Search Climate Insights Directory

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations wrote to Cargill on 20 December 2021, citing a report that found a "complete lack of action" among the 20 largest meat and dairy companies regarding methane emissions. The letter highlights that Cargill scored 15.2 out of 100 in the foundation's ranking and lacks specific methane reduction targets or separate reporting for methane emissions. The authors recommend that Cargill set science-based targets aligned with 1.5C, establish absolute methane reduction plans, invest in alternative proteins, and support policies promoting sustainable diets. The letter also requests specific data on investments in methane abatement and meat alternatives over the last five years.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations critique Danish Crown for its lack of concrete methane reduction targets and reporting, scoring the company 9.6 out of 100 in a ranking of 20 meat and dairy companies. The letter demands disclosure of investments in methane abatement and alternative proteins and recommends the adoption of science-based targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, including absolute emission reductions and a shift toward sustainable food systems.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to Danone to highlight the company's insufficient action on methane emissions, noting that Danone scored 30.2 out of 100 in a ranking of 20 meat and dairy companies. The letter demands disclosure of investments in methane abatement and alternative proteins and recommends that Danone set science-based targets for absolute methane reductions in line with a 1.5°C global heating limit.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform the Dairy Farmers of America (DFA) that the company scored 12.8 out of 100 in a ranking of climate policies, indicating a lack of meaningful action to reduce methane emissions. The authors state that none of the 20 companies analysed in their 'Blindspot' report report methane emissions separately or have concrete targets to reduce them. The letter recommends that DFA set science-based targets aligned with 1.5°C, report CO2 and methane separately, invest in alternative proteins, and support policies that shift diets toward sustainable options.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations argue that major meat and dairy companies, specifically Fonterra, are failing to address methane emissions. They recommend the adoption of science-based targets, separate reporting for methane and CO2, and increased investment in alternative proteins to align with the 1.5°C global heating limit.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to FrieslandCampina to highlight the company's lack of action on methane emissions, scoring it 8.8 out of 100 in a ranking of 20 meat and dairy companies. The letter demands disclosure of investments in methane abatement and alternative proteins and recommends setting absolute methane reduction targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to JBS Foods to demand concrete action and transparency regarding methane emissions. Citing their 'Blindspot' report, the authors state that none of the 20 largest meat and dairy companies analysed report methane emissions separately or have meaningful targets to reduce them. JBS specifically scored 9.6 out of 100 in the ranking. The letter recommends that JBS set science-based targets aligned with 1.5°C, report absolute emissions rather than intensity, and invest in alternative proteins. It also requests specific data on investments in methane abatement and meat alternatives over the last five years.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations wrote to Lactalis Group on 20 December 2021, citing a report that found a "complete lack of action" among the 20 largest meat and dairy companies regarding methane emissions. The letter highlights that Lactalis scored 3.2 out of 100 in their ranking and lacks specific methane targets or separate emissions reporting. The authors recommend that Lactalis set science-based targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, establish absolute methane reduction plans, invest in alternative proteins, and support policies promoting sustainable diets. The letter also requests specific data on investments in methane abatement and dairy alternatives over the last five years.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organizations write to Marfrig to highlight the company's lack of concrete methane reduction targets and to request specific data on investments in abatement technologies and meat alternatives.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform Mengniu Dairy that it scored 4.0 out of 100 in a ranking of climate policies, noting the company has not set specific methane reduction targets or reported methane-specific emissions. The authors call for the company to adopt science-based targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, report CO2 and methane separately, and invest in alternative proteins.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to Nestlé CEO Mark Schneider to demand transparency and action on methane emissions. Referencing their 'Blindspot' report, the authors state that none of the 20 largest meat and dairy companies analysed report methane emissions separately or have concrete targets to reduce them. Nestlé specifically scored 34.6 out of 100 in the ranking, indicating insufficient action. The letter requests specific data on investments in methane abatement and meat alternatives over the last five years and recommends that Nestlé set science-based targets for absolute emissions reductions, including scope 3, and support policies that drive a shift toward sustainable diets.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform NH Foods Ltd that it scored 7.2 out of 100 in a ranking of meat and dairy companies' climate policies, citing a lack of specific methane reduction targets or separate emissions reporting. The authors demand disclosure of investments in methane abatement and alternative proteins over the last five years and recommend that the company set absolute methane reduction targets aligned with a 1.5°C global heating limit.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform Saputo Inc. that the company scored 8.0 out of 100 in a ranking of meat and dairy companies' climate policies, specifically noting a lack of methane-specific targets or reporting. The letter demands disclosure of investments in methane abatement and alternative proteins, and recommends that Saputo adopt science-based targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, including scope 3 emissions.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to Tyson Foods to demand the implementation of science-based methane reduction targets and the disclosure of investments in methane abatement and alternative proteins. The letter references a report, 'Blindspot', which found that none of the 20 largest meat and dairy companies analysed report methane emissions separately or have concrete action plans to reduce them. Specifically, Tyson Foods scored 11.2 out of 100 in the ranking, showing no action toward methane reduction. The authors recommend that Tyson set targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, report absolute emissions rather than intensity, and support policies that shift diets toward sustainable, low-carbon food systems.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform Vion Food Group that it scored 4.0 out of 100 in a ranking of meat and dairy companies' climate policies, specifically noting a lack of methane-specific emissions reporting and reduction targets. The authors recommend that Vion set science-based targets aligned with 1.5°C, report CO2 and methane emissions separately, and invest in alternative proteins. The letter requests specific data on investments in methane abatement and meat alternatives over the last five years.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to Yili Industrial Group highlighting that the company scored 3.2 out of 100 in a ranking of climate policies, indicating a lack of action on methane emissions. The authors demand disclosure of investments in methane abatement and protein alternatives, and recommend that Yili set absolute methane reduction targets and support policies for sustainable diets.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Crédit Agricole for maintaining significant financial ties to the fossil fuel industry despite claiming to be a 'green bank'. The organization highlights that the bank provided $64 billion to fossil fuels between 2016 and 2020 and remains a top supporter of TotalEnergies. The text specifically calls for the bank to expand its Arctic exclusion zones, exit non-conventional hydrocarbons by 2030, and align the investment policies of its asset manager, Amundi, with its climate goals.

The document alleges that BP knew about the devastating consequences of fossil fuels as early as 1991 but engaged in a campaign of deception to protect profits. It highlights the contrast between BP's 'Beyond Petroleum' branding and its actual capital expenditures, noting that the company spent $12 billion on oil and gas in 2002 compared to $45 million in solar. The briefing also criticizes BP for pioneering the 'carbon footprint' concept to shift responsibility to consumers and for implementing a 'net zero' ambition that excludes an estimated 46% of the carbon it extracts, including joint ventures with Rosneft.

The Center for Climate Integrity asserts that the American Petroleum Institute (API) spent decades coordinating a campaign of deception regarding the dangers of fossil fuels despite early internal research predicting catastrophic climate events. The document claims API has evolved from outright denial to 'greenwashing' and continues to lobby against climate legislation and federal leasing moratoriums while providing political cover for its member companies.

The Center for Climate Integrity asserts that ExxonMobil possessed internal knowledge of the catastrophic impacts of fossil fuels as early as the 1970s while simultaneously funding a decades-long campaign to discredit climate science. The statement highlights a discrepancy between internal scientific consensus and public advertorials, the use of 'shadow groups' to oppose government action, and the company's current production plans which contradict the goals of the Paris Agreement.