Search Climate Insights Directory

The policy brief explores how truth commissions, traditionally used for political reconciliation, could provide a pragmatic middle path between ignoring historical climate harms and pursuing legal liability. It evaluates three structural options: internal UNFCCC processes, external but linked mechanisms, and entirely external processes such as the International Court of Justice. The author concludes that a high-profile, neutral commission created by NGOs or a coalition of Parties is the most politically feasible approach for trust-building and documenting lived harms, though it must be accompanied by concrete action to avoid alienating supporters.

Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) asserts that humanity has entered 'Decade Zero,' a critical window for drastic action to prevent irreversible warming. The report advocates for a 'Fairshare' approach to the global carbon budget, where rich industrialised nations take the deepest cuts and pay their 'climate debt' to the global South. FOEI rejects 'false solutions'—including carbon markets, REDD, and 'net zero' technologies—arguing they protect corporate profits and lead to human rights violations. Instead, it proposes a transition to energy sovereignty, agroecology, and community forest management, underpinned by a shift away from neoliberalism toward an economic system accountable to people.

The document defines the 'Decade Zero' as the critical window to prevent irreversible climate warming. It critiques the current global energy system and neoliberal economic models, labeling market-based mechanisms like carbon trading and REDD as 'false solutions' that protect corporate profits while violating human rights. The report advocates for a systemic transformation centered on climate justice, where developed nations pay their 'climate debt' to the Global South and energy production is shifted to decentralized, community-owned, and sustainable models.

Friends of the Earth International asserts that humanity has entered the 'Decade Zero', the final window to prevent dangerous climate change through drastic action. The document criticizes the neoliberal economic system and the power of transnational corporations, which it claims drive the climate crisis and promote 'false solutions' like carbon markets and REDD. It proposes a transition to 'energy sovereignty', agro-ecology, and community forest management, while demanding that wealthy industrialised nations pay their 'climate debt' to support developing countries.

The document defines loss and damage as the "residual impacts" that occur when climate change impacts exceed the limits of adaptation. It notes that while the concept is grounded in science—citing examples such as sea-level rise submerging territory or the loss of Arctic ice—political views within the UNFCCC remain varied. The briefing specifically focuses on four traits: the unavoidability of some impacts, the potential for irreversible and intolerable harm, and the attribution of these impacts to human-driven climate change.

The report examines the shift in global climate governance from the top-down targets of the Kyoto Protocol to the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) of the Paris Agreement. It highlights the 'ambition gap' in current pledges and argues that the success of the agreement depends on integrating the actions of non-state actors—such as cities, regions, and businesses—into national frameworks. The document details specific subnational initiatives like the C40 network and Brazil's CB27, while providing a case study of Singapore's role in the negotiations.

This policy brief explores the application of transitional justice frameworks to international climate negotiations. It argues that because climate policy shares similarities with conflict transitions—such as profound loss, interdependence, and disputes over historical responsibility—lessons from transitional justice can help build the legitimacy and trust required for the Paris Agreement's success. The author suggests a balance of 'backwards-oriented' acknowledgments of responsibility and 'forwards-oriented' supports, proposing specific mechanisms such as collective reparations, long-term low-carbon development support, and 'soft accountability' tools like non-binding acknowledgments of historical responsibility.

The document analyzes the Paris Agreement's achievements and outlines a detailed pathway for operationalizing its ten core elements: mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage, finance, technology transfer, capacity building, transparency, global stocktake, compliance, and cooperative approaches. It emphasizes the need for clear accounting rules, scaled-up finance, and robust transparency frameworks to ensure environmental integrity and increase ambition over time.

The Paris Agreement represents a milestone in global climate policy by establishing a universal, hybrid framework for climate action. While it lacks binding implementation of national targets to ensure the participation of major emitters like the USA and China, it introduces a mandatory five-year cycle of review and increased ambition to close a 15-gigatonne emissions gap. The agreement aims to limit global temperature rise to 2°C, with an aspiration for 1.5°C, requiring net-zero emissions from 2050 onwards. It also reaffirms a collective goal of mobilizing $100 billion annually for developing countries from 2020, with a planned upward review by 2025.

The COP22 conference in Marrakech focused on establishing the 'rulebook' for the Paris Agreement, with parties agreeing to a 2018 deadline for its operationalization. Key outcomes included the approval of a work programme for transparency and adaptation, the announcement of US$81 million for the Adaptation Fund, and the launch of the Marrakech Partnership for Global Climate Action to catalyze pre-2020 efforts. Despite political uncertainty regarding the United States, the document notes a strong commitment from emerging economies and the private sector to pursue a low-carbon transition.

The document analyzes the tension between the risk-management approach of the UNFCCC and the justice-based demands for compensation regarding climate-induced loss and damage. It evaluates four scientific traits—attributability, irreversibility, unavoidability, and intolerability—concluding that while science can inform risk management, the determination of liability and compensation remains a political and value-based challenge.

The document examines the tension between treating fossil fuel suppliers as polluters and recognizing extraction as a sovereign right for development. It argues that meeting Paris Agreement targets requires leaving a majority of proven reserves in the ground, which would disproportionately impact lower-income regions through the loss of significant resource rents.

The Paris Agreement formally recognizes "loss and damage" as a distinct issue from adaptation, acknowledging that some climate impacts are too severe to be adapted to. This includes extreme weather events and slow-onset events like desertification or the disappearance of island nations. The agreement makes the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage permanent and calls for international cooperation on early warning systems, risk management, and insurance, while explicitly stating that the provision does not establish a basis for legal liability or compensation.

Friends of the Earth International concludes that the Paris Agreement fails the 'People's Climate Test' due to its lack of binding emission targets, insufficient financial commitments for developing nations, and the absence of concrete mechanisms for loss and damage. The organization criticizes the agreement for not mentioning renewable energy or the phase-out of fossil fuels, while leaving the door open to 'false solutions' like geo-engineering and carbon markets.

Friends of the Earth International concludes that the Paris Agreement fails to provide climate justice, citing a lack of binding emissions targets for developed nations, insufficient financial commitments for developing countries, and the absence of concrete mechanisms for loss and damage reparations. The organization criticizes the agreement for not mentioning renewable energy or energy efficiency and for leaving the door open to 'false solutions' like carbon markets and geoengineering.

Friends of the Earth International concludes that the Paris Agreement fails the 'People’s Test on Climate' due to a lack of binding emissions targets, insufficient financial commitments for developing nations, and the absence of protections for vulnerable communities. The assessment highlights that the agreement does not mandate a phase-out of fossil fuels, lacks mentions of renewable energy or energy efficiency, and relies on unproven technologies like BECCS. Furthermore, it argues that the agreement weakens the principle of 'Common But Differentiated Responsibilities' and excludes compensation and liability for loss and damage.

The author evaluates the Paris Climate Agreement as a success, highlighting its binding nature for nearly all countries, the establishment of a transparent five-year review system for INDCs, and the goal to limit global temperature rise to 2°C. While noting the mobilization of 100 billion dollars annually from 2020 for developing nations, the author criticizes the omission of specific terms like 'decarbonization' or 'emissions neutrality'.

Friends of the Earth Africa criticizes the draft Paris agreement for failing to provide adequate resources for adaptation, ignoring climate debt, and promoting market-based mechanisms like REDD that may facilitate land grabs. The organization warns that the current trajectory could lead to 5 to 8 degrees of warming in Africa, causing systemic ecological collapse and mass casualties.

A coalition of 121 civil society organisations calls for a robust Paris Treaty featuring 5-year commitment periods, a 2050 decarbonisation goal, and the exclusion of international carbon offsets. The letter advocates for a human rights-based approach, the integration of Sustainable Development Goals, and the recognition of Loss & Damage to ensure a just transition and environmental integrity.

The paper explores the analogy between transitional justice—typically used to transition societies from periods of deep injustice to peace—and the climate change context. It identifies four key similarities: unavoidable interdependence, the inadequacy of current judicial processes, disagreements over the link between past actions and future obligations, and the importance of socio-economic human rights. The author suggests that climate policy could adopt specific transitional justice practices, such as guarantees of non-recurrence, reparations, limited liability, and formal peace processes, to move beyond political stalemates regarding historical responsibility. However, the paper also notes significant limitations, including the fact that climate injustices are ongoing rather than past, the lack of a unified global 'society', and the risk of co-optation by powerful actors.