, particularly when they rely on offsets or distant targets. It advises marketers to prioritize immediate emissions cuts over long-term goals and to use plain, truthful language to maintain consumer trust.

CAPE advocates for a rapid transition away from fossil fuels, citing severe health impacts from fracking and oil sands, the failure of industry-led emissions reductions, and the necessity of Indigenous reconciliation in climate action.