Search Climate Insights Directory

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) rejects Nature-based Solutions (NbS), characterizing the term as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing.' The organization contends that NbS is too vague, allowing harmful practices like industrial monoculture plantations to be labeled as 'natural.' FoEI argues that NbS serves as a greenwashing tool for fossil fuel and agro-industrial companies to justify 'net zero' claims through carbon offsetting rather than actual emission reductions. The document warns that the scale of land required for these projects leads to land grabbing and violates the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, particularly in the Global South. Instead of NbS, FoEI advocates for systemic change through agroecology, community forest management, and a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels.

Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) rejects Nature Based Solutions (NBS), characterizing it as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' that instrumentalizes nature to serve corporate profits and 'net-zero' offsetting schemes. The document contends that NBS promotes monoculture plantations, enables the financialization of nature, and threatens the sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. FOEI argues that NBS distracts from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels and instead advocates for systemic changes such as agroecology and Community Forest Management (CFM).

The briefing note critiques the 'net zero' agenda promoted by the UK presidency at COP26, arguing that the concept allows governments and corporations to maintain fossil fuel pathways through deceptive accounting and unproven technologies. It contends that net zero ignores historical responsibility, is inequitable to the global South, and relies on the physical impossibility of natural sinks absorbing all combusted fossil carbon. The author warns that the confusion between carbon removals and offsets is being exploited to create a carbon market potentially worth US$50-100 billion by 2030, which diverts investment from systemic transformation. Friends of the Earth International demands a focus on 'real zero', absolute emissions reductions by 2030, the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26, and the fulfillment of climate finance obligations by Northern countries.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) rejects Nature-based Solutions (NbS), characterizing the term as a "wolf in sheep's clothing" that masks neocolonialism and corporate greenwashing. The document contends that NbS promotes industrial monoculture plantations and the financialization of nature, which threatens the land rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities, particularly in the Global South. FoEI argues that NbS serves as a distraction from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels and instead advocates for systemic changes through agroecology and community forest management.

The document critiques the 'net zero' framework promoted by the UK presidency and the 'Race to Zero' initiative for COP26. It asserts that net zero ignores historical responsibility, relies on physically impossible natural carbon sinks, and serves as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering. The author distinguishes between 'removals' and 'offsets', arguing that the latter maintain the status quo and divert investment from systemic transformation. Friends of the Earth International demands a shift toward 'real zero' (absolute emissions reductions), the exclusion of polluting companies from COP26, and the fulfillment of climate finance obligations by Northern countries to support the Global South.

The document assesses the proliferation of gas power plants, pipelines, and LNG terminals across East, South, and Southeast Asia. It contends that these investments, totaling $380 billion, risk becoming stranded assets as renewable energy costs plummet and climate targets necessitate a rapid shift away from fossil fuels. The report highlights the significant carbon budget impact of these projects and the continued role of public finance in supporting gas expansion despite net-zero pledges.

The report analyzes the planned expansion of gas infrastructure in Asia, including power plants, pipelines, and LNG terminals, totaling $379 billion. It argues that this expansion risks locking in high greenhouse gas emissions, potentially consuming a quarter of the global carbon budget for a 1.5°C limit. The document highlights that falling costs of renewable energy and high price volatility of LNG make these gas investments economically risky and likely to become stranded assets. It further criticizes the continued support of public financial institutions for gas projects and advocates for a transition to clean energy portfolios.

The report analyzes plans for US$379 billion in new gas infrastructure across Asia, including 320 GW of power plants and 452 mtpa of LNG import capacity. It argues that this expansion would consume a quarter of the global carbon budget for a 1.5°C limit and warns that these assets may become economically unviable due to the falling cost of renewables and LNG price volatility. The author calls for a redirection of public finance away from gas to align with net-zero goals.

The report argues that the planned $379 billion expansion of gas infrastructure in Asia threatens the global goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C and risks creating stranded assets. It highlights that the region is planning 320 GW of new gas-fired power and 452 mtpa of LNG import capacity, which could emit up to 117 Gt CO2-eq over their lifespans. The document contends that renewable energy is now a more cost-effective and reliable alternative, and calls for the redirection of public finance away from gas to support net-zero goals.

The report argues that the planned $379 billion investment in Asian gas infrastructure is an economically risky and environmentally damaging strategy that threatens the global goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. It highlights that the scale of planned LNG import capacity in Asia could absorb more than the entire 2020 global LNG trade volume, potentially locking in high emissions for decades. The document contends that renewable energy portfolios, combined with storage and demand-side management, are now more cost-effective and reliable alternatives to gas, rendering new gas projects likely to become stranded assets. It further criticizes the continued role of public financial institutions in funding these projects, urging a shift toward net-zero aligned investments.

The report analyzes the expansion of gas power plants, pipelines, and LNG terminals across East, South, and Southeast Asia, totaling $379 billion in planned investments. It argues that this expansion is incompatible with the 1.5°C climate goal, as the resulting emissions could consume 25% of the global carbon budget. The document highlights the economic risk of these projects becoming stranded assets due to the falling cost of renewable energy and the volatility of LNG prices. It concludes that clean energy portfolios, combining renewables with storage and demand management, are more cost-effective and secure alternatives to gas.

The report identifies a massive planned expansion of gas infrastructure in Asia, totaling US$379 billion, which includes 320 GW of power plants, 63,000 km of pipelines, and 452 mtpa of LNG import capacity. It argues that this expansion would consume approximately one-quarter of the global carbon budget required to limit warming to 1.5°C and warns that these projects are economically risky compared to cheaper renewable alternatives. The document highlights the role of public financing from institutions like the Export-Import Bank of China and the Asian Development Bank in sustaining this growth, while urging a shift toward clean energy portfolios.

The report analyzes the energy portfolios of ten major private equity firms, finding that 80% of their energy assets are in fossil fuels. It highlights that these investments often yield low returns and disproportionately impact communities of color, while the industry's private nature allows these activities to avoid the public scrutiny faced by publicly traded oil majors.

The briefing outlines six insights for investors to drive net-zero transitions in the oil and gas, agricultural commodities, steel, and cement sectors. It emphasizes that while divestment is a common strategy, coordinated engagement to prevent new investments in polluting assets, promote sector-wide transitions, and influence value chains is more likely to achieve real-economy emission reductions. The authors suggest that investors should push for concrete actions, such as carbon capture projects in cement or production decreases in oil and gas, rather than relying solely on general emission trajectories.

The report examines four high-emitting sectors—steel, cement, agriculture, and oil and gas—concluding that none have seriously initiated the disruptive changes required to align with the Paris Agreement. It emphasizes that while long-term transitions will take decades due to investment cycles and systemic complexity, immediate action is required to avoid locking in polluting assets. The authors argue that investors can drive impact through active engagement with value chains and by pressuring companies to commit to fundamental business model shifts rather than simple portfolio reallocation.

Ember argues that the assumption that biomass burning is carbon neutral is problematic and that the resulting reliance on BECCS for negative emissions in National Grid's FES scenarios is subject to high uncertainty. The organization advocates for BECCS to be treated as a 'technology of last resort' and requests that FES2022 include at least one net-zero scenario with very low or no BECCS deployment to better quantify trade-offs with nature-based solutions and behavior changes.

The briefing emphasizes that reaching net zero ambitions and maintaining a 1.5°C world requires significant individual behavioral changes, which in turn require public buy-in and government-led structural support. It highlights that the UK lacks a centrally-led public engagement strategy despite commitments under the UN's Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) protocol. The document recommends a strategy that is broad-based, utilizes trusted and diverse spokespeople, emphasizes two-way communication over top-down messaging, and focuses on internalizing reasons for change rather than relying on behavioral 'nudges'. It suggests the UK use COP26 to lead internationally on public engagement and invigorate the ACE protocol, noting that few nations, such as Italy, Costa Rica, and Scotland, currently have considered public engagement policies.

The UN High-level Dialogue on Energy (HLDE) resulted in the first-ever global roadmap for accelerating Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG7) and the announcement of over 160 Energy Compacts. These voluntary commitments from governments, businesses, and civil society include more than USD 400 billion in new finance and investment to address energy poverty and decarbonize energy systems. The dialogue established specific milestones for 2025 and 2030, including the phase-out of coal and the tripling of global renewable power capacity.

The report contends that Poland's proposed expansion of electricity-only gas plants is out of step with climate modelling and faces significant regulatory and financial risks from EU policies. It highlights that the EU's 'Fit for 55' package, the EU Methane Strategy, and the EU taxonomy could increase operational costs, restrict funding from the Modernisation Fund, and block financing for projects that do not meet strict emissions criteria. Modelling suggests Poland could meet electricity demand with a maximum gas capacity of 6 GW between 2025 and 2030, far less than currently planned, risking a lock-in of gas dependency beyond 2050.

The Climate Bonds Initiative proposes a certification framework to ensure corporate transitions are aligned with the Paris Agreement. The framework focuses on five hallmarks: Paris-aligned goals, robust plans, implementation action, internal monitoring, and external reporting. It distinguishes between 'Green Transition' (already aligned) and 'Interim Transition' (catching up) to provide clarity for investors and prevent greenwashing in the growing market of Sustainability-Linked Bonds (SLBs) and transition bonds.