7 Comments
User's avatar
[Missing Billions]'s avatar

Bezos is also supporting TFFF for whatever reasons.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-174014902

Chris Lang's avatar

Thanks for this. Is the Bezos Earth Fund (or Amazon) actually funding the Tropical Forests Forever Facility? Or are you referring to Zac Goldsmith's comment that "The TFFF is the only game in town for forest finance . . . " (Goldsmith is a Senior Fellow at the Bezos Earth Fund.)

https://clubmadrid.org/the-tropical-forest-forever-facility-showcases-global-progress-at-london-climate-week-2025/

Chris Lang's avatar

Thanks for clarifying!

Isn't it funny how Rainforest Foundation Norway's director echoes what Norway's minister of climate and environment says?

"TFFF has the potential to transform how we finance tropical forest protection. For it to succeed, it needs strong environmental and social safeguards, broad support from forest countries and indigenous peoples, and committed funding from both new and traditional donors."

Andreas Bjelland Eriksen

Minister of Climate and Environment, Norway

"TFFF is a groundbreaking initiative, not just for its ambition and scale, but also for how it will distribute funds. We strongly support the requirement that at least 20% of funding be allocated to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities - a recognition of their critical role in protecting the world's tropical forests."

Toerris Jaeger

Director of Rainforest Foundation Norway

It's almost as if the government is paying Rainforest Foundation Norway. Oh wait . . . in 2024, RFN received almost US$21 million from the Norwegian government, as well as about US$1.5 million from the Bezos Earth Fund. (https://dv719tqmsuwvb.cloudfront.net/documents/Annual-Accounts-2024.pdf.pdf)

True to Type with Pollyanna's avatar

Ouch. This is painful to read. The monetisation / capitalisation of everything is slowly sending me crazy. Someone sent me info about the Global Ethical Stocktake today. Perhaps looking at who we have become will lead to different paths being taken. It’s certainly a novel approach.

https://cop30.br/en/brazilian-presidency/cop-30-circles/global-ethical-stocktake

Chris Lang's avatar

You're not the first person to complain that reading REDD-Monitor is painful!

Thanks for the link to the Global Ethical Stocktake. I've had a quick look at it. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I'm not impressed.

Back in 2007, George Monbiot wrote about COP13 in Bali for The Guardian. I've updated his conclusion:

"When you review the plans for fossil fuel extraction, the horrible truth dawns that every carbon-cutting programme on earth is a con. Without supply-side policies, runaway climate change is inevitable, however hard we try to cut demand. The talks in Belém will be meaningless unless they produce a programme for leaving fossil fuels in the ground."

(https://www.monbiot.com/2007/12/11/rigged/)

What bothers me about the Global Ethical Stocktake is that in the eight articles on the COP30 website, the words "fossil fuels" are mentioned only three times. In each case, the wording is almost identical - referring to the United Arab Emirates Consensus from COP28:

"This consensus emphasizes the 1.5ºC target through tripling renewable energy capacity, doubling energy efficiency, and promoting the transition away from fossil fuels and deforestation."

(https://cop30.br/en/news-about-cop30/brasil-and-the-un-launch-global-ethical-stocktake-a-worldwide-call-to-climate-action-ahead-of-cop30)

First, the 1.5ºC target is "deader than a doornail" as Zeke Hausfather put it in November 2024. It's gone.

And second, "promoting the transition away from fossil fuels" can only happen if COP30 produces a programme for leaving fossil fuels in the ground.