Search Climate Insights Directory

Global energy transition investments reached a record USD 2.4 trillion in 2024, yet remain insufficient to meet the 1.5°C pathway. While solar PV and battery storage show strong growth, other technologies like wind and green hydrogen face significant headwinds. Investment is heavily concentrated in China and advanced economies, leaving least developed countries (LDCs) and Sub-Saharan Africa severely underfunded and dependent on international public finance.

The document identifies 14 distinct tactics of climate obstruction used during UNFCCC negotiations, ranging from overt rejection to subtle procedural delays. It argues that obstruction is unevenly distributed, with wealthier and fossil-fuel-producing nations exercising disproportionate influence. The brief maps these tactics across negotiation stages and predicts their likely application at COP30 in areas such as the Global Goal on Adaptation, fossil fuel phase-outs, and climate finance.

The 2025 Impact Report details the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative's progress in securing diplomatic support, engaging subnational governments, and conducting research to create a 1.5ºC-aligned mechanism for phasing out fossil fuels. Key achievements include the announcement of the First International Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels for April 2026, the addition of Cambodia and Saint Kitts and Nevis to the participating nations, and a resolution in support of the treaty passed by the IUCN. The initiative has grown to include 18 participating countries from the Global South, over 140 cities, and 4,200 civil society organizations.

The document critiques biodiversity offsetting and crediting mechanisms, asserting that they simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, facilitate greenwashing by corporations, and threaten the land rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. It argues that these market-based approaches are 'worse than nothing' because they provide an illusion of progress while bypassing the mitigation hierarchy. Instead, the authors advocate for transformational change, the redirection of harmful subsidies, and the provision of biodiversity finance through grants and direct access to Indigenous-led governance systems.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits, asserting that these mechanisms facilitate continued environmental destruction through 'greenwashing' and risk violating human rights. It argues that nature's complexity cannot be reduced to tradable units and suggests redirecting existing harmful subsidies toward indigenous-led conservation and direct grants instead of market-based instruments.

The document critiques biodiversity credits and offsets as illusory mechanisms that facilitate 'greenwashing' and allow destructive companies to avoid responsibility. It argues that these market-based tools simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, often leading to human rights violations, land grabbing, and the displacement of local communities. The text suggests that instead of market mechanisms, biodiversity should be funded by redirecting harmful subsidies and supporting indigenous-led governance.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits, describing them as 'false solutions' that facilitate continued environmental destruction through 'greenwashing'. It argues that these mechanisms simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, often fail to achieve actual ecological restoration, and risk causing human rights violations, including land grabbing and forced displacement of indigenous communities. The text advocates for transformative changes and direct funding—such as redirecting harmful subsidies—over market-based commodification of nature.

The report critiques debt-for-nature swaps as 'greenwashing' tools that benefit private creditors and international NGOs while stripping Global South countries of territorial control. It details how these financial instruments often replace old debt with new, higher-interest loans and divert funds into financial markets before they reach conservation projects. The document highlights specific cases in countries like Ecuador, Belize, and Gabon to illustrate the loss of sovereignty and the persistence of extractive industries. It concludes by calling for the cancellation of illegitimate debts and the recognition of the Global North's historical ecological debt to the South.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits as 'false solutions' that facilitate greenwashing and human rights violations while failing to restore ecosystems. It argues that these mechanisms allow companies to avoid responsibility for environmental destruction and suggests that funding for biodiversity should instead come from redirecting harmful subsidies and providing direct grants to indigenous-led initiatives.

The report critiques debt-for-nature swaps as 'green traps' that benefit creditors and international NGOs over debtor nations and local communities. It details how these mechanisms often replace old debts with new, more expensive loans, transfer territorial control to external actors, and encourage the commodification of nature. Through case studies in countries like Belize, Ecuador, and Gabon, the document illustrates the gap between promised conservation funds and actual spending, while highlighting the social costs, including the displacement of indigenous peoples. The author calls for the cancellation of illegitimate debts and the recognition of the North's ecological debt to the South.

The document critiques debt-for-nature swaps (DNS) as a 'green trap' that fails to provide real debt relief or effective conservation. It argues that these mechanisms, particularly recent market-based 'blue bonds', transfer territorial control to international NGOs and private actors, often imposing higher interest rates and restrictive conditionalities. The report highlights how sovereign debt forces Global South countries into extractivist models to generate foreign currency, and calls for the cancellation of illegitimate debts and the recognition of the North's ecological debt to the South.

The fact sheet 'Renewables done right' by Friends of the Earth International advocates for a systemic shift in the energy transition to avoid replicating the extractive harms of fossil fuels. It argues that renewable energy must be treated as a common good, emphasizing energy sufficiency, community ownership, and the protection of land rights. Through case studies in India, Argentina, Palestine, and Scotland, the document illustrates the risks of large-scale corporate projects—such as land grabbing and water scarcity—and proposes alternatives like circular systems, decentralized ownership, and the implementation of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

The document argues that carbon markets are 'false climate solutions' that enable big polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases through 'greenwashing' while causing land grabbing and human rights violations in the Global South. It details how carbon credits are generated from nature-based solutions and 'techno-fixes', warns communities about deceptive contracts and the failure of industry 'safeguards', and provides a framework for resistance based on climate justice and the right to say no.

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 document is a training guide designed to move beyond a simple replacement of fossil fuels with renewables, advocating instead for a systemic change based on energy justice. It structures learning into three phases: 'Discover' (focusing on energy sufficiency and extractivism), 'Define' (conceptualizing just transitions), and 'Develop' (exploring circular systems and community-owned energy). The manual highlights the risks of 'green extractivism' and 'narrative injustice,' where climate goals are used to justify the expropriation of land and resources in the Global South. It provides case studies of community energy projects in Gambia, Denmark, Brazil, and the UK to illustrate scalable models of popular power and energy sovereignty.

The report examines how voluntary sustainability initiatives (VSIs) in the mining sector address forest risks. It finds that while VSIs are growing in membership and scope, they often lack biome-specific language, fail to address the full mining lifecycle, and suffer from governance gaps and weak market incentives. The analysis of 20 VSIs reveals that about half do not explicitly recognize forest impacts. The report argues that VSIs must move beyond broad sustainability language to integrate specific criteria and collaborate with governments to raise regulatory baselines to effectively protect forests, especially as demand for energy transition minerals increases.

The report details the outcomes of the FSD Network Conference held in Nairobi, Kenya, in February 2025. It examines the impact of gender-responsive financial systems, the use of alternative credit scoring, the influence of societal gender norms on financial autonomy, and the role of digital public infrastructure and AI in bridging the gender gap in financial services across Africa.

The report outlines a strategic framework to strengthen Africa's financial stability by combining a regional liquidity facility (MASF) with a flexible budgetary governance pact (PASC). The MASF is designed to provide rapid, concessional liquidity to counter exogenous shocks, including climate-related disruptions, while the PASC encourages national budgetary discipline through peer accountability and tailored rules. Together, they aim to reduce dependence on external donors and improve market credibility through a phased implementation starting with a pilot phase between 2025 and 2027.