Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines the 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation' (REDD) framework, highlighting how its implementation often prioritizes corporate profit and carbon market volatility over the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Through case studies in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Paraguay, it illustrates risks such as 'leakage', the displacement of forest-dependent populations, and the lack of genuine free, prior, and informed consent. The report concludes that REDD should be decoupled from carbon markets and instead focus on reducing demand for agricultural commodities and timber while rewarding those who have historically conserved forests.

The report critiques the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) framework, highlighting how its implementation often leads to the marginalization of indigenous communities and the privatization of forest resources. Through case studies in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Paraguay, it argues that REDD is being used by transnational energy companies to 'greenwash' their images while continuing fossil fuel extraction. The document warns that linking REDD to unstable carbon markets and allowing monoculture plantations may undermine actual emission reductions and exacerbate land conflicts.

The report critiques 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries' (REDD), claiming it risks exacerbating inequality and privatizing forest resources. It highlights how energy companies use REDD for greenwashing while continuing fossil fuel extraction. Through case studies in Indonesia, Mexico, Paraguay, and others, the document illustrates failures in community consultation, the risk of 'leakage' where deforestation simply shifts location, and the danger of including monoculture plantations in carbon accounting. It concludes that REDD should be decoupled from volatile carbon markets and instead based on public funding and the recognition of Indigenous land rights.

The report critiques the 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries' (REDD) mechanism, highlighting how it can exacerbate inequality and privatize forest resources. Through case studies in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Paraguay, it demonstrates that REDD projects often exclude indigenous communities from decision-making and serve as a 'greenwash' for fossil fuel and logging companies. The document warns that without reducing demand for agricultural commodities and timber, REDD may lead to 'leakage,' where deforestation simply shifts to other areas, rendering the mechanism ineffective for global climate mitigation.

The report examines the jatropha biofuel industry in Mozambique, challenging the 'myths' that the crop grows well on marginal lands, requires minimal water, and is pest-resistant. It finds that both small-scale and industrial plantations typically occupy fertile arable land and often fail to meet promised yields. The document highlights risks to food security, as subsistence farmers replace food crops with jatropha, and reports widespread land grabbing facilitated by government corruption and the manipulation of the 1997 Land Law. It concludes that jatropha is not a viable development tool for Mozambique and recommends halting its support until food sovereignty is guaranteed.

The report challenges the narrative that jatropha is a 'miracle crop' for Mozambique, finding that it requires fertile land and significant water, is vulnerable to pests that can spread to food crops, and often leads to land grabbing and economic instability for subsistence farmers.

The report investigates the reality of jatropha production in Mozambique, challenging the narrative that it is a sustainable 'miracle crop' for marginal lands. Through case studies and interviews, it finds that jatropha is typically grown on fertile land, displacing food crops and endangering food security for the 87% of Mozambicans who are subsistence farmers. The document highlights significant failures in industrial projects, including low yields, high pest vulnerability, and broken promises of community development. It also criticizes the Mozambican government for manipulating land laws to favor foreign investors, leading to land grabs and the marginalization of local communities.

The report argues that GM crops are primarily grown for animal feed and fuels rather than human food, and that industry claims regarding yield increases and climate change mitigation are unsupported by evidence. It highlights the rise of herbicide-resistant 'super weeds' in the US and the Southern Cone, the displacement of indigenous communities, and the risks of corporate seed monopolies. The document advocates for agro-ecology as a sustainable alternative to the industrial GM model.

The report challenges the narrative that genetically modified (GM) crops are a solution to global hunger and climate change, asserting that they primarily benefit biotechnology corporations. It argues that GM crops have not increased yields, have led to an increase in pesticide use due to the emergence of 'super-weeds,' and are often used for animal feed and biofuels rather than human consumption. The document highlights the concentration of market power in companies like Monsanto and describes the negative socio-environmental impacts in the Southern Cone of South America, including deforestation and the displacement of indigenous communities. It concludes that agroecology offers a more sustainable and effective alternative for climate adaptation and food sovereignty.

The report challenges the claims of the biotechnology industry, specifically the ISAAA, regarding the success and benefits of GM crops. It argues that GM plants are primarily used for animal feed and biofuels rather than human nutrition and that they lead to increased pesticide use, soil degradation, and the displacement of indigenous peoples. The document specifically critiques the 'climate scam'—the claim that GM crops can mitigate climate change through carbon sequestration or drought resistance—and proposes agroecology as a sustainable alternative.

The document defines environmental justice as the right to healthy living environments and a fair share of nature's benefits. It argues that the poorest populations are disproportionately affected by environmental damage and climate change, while the wealthiest are most responsible. Friends of the Earth advocates for 'climate justice,' where rich countries lead in carbon cuts and fund adaptation for poorer nations. The text highlights specific case studies of its work, including fighting oil pollution in Nigeria, uranium mining in Australia, and urban planning issues in the UK.

The document asserts that tree plantations are uniform agricultural systems that cause biodiversity loss, community displacement, and hydrological alteration. It criticizes the use of these plantations as carbon sinks under the Kyoto Protocol, arguing that such schemes provide a 'fictional solution' to climate change while benefiting transnational corporations. The paper further denounces international organizations like the FAO for legitimizing plantations by classifying them as forests.

The World Bank is criticized as a major climate polluter that uses its role in climate finance to maintain developed country control over developing nations. Despite its rhetoric, the Bank continues to fund carbon-intensive projects, such as a $3.75 billion coal plant loan to South Africa, and promotes flawed carbon offsetting and forest conservation schemes. The report contrasts the World Bank's donor-controlled Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) with the more equitable, grant-based UNFCCC Adaptation Fund, calling for a transition to a Global Climate Fund accountable to the Conference of Parties.

The report examines the surge in land acquisitions across Africa for agrofuel production, driven largely by EU mandatory targets for renewable transport fuels. It finds that approximately 5 million hectares of land have been acquired for fuel crops, often without community consent. The document argues that these 'land grabs' threaten food security by competing with food crops for fertile land and water, while providing minimal local employment. Environmental impacts include deforestation in the Congo Basin and habitat loss in Ethiopia's Babile Elephant Sanctuary. The report concludes that agrofuels are often exported for international profit rather than providing local energy security, leaving African nations with depleted natural resources.

The report argues that the expansion of agrofuels in Africa, driven largely by European Union mandates, leads to 'neo-colonialism' where land is acquired by foreign companies and governments. This process results in the displacement of local farmers, increased food insecurity, and significant ecological damage, including deforestation and water scarcity. The document highlights the 'myth of marginal lands,' asserting that land claimed as unused is often vital for communal survival. It recommends halting land acquisitions, prioritizing food sovereignty, and ensuring the free, prior, and informed consent of local communities.

The report details the financial structure of Stora Enso as of late 2009, noting that shareholders and bondholders are the primary sources of capital. It identifies key institutional investors, banks providing loans, and the company's participation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

The report examines the environmental, social, and economic impacts of unconventional oil extraction, focusing on tar sands and oil shale. It highlights that these resources produce significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil and cause severe local ecological damage, such as boreal forest destruction in Canada. The document criticizes the EU's Fuel Quality Directive for potentially underestimating the carbon intensity of these fuels and urges the EU to discourage their import and investment. It also details the involvement of European companies in projects across Venezuela, Madagascar, Congo, Russia, Jordan, and Morocco, warning that such developments in countries with weak governance risk exacerbating the 'resource curse' and undermining Millennium Development Goals.

The report argues that the EU's voluntary lobby registration system is fundamentally flawed, allowing major corporations to under-report or entirely omit their lobbying activities. By comparing EU register data with the mandatory US system and European Parliament access records, the study finds that 40% of the top 50 EU companies are absent from the register, and many that are registered declare unfeasibly low budgets that do not align with their corporate size or their higher spending in the USA.

The report finds that IOI Corporation is failing to meet its sustainability commitments in Ketapang, West Kalimantan. Evidence shows the company developed plantations without approved Environmental Impact Assessments, made fraudulent statements about physical activity on the ground, and encroached on permanent forests and peat lands. Additionally, the report notes a significant increase in fire hotspots in newly cleared areas and potential for land rights conflicts with local villagers.

The executive summary argues that REDD mechanisms are flawed because they focus on reducing emissions rather than stopping deforestation, potentially rewarding polluters and harming Indigenous Peoples. It warns that funding REDD through carbon offsetting undermines climate mitigation in industrialized nations and risks displacing forest-dependent communities. The author advocates for grant-based funding, the exclusion of plantations from forest definitions, and a rights-based approach to forest conservation.