Search Climate Insights Directory

Friends of the Earth International calls for a transition from 'Dirty Energy'—including fossil fuels, nuclear power, and large-scale hydropower—to decentralized, people-centered community energy. The statement criticizes 'false solutions' like BECCS and carbon offsets, highlighting the disproportionate responsibility of the global North for emissions and the need for a just transition that includes significant financial flows to the global South.

The report identifies that Canada remains a significant provider of oil and gas subsidies within the G7. It details various federal tax deductions and direct funding programs for the industry, noting that while some subsidies appeared to decrease between 2015 and 2016, this was largely due to low oil prices and accounting practices rather than complete elimination. The authors argue that these fiscal supports create a risk of stranded assets and undermine the transition to renewable energy.

The document outlines a dialogue between stakeholders on the necessity of a managed decline of Canada's oil and gas sector to avoid the economic and social disruptions of an unmanaged collapse. It emphasizes that climate leadership for wealthy fossil fuel producers requires ending production expansion and implementing supply-side policies. Key discussions focus on the need for a dedicated transition fund, the reform of fossil fuel subsidies and Alberta's low royalty regimes, and the importance of participatory planning that protects workers and communities. The paper argues that a comprehensive policy portfolio—combining demand-side carbon pricing with supply-side production limits—is essential for Canada to meet its global fair share of emissions reductions.

The document criticizes G7 nations for continuing to provide approximately $100 billion annually in fossil fuel subsidies despite commitments to phase them out since 2009. It highlights the contradiction between these subsidies and the goals of the Paris Agreement and carbon pricing, specifically citing Canada's recent investment in oil pipeline nationalization to increase tar sand exports.

This policy brief examines the economic resilience of Canada's oil sands and the resulting 'carbon lock-in,' arguing that continued production could create a global oil oversupply that hinders the low-carbon transition and undermines international climate action.

The document argues that existing Canadian oil sands projects are 'locked in' because their low operating costs make them resilient to oil price drops. This resilience may lead to a global oversupply of oil, which slows the transition to low-carbon energy outside Canada. The author estimates that limiting Canadian oil production to current levels (1.5 billion barrels annually) instead of following projected growth to 2.1 billion barrels by 2030 could avoid 50 to 150 million tonnes of CO2 globally. The brief suggests that managing oil production levels could have a climate impact comparable to Canada's domestic sectoral emission reductions under the Pan-Canadian Framework.

Milieudefensie, an association representing 80,000 members, asserts that Royal Dutch Shell plc is legally liable for its substantial contribution to global climate change. The document claims Shell has been aware of the causal link between fossil fuels and global warming since at least 1986, yet continues to prioritize oil and gas growth over sustainable energy. Milieudefensie demands that Shell align its investment decisions with the Paris Agreement, phase out oil and gas production, and reduce scope 3 emissions to zero by 2050. The letter argues that Shell's current strategy—which assumes fossil fuels will meet over 50% of energy demand by 2050—is unlawful under Dutch law and violates human rights. It further alleges that Shell has engaged in misleading PR and lobbying to obstruct climate policies in the EU and US.

Friends of the Earth International asserts that the current global energy model, dominated by fossil fuels and corporate-led 'false solutions', is driving a planetary emergency. The statement criticizes the Paris Agreement as insufficient and legally unenforceable, calling for urgent emission reductions by wealthy nations and a shift toward decentralized, community-led energy systems.

The statement by Friends of the Earth International characterizes the current climate situation as a 'planetary emergency' and criticizes the Paris Agreement for lacking legal enforcement and science-based cuts. It calls for the immediate end of fossil fuels—noting that over 1600 new coal plants are planned in 62 countries—and warns against 'false solutions' such as nuclear power and large-scale hydroelectric projects. The document advocates for a just transition where developed countries, whose 10% population is responsible for 50% of emissions, lead deep cuts and fund sustainable development in the global South. It promotes decentralized, people-centered community energy, agroecology, and community forest management as the only viable future.

Friends of the Earth International calls for a global movement to replace the centralized fossil fuel industry and other harmful energy sources—including nuclear power and large hydroelectric dams—with community-centered, sustainable energy. The statement asserts that the Paris Agreement is insufficient to limit warming to 1.5 degrees and demands that developed nations, responsible for the majority of emissions, lead emission reductions and provide financial support to the Global South.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) asserts that NAFTA has historically expanded resource-intensive industries and weakened regulations through investor protections. In Mexico, this has led to increased factory farming, toxic pollution from maquiladoras, and extensive mining activities. In Canada, the agreement's proportionality clause has supported the expansion of tar sands oil and other carbon-intensive energy. CIEL advocates for a new trade system that eliminates fossil fuel subsidies, removes the investor-state dispute settlement system, and prioritizes the precautionary principle and climate safeguards.

The report examines the lifecycle emissions of major transportation fuels, finding that while electricity and biofuels are becoming cleaner, oil is becoming more polluting due to the shift toward unconventional sources like tar sands and fracking. It advocates for the 'Half the Oil' plan to reduce U.S. oil use by 50% by 2035 and calls for greater corporate accountability, transparency in emissions reporting, and a shift toward renewable electricity and non-food biofuels.

The report argues that while vehicle tailpipe emissions are decreasing due to efficiency gains, the overall climate impact of gasoline is rising because the oil industry is shifting toward more energy-intensive and polluting extraction and refining methods. It highlights the high emissions from depleted wells, tight oil (fracking), and tar sands, and calls for increased transparency, the elimination of routine flaring, and a transition to cleaner fuels to reduce the projected 100 billion barrels of oil consumption between 2015 and 2035.

The report argues that CETA fails to be a 'gold standard' for the environment, citing weak enforcement of environmental commitments, the risks posed by the Investment Court System (ICS), and the potential for increased imports of carbon-intensive tar sands oil. It highlights a lack of transparency in negotiations and suggests that the agreement's regulatory cooperation and domestic regulation chapters could hinder the EU's ability to implement ambitious climate and environmental policies.

The document examines the impacts of coal, oil, gas, and megadams across Africa, highlighting how these 'dirty energy' sources drive climate change and cause severe social and health crises. It details specific cases, such as South Africa's coal reliance, Uganda's oil expansion, and Mozambique's megadams, while warning against the 'extreme energy' frontier of fracking and tar sands. The briefing concludes that African governments must reject these outdated pathways in favor of decentralized, sustainable energy systems supported by climate finance from developed nations.

The document examines the impacts of 'dirty energy' (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, industrial biomass, mega-dams, and waste incineration) across Africa. It highlights how these technologies drive climate change, cause severe health and environmental damage, and often benefit elites and multinational corporations over local populations. The report provides case studies on coal in South Africa, oil in Nigeria and Uganda, mega-dams in Mozambique, and the risks of 'extreme energy' like fracking and bitumen extraction in the Maghreb and Nigeria. It concludes by calling for 'energy sovereignty' and a just transition to decentralized, renewable energy systems.

The document examines the impacts of 'polluting energy'—including fossil fuels, industrial biomass, and large dams—across Africa. It highlights how these systems often benefit elites and corporations while leaving local populations to face health crises, land grabbing, and climate vulnerability. Specific case studies focus on South Africa's coal dependency, oil extraction in Nigeria and Uganda, the influence of European energy policies in the Maghreb, and the social and environmental costs of large dams in Mozambique. The report concludes that African nations must avoid 'locking in' obsolete polluting technologies and instead pursue energy sovereignty through decentralized renewables.

The document highlights a growing problem where U.S. transportation fuels are becoming 'dirtier' as oil companies shift toward unconventional sources like tar sands and use high-emission extraction methods such as fracking. It argues that while vehicle efficiency has improved by 20 percent, these gains are undermined by the increasing emissions associated with extracting and refining oil, which can vary from less than 50 to 250 kilograms of CO2e per barrel. To counter this, the report advocates for eliminating wasteful practices like flaring, requiring better emissions disclosure, and shifting toward advanced biofuels made from wastes and perennial grasses. It also emphasizes the role of electric vehicles, noting that their climate benefit depends on the grid; for example, charging an EV in California produces only 35 percent of the emissions of a conventional vehicle.

Carroll Muffett of the Center for International Environmental Law criticizes TransCanada's use of the Investment Chapter of NAFTA to sue the United States for over $15 billion, citing this as evidence that investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) allows corporations to bypass democratic decisions made in the public interest, specifically regarding the Keystone XL pipeline.

The document calls for the total abandonment of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) following stalled negotiations in Hawaii. It argues that the TPP is a "trojan horse deal" that threatens public health by increasing medicine prices and undermines environmental regulations to protect "free trade" in dirty energy products like tar sands oil. The author highlights the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism as a tool for corporations to sue governments for environmental protections, citing a case where Gabriel Resources sought arbitration against Romania. The text concludes that the TPP's environment chapter is "totally inadequate" and encourages public pressure during upcoming elections in Canada and the US to stop the agreement.