ClimateFRAUD

Unmasking Climate Deception: The ClimateFraud Framework

ClimateFRAUD is a draft framework that can be used to identify false solutions proposed in the context of the climate and nature emergency (CNE). It was originally created by the Federation of the Huni Kui Indigenous Peoples of Acre, in the Amazon, and collaboratively redesigned in the context of the Moving With Storms CNE Program of the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, at the University of British Columbia.

The draft framework spotlights not just the actions of governments, corporations, and NGOs, but also those of the broader public. Many of these actions seemingly offer solutions, but in reality, they perpetuate a reckless, violent and unsustainable economic system. This system, founded on exponential growth, extraction, and overconsumption, has been responsible for dispossession, destitution, genocides, and ecocides, and is now placing humanity on the path of premature extinction.

It is not rocket science: if our economic system exceeds the planet’s boundaries, the system must be overhauled. Simply put, the market and the paradigms that have created and that exacerbate the problem ultimately cannot save us from climate disaster or ecological devastation.

The ClimateFRAUD draft framework challenges the prevalent narratives of techno-solutionism and greenwashing, urging us to question the allure of quick fixes that fail to address the systemic root causes of the massive challenges we are facing as a species. We are piloting the draft framework until October 30, 2023 and we invite your feedback on its relevance and use below.

C – Carbon colonialism: the appropriation of land and resources in the Global South to fulfill the carbon dioxide reduction demands of the Global North. Under the guise of carbon offsetting, the Global North perpetuates business-as-usual practices of exploitation, extraction, and expropriation, effectively treating the Global South as a carbon dump. This unequal arrangement allows wealthy nations to avoid and evade their responsibilities for reducing emissions while further burdening vulnerable communities in the Global South with the consequences of climate change and environmental degradation.

L – Land-grabbing: the unjust acquisition or occupation of land and natural resources for purported climate initiatives, such as green energy projects. This often happens without meaningful engagement with affected communities, particularly Indigenous and local peoples, without their free, prior, and informed consent, and without adequate protections and government oversight. Land grabbing results in displacement and often forced labor, as well as threats to cultural sites and traditions, including traditional ways of land management that also protect long-term food sovereignty. This dynamic creates “green sacrifice zones” that perpetuate environmental racism and contribute to energy inequity. 

I – Indigenous cooptation: the strategic mobilization of Indigenous individuals and groups by governments and corporations to endorse deceptive climate solutions, aiming to appease criticism from Indigenous communities advocating for genuine ecological protection. This pattern involves manipulating community engagement or leaders to prioritize and emphasize the short-term financial benefits of false solutions while obscuring and downplaying the externalized and future risks and costs of these initiatives.

M – Mandatory growth and consumerism: the perpetuation of endless economic growth and consumerism as non-negotiable components of what are deemed acceptable climate “solutions”. This pattern reflects a deeply ingrained belief that growth and consumption are indispensable for underwriting societal progress and well-being, despite the evident consequences of overshooting the planet’s ecological limits.

A – Absurd promises of carbon sequestration: The propagation of unrealistic and exaggerated claims surrounding large-scale carbon sequestration technologies. By promoting carbon sequestration as a panacea for the problem of carbon emissions, this pattern diverts attention from the critical need to address emissions at their source, thereby hindering meaningful climate action and perpetuating the status quo of unsustainable economic growth and consumption.

T – Toxic hope in (and desire for) the continuity of violent and unsustainable systems: the detrimental belief in the possibility of sustaining the current trajectory of existing systems and institutions through minor fixes and superficial measures, perpetuating the illusion of a sustainable future. Toxic hope focuses on superficial measures while ignoring or deferring necessary transformative changes in societal values and behaviours, preventing meaningful movement towards addressing the climate and biodiversity crises at their roots and leaving people unequipped to face the difficult and painful dimensions of reality.

E – Externalization of costs: the unethical practice of shifting environmental and social burdens onto systemically marginalized communities so that systemically advantaged communities can continue their existing consumption levels without consequence. This can be seen in the mining of minerals for green technologies, carbon trading, green energy projects like hydropower dams and wind farms that disrupt fragile ecosystems and food sources, and e-waste disposal in the Global South. It can also be seen in extending timeframes and deferring action addressing the crisis that disproportionately threatens systematically marginalized communities.

F – Financialization of nature: the commodification, monetization, and commercialization of nature, treating it solely as a financial asset for profit. This pattern prioritizes economic gains over genuine environmental protection and perpetuates the harmful separation of humans from nature. Many Indigenous communities attribute the climate and biodiversity crises to this imposed sense of separation and the reduction of nature to mere property to be owned and exploited by humans.

R – Regulatory loopholes: the crafty exploitation of gaps in government regulations and policies that enable companies to sidestep their responsibilities and evade the necessary actions to meaningfully address their contributions to the climate crisis. For instance, some corporations may take advantage of weak emissions reporting requirements, allowing them to understate their environmental impact and continue business as usual without making substantial changes.

A – Arrogant technosolutionism and technosalvationism: the unwarranted confidence in technological solutions as the sole answer to the complex challenges posed by the climate and biodiversity crises, disregarding the necessity for comprehensive systemic changes. Emphasizing technology in depoliticized ways without addressing historical and systemic inequalities and broader social, economic, and cultural issues perpetuates the notion that quick-fix solutions can single-handedly address the complexities of these crises, while reinforcing the objectification and instrumentalization of nature.

U – Ubiquitous greenwashing: Represents the pervasive practice of using deceptive environmental claims to present governments, corporations and organizations as environmentally friendly, while substantial changes to their practices remain lacking. Greenwashing is a marketing tactic to improve a public image while preventing the cultural shifts that are necessary to interrupt the continuity of violent and unsustainable systems.

D – Distorted narratives and deceptive claims: Denotes the intentional manipulation of information and communication to present a distorted view of climate-related issues, policies, or technologies. Astroturf organizations, as a significant manifestation of this pattern, are deliberately formed or financially supported to simulate grassroots movements and public support for specific climate policies or technologies, including obfuscating systemic harm with tokenistic claims of intersectional empowerment (eg. claiming to empower women entrepreneurs). Employing various tactics, such as paid social media campaigns, fake online personas, and orchestrated letter-writing campaigns, these astroturf groups aim to create the illusion of widespread backing while concealing their true origins and motivations.

See also:

• Hoodwinked in the Hothouse
• Confronting colonialism in the climate agenda
• Moving With Storms
• Rainforest carbon credit schemes misleading and ineffective, finds report (The Guardian)
• HEADS UP Acronym/Tool
• No to CO2lonialism

We invite you to take the framework for a test drive and to offer your feedback below by October 30, 2023.