Search Climate Insights Directory

Friends of the Earth International and a coalition of social movements denounce the 'Responsible Agricultural Investment' (RAI) principles promoted by the World Bank and other international agencies. The document asserts that these voluntary guidelines serve as a 'moral facade' for financial speculation and corporate land grabbing, which lead to forced evictions, water privatization, and the destruction of small-scale farming. It calls for the immediate suspension of land grabs, the return of stolen lands, and a transition toward food sovereignty based on agroecological methods and genuine land reform.

This report by Friends of the Earth International documents community struggles and successes in maintaining food sovereignty and biodiversity across diverse geographic contexts. It examines the negative impacts of industrial monocultures, corporate land grabs, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) while promoting agroecology, seed saving, and community-based forest management as sustainable alternatives. The text emphasizes the role of women and indigenous peoples in protecting ecosystems and argues that food sovereignty is unattainable without the preservation of biological diversity.

The report documents the negative impacts of Holcim's cement and mining activities in Latin America, focusing on the destruction of aquifers and landscapes, air pollution, and health crises. It highlights the use of 'co-processing' to incinerate hazardous waste and criticizes the role of Free Trade Agreements and international arbitration (CIADI) in protecting corporate interests over community rights. Specific cases include the criminalization of Maya Kaqchikel communities in Guatemala, the degradation of the Tunjuelo River in Bogotá, and neurotoxic acrylates emissions in Mexico. The document concludes by detailing a 2010 complaint filed against Holcim at the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal in Madrid.

The report argues that the GM crop industry is built on unsubstantiated claims and that the technology primarily benefits biotech corporations rather than farmers or consumers. It documents rising public and legal opposition in Europe, the US, and Asia, while highlighting the environmental and health risks associated with herbicide-tolerant crops and the emergence of 'superweeds'. The document also examines the push for GM animals and the influence of the US government and the Gates Foundation in promoting GMOs in Africa and Latin America, often at the expense of local food sovereignty.

The report argues that the GM crop industry exaggerates benefits and suppresses evidence of harm. It documents a global trend of public and legal rejection, including the reduction of GM acreage in Europe and court rulings against Monsanto in the US. The text highlights the increased use of agrotóxicos, specifically glyphosate, and the risks of new GM animals like salmon and pigs. It further criticizes the influence of the US government and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in promoting GM technologies in Africa and Latin America, which the authors claim threatens traditional agricultural practices and food sovereignty.

The document alleges that Royal Dutch Shell uses inflated and unverified statistics to attribute the majority of oil spills in the Niger Delta to sabotage, thereby avoiding liability for compensation and deflecting criticism of its environmental and human rights record. The complainants, Amnesty International and Friends of the Earth, argue that Shell's data is biased, lacks independent verification, and in several documented cases, contradicts joint investigation findings that pointed to equipment failure or corrosion.

The document critiques carbon markets, specifically the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), as tools that perpetuate dependence on fossil fuels and facilitate 'carbon colonialism'. It highlights how offsetting allows rich nations to outsource their climate responsibilities to developing countries, often resulting in human rights violations, land grabbing, and the funding of projects like coal plants or gas flaring. The author advocates for a systemic transformation based on energy efficiency, renewable energy, and public climate finance instead of market-based mechanisms.

The document outlines four decades of activism by Friends of the Earth International, highlighting specific successes in banning commercial whaling in Spain, prohibiting open-pit mining in Costa Rica, and establishing the first climate change law in the UK. It details diverse campaigns against coal power in Germany, oil pollution in Nigeria, and genetically modified organisms in Europe, while emphasizing the role of grassroots mobilization and legal action in achieving environmental protections and human rights.

This report highlights the achievements of Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) over four decades, detailing specific campaigns against extractive industries, pollution, and unsustainable development. It documents legal victories, such as the ban on open-pit mining in Costa Rica and the recognition of water as a human right in Uruguay, as well as grassroots successes in reforestation in Belgium and the protection of eucalyptus forests in Australia. The text emphasizes the role of international solidarity and legal action in challenging neoliberal globalization and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.

The report documents various environmental and social justice campaigns led by Friends of the Earth (FoE) member groups across the globe. Key achievements include the 2008 UK Climate Change Act, a ban on open-pit metal mining in Costa Rica (2010), and the cessation of commercial whaling in Spain (1985). The document also details ongoing resistance against coal-fired power plants in Germany and Scotland, gas flaring in Nigeria, and the impact of large-scale dams in Mozambique, South Korea, and the Philippines. It emphasizes a strategy of combining grassroots mobilization, legal challenges, and international solidarity to combat corporate globalization and protect indigenous and community rights.

The report challenges the 'miracle crop' narrative of jatropha, presenting ten reasons why industrial-scale plantations fail. It argues that jatropha requires fertile land, significant water, and chemical inputs to be productive, contradicting claims that it thrives on marginal land. This leads to competition with food production, displacement of local communities, and biodiversity loss. Economically, the report highlights a pattern of failed investment projects and unrealistic yield promises. Environmentally, it asserts that land-use change for jatropha can increase carbon emissions, undermining its purpose as a climate solution.

The document outlines ten reasons why jatropha is an unsustainable investment, noting that yields are often lower than claimed and the crop requires significant water and fertile land rather than thriving on marginal soils. It highlights negative impacts including the displacement of local communities, loss of biodiversity, and competition with food production. The text concludes that large-scale plantations are not economically viable and may increase greenhouse gas emissions due to land-use change.

The report criticizes the Copenhagen Accord for promoting private finance and market mechanisms over binding public commitments. It highlights how investment banks like Barclays and Santander, and companies like Shell and Lafarge, use carbon trading and REDD projects to generate profit or 'greenwash' their images. The authors advocate for a transition to climate justice, proposing a 'Robin Hood Tax' on financial transactions and the replacement of REDD with UN-wide negotiations to stop deforestation.

The document criticizes the 'Copenhagen Accord' for shifting the burden of climate action to developing nations and promoting private finance over public obligations. It highlights how global banks like Barclays and Santander, and corporations like Shell and Lafarge, use carbon markets and REDD projects for 'greenwashing' and profit. The report concludes that climate finance should be mandatory, public, and managed by the UN to ensure it serves the most vulnerable populations rather than corporate interests.

The document critiques carbon trading as an unreliable mechanism that shifts the burden of mitigation to developing countries and benefits the Northern financial industry. It proposes a comprehensive package of alternatives: for mitigation, it suggests global feed-in tariffs for renewables, energy efficiency standards, sustainable small-scale agriculture, and the protection of Indigenous forest rights. For climate finance, it identifies a potential US$420 billion per year in new funding through a global Financial Transaction Tax, cracking down on tax evasion, redirecting fossil-fuel producer subsidies, issuing new Special Drawing Rights, and implementing carbon and energy taxes.

The report critiques carbon trading as a 'risky, irresponsible and dangerous' tool that diverts attention from viable solutions. It proposes a comprehensive package of alternatives: investing US$100 billion annually in renewable energy feed-in tariffs, transitioning to small-scale sustainable agriculture, protecting forests by addressing drivers like agrofuels, and implementing international industrial standards for the 'best available technologies'. For climate finance, it suggests a combination of a global financial transaction tax, combating tax evasion, redirecting fossil fuel subsidies, issuing Special Drawing Rights, and implementing carbon and energy taxes, which could collectively provide at least US$420 billion annually for developing nations.

The report concludes that Shell Nigeria operates well below international 'good oil field practice' and is out of compliance with Nigerian law. It highlights a 'double standard' where Shell applies lower environmental and safety standards in Nigeria than in industrialized nations, resulting in chronic pollution in the Niger Delta. Key failures include delayed asset integrity reviews, inadequate leak detection, and poor spill response, while the Nigerian government's lack of oversight and its role as a joint venture partner further exacerbate the situation.

The report critiques carbon trading as a high-risk distraction that allows developed nations to avoid domestic emissions reductions and undermines the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. It proposes a comprehensive package of alternatives, including a global feed-in tariff for renewable energy, a transition to small-scale sustainable agriculture, and the implementation of common industrial standards for best available technology. To fund these transitions and support developing countries, the report suggests generating at least US$420 billion per year through a global financial transaction tax, cracking down on tax evasion, redirecting fossil-fuel producer subsidies, issuing new Special Drawing Rights, and implementing carbon and energy taxes.

The document critiques carbon trading as a 'dangerous obsession' that allows developed nations to avoid domestic emission reductions and fails to provide predictable financing for developing countries. It proposes a transition to a low-carbon economy through a 'Just Transition' framework, emphasizing the historical responsibility of rich nations. Key mitigation alternatives include a global feed-in tariff program for renewables, sustainable small-scale agriculture, and the adoption of 'Best Available Techniques' in industry. For financing, the report suggests a combination of a global financial transaction tax, combating tax evasion, redirecting fossil fuel subsidies, and issuing new Special Drawing Rights, estimating a potential for US$420 billion in annual new climate finance.

The report by Friends of the Earth examines nanotechnology's role in the energy transition, specifically in solar, wind, hydrogen, and battery technologies. It argues that the industry has "over-promised and under-delivered," noting that the energy required to manufacture nanomaterials often exceeds the savings they provide. The document highlights significant health risks, such as the potential for carbon nanotubes to cause mesothelioma, and environmental hazards, including the release of potent greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide from nano silver. It further criticizes the use of public funds to develop nanotechnology for expanded oil and gas extraction and warns that the technology may exacerbate global inequities through restrictive patenting and the dumping of nanowaste in the Global South.