Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that while 85% of the UK public recognizes human impact on climate change, significant gaps in understanding and a high prevalence of disinformation persist. 82% of respondents believe in at least one piece of climate disinformation, with common myths centering on the unaffordability of net zero and the inability of the electricity grid to support electric vehicles. Trust in corporate climate commitments is very low, with 91% of respondents not fully trusting brands to accurately portray their commitments. Social media is identified as the primary source of disinformation by 40% of the public.

The Climate Social Science Network has listed a group of scholars available for media consultation during COP 26. These experts, some attending in Glasgow and others available remotely, provide expertise across several key climate themes including climate finance, loss and damage, carbon markets, and the political dynamics of climate obstruction.

The document outlines how marketers can leverage their roles as storytellers to drive climate action, avoid working with fossil fuel clients, and implement sustainable production and communication practices.

Ember argues that the UK can achieve clean power by 2030 to combat inflation and energy price volatility. The organization identifies planning delays as a primary barrier and criticizes the economic efficiency and sustainability of biomass and BECCS subsidies.

A coalition of 624 global faith institutions argues that the continued expansion of fossil fuels threatens the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement and disproportionately harms vulnerable populations. The signatories call for a binding global treaty to end the expansion of coal, oil, and gas production and to facilitate a global just transition to 100% renewable energy, emphasizing the moral imperative of stewardship and equity.

The proposed Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty is based on three pillars: an immediate end to the expansion of new fossil fuel production, a fair phase-out of existing production aligned with the 1.5 target, and a global just transition to ensure support for affected workers and communities. The initiative argues that current 'net zero' plans often fail to address fossil fuels and that a rapid global exit is possible because renewable energy resources are sufficient to meet global demand.

The report argues that 'nature-based solutions' and carbon offsetting schemes promoted by governments and over 1,500 large companies are 'false climate solutions' that risk causing mass land grabbing and dispossession. It highlights that the land requirements for corporate net-zero promises are immense, citing examples from Nestlé and Shell. The document further asserts that these mechanisms benefit agribusiness, fossil fuel, and tech companies while forcing small-scale farmers into intensive practices, ultimately threatening to co-opt and weaken agroecology, which is presented as the genuine transformative alternative for food production and climate cooling.

The report argues that 'nature-based solutions' and carbon offsetting used by corporations to achieve 'net zero' goals lead to land grabbing and the dispossession of indigenous and rural peoples. It highlights that the massive land requirements for these schemes—such as those proposed by Nestlé and Shell—threaten food sovereignty and risk co-opting agroecology, which the report presents as the only truly transformative way to produce food while cooling the planet.

The document outlines a legal case brought against Shell in The Hague, asserting that the company is responsible for approximately 1.8% of historical human-caused CO2 emissions and currently contributes around 1% of global annual emissions. The claimants argue that Shell has known about the dangers of climate change since the 1950s but continues to invest heavily in fossil fuels, including shale gas and tar sands, thereby breaching its legal duty of care under the Dutch Civil Code. The summons demands that Shell reduce its CO2 emissions by at least 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050, based on IPCC scenarios, claiming that Shell's own 2017 ambition of a 50% reduction in carbon intensity by 2050 is inadequate.

The fact sheet criticizes the adoption of "nature-based solutions" by over 1,500 companies, asserting that these strategies allow firms to maintain polluting business models while claiming "net zero" targets. It highlights Shell and Nestlé as examples of companies using carbon offsets to mask continued emissions and environmental damage. The document advocates for "real zero emissions" through the cessation of fossil fuel extraction and the support of agroecology and community-led forest management led by indigenous peoples and local communities.

The document critiques the framing of 'nature-based solutions' (NbS) as compatible with agroecology, asserting that NbS are instead used by corporate and financial interests to maintain industrial agriculture and create speculative assets. It contrasts agroecology's holistic, emancipatory approach with the NbS model, which focuses on carbon sequestration to justify 'net zero' distractions and the continued use of fossil fuels and synthetic inputs. The text highlights how NbS can lead to land grabs and the marginalization of small-scale producers, opposing the goals of land reform and food sovereignty.

The fact sheet critiques the adoption of 'nature based solutions' (NBS) by over 1,500 corporations, asserting that these strategies allow companies to maintain fossil fuel use and industrial growth under the guise of 'net zero' commitments. It highlights Shell's plan to plant trees on an area nearly the size of Brazil and Nestlé's reliance on offsetting to mask projected growth in animal product sourcing. The document contrasts these corporate approaches with community-led solutions like agroecology and community forest management, which it describes as essential for climate justice and food sovereignty.

The fact sheet contrasts agroecology with 'nature based solutions' (NBS), asserting that NBS serves as a tool for agribusinesses and the finance sector to commodify nature and carbon. It claims that NBS focuses on narrow carbon sequestration metrics and specific practices like no-till farming to preserve corporate control, whereas agroecology seeks systemic change, food sovereignty, and land redistribution. The document warns that NBS integrates nature into corporate profit chains and provides carbon credits that allow fossil fuel corporations to pursue 'net zero' instead of real zero emissions.

The document critiques soil carbon farming as a mechanism for corporations and governments to offset emissions without making deep cuts. It contends that these schemes entrench industrial farming, facilitate corporate data grabbing, and marginalize smallholder farmers and traditional knowledge. The author asserts that soil carbon sequestration is technically unreliable, often overestimated, and cannot compensate for the long-term impact of fossil fuel combustion.

The fact sheet critiques the use of 'nature-based solutions' by major corporations to achieve 'net zero' targets without abandoning fossil fuels or changing core business models. It highlights Shell's plan to plant forests the size of Brazil and Nestlé's reliance on offsets despite its contribution to deforestation. The document contrasts these corporate strategies with 'real solutions' led by Indigenous peoples and local communities, such as agroecology and community forest management, which prioritize ecological governance over the commodification of carbon.

The fact sheet critiques the trend of presenting agroecology as a subset of 'nature-based solutions' (NbS), asserting that this framing serves the interests of fossil fuel companies, agribusiness, and the financial sector. It argues that while agroecology seeks systemic change and social justice, NbS focuses narrowly on carbon capture to create new financial assets and 'green' credentials for industrial actors. The document highlights the incompatibility between the emancipatory goals of agroecology and the market-driven approach of NbS, which it claims facilitates land displacement and the continuation of destructive business models.

The report evaluates global deforestation and degradation trends against a 2030 target, noting that while some regions show modest declines, overall progress is insufficient. It highlights that only Tropical Asia is currently on track to meet the goal, and emphasizes that reforestation cannot compensate for the loss of primary forests in terms of carbon and biodiversity.

FSD Africa and Parhelion have launched an initiative to attract investment in geothermal energy in Kenya and Ethiopia by addressing high upfront drilling costs and risks. The programme introduces a Geothermal Risk Transfer facility to mitigate the risk of unviable wells and a training programme to build the capacity of local insurers in risk assessment and parametric insurance. Ten leading insurers have participated in the training, with GA Insurance planning to launch a geothermal risk insurance product within one to two years. The initiative aims to increase geothermal production by 500% in Ethiopia and 20% in Kenya, potentially creating 2,600 jobs and providing electricity to 5.25 million people.

Global Witness is calling for COP30 to address the climate and human rights impacts of the 'transition minerals' boom. The organization argues that the extraction of copper, cobalt, lithium, and rare earths is currently causing deforestation and destroying carbon sinks, which undermines net-zero goals. They propose that the UNFCCC formally endorse the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Expert Advisory Group (HLEAG) to develop binding international guidelines for responsible sourcing, protect vital carbon-storage ecosystems as 'no-go zones', and ensure the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of Indigenous peoples.

The report alleges that Brookfield Asset Management oversaw the deforestation of approximately 9,000 hectares of the Brazilian Cerrado between 2012 and 2021 across eight farms, subsequently selling these assets in a 'slash and sell' strategy. It further details a case where a Brookfield-controlled firm was fined R$800,000 for slave labour offences at Fazenda Colorado and an attempt to evict the Kayabí Indigenous community from ancestral lands in the Amazon via the company Agropecuaria Vale do Ximari. The document highlights a contradiction between these actions and the public roles of Brookfield Chair Mark Carney, a co-founder of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), and the firm's ESG policies. It argues that voluntary initiatives like GFANZ are insufficient and calls for mandatory government legislation on environmental and human rights due diligence for the financial sector.