Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that fossil fuel interests use corporate lobbying, trade associations, and advisory roles to maintain the availability of cheap, low-quality carbon credits to avoid structural decarbonization. It details specific efforts to weaken California's cap-and-trade program and oppose transparency laws like AB 1305, while highlighting the role of the CFTC in federal oversight. The document concludes with recommendations to ban fossil fuel companies from climate advisory roles and eliminate carbon credits from California's compliance mechanisms.

The document analyzes the strategies used by agribusiness to delay climate action, focusing on the 24th World Meat Congress and COP30. It identifies key industry narratives—such as the claim that meat is sustainable, essential for health, and that the industry is simply meeting inevitable demand—as tools to distract from the need for dietary shifts and methane reductions. The report highlights the role of industry-funded media, like the film 'World Without Cows', and the influence of agribusiness on the FAO and US dietary guidelines to maintain 'meat primacy' and avoid systemic reform.

The document argues that the GWP* metric allows major methane polluters to claim climate neutrality or "no additional warming" by merely stabilising emissions rather than eliminating them. It details how this approach is being embedded into the policies of New Zealand and Ireland, promoted by industry lobbies in Germany and the UK, and pushed by researchers and trade bodies in Brazil ahead of COP30. The author contends that government-linked research bodies are providing a "veneer of scientific legitimacy" to these industry-driven narratives to weaken national and international climate ambitions.

The report exposes how 'Big Ag' employs a playbook of distraction, delay, and obstruction—similar to tactics used by the tobacco and oil industries—to prevent the regulation of agricultural emissions and the transition to plant-based diets. Through the analysis of 22 major companies, the authors find that these corporations use greenwashing, industry-funded science to downplay methane's impact, and aggressive lobbying to maintain a 'carrot without a stick' policy environment where changes remain voluntary and subsidized.

The report exposes how 'Big Meat and Dairy' corporations employ strategies similar to those of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to avoid environmental regulation. It identifies three primary tactics: distracting the public through greenwashing and targeting Gen Z via social media; delaying action by promoting voluntary targets and industry-funded science (such as GWP* metrics and 'regenerative agriculture'); and derailing legislation through political lobbying and 'revolving door' appointments. The analysis covers 22 major corporations across four continents, highlighting a systemic lack of scientific integrity in their climate goals and a preference for spending on advertising over low-carbon research and development. Specific case studies in the US, EU, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, and Great Britain illustrate how these tactics have successfully weakened policies like the EU Green Deal and the Global Methane Pledge.

The briefing examines how industry lobby groups, including Hydrogen Europe and Global Alliance Powerfuels, are attempting to weaken the EU's Renewable Energy Directive (RED II). Specifically, it highlights efforts to remove 'additionality' requirements and extend 'temporal correlation' timeframes, which would allow hydrogen to be labeled as 'renewable' even if produced using fossil-fuel electricity. The author warns that such standards would result in carbon-intensive hydrogen, undermine the EU's 'energy efficiency first' principle, and risk subsidizing climate-damaging fuels through EU recovery funds.

The report argues that the plastic industry employs a 'corporate playbook' of delaying, distracting, and derailing progressive legislation to protect profits and maintain a linear economy. It analyzes the voluntary commitments of ten major polluters, including Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and PepsiCo, finding them largely non-binding and lacking transparency. The document details how industry groups use 'greenwashing' tactics—such as promoting chemical recycling and bioplastics—to divert attention from the need for mandatory collection systems like Deposit Return Schemes (DRS). Case studies across 15 countries, including the US, EU, China, and Kenya, illustrate how corporations lobby against bans on single-use plastics and shift responsibility to consumers. The report concludes that voluntary initiatives have failed and calls for mandatory legislation, including high collection targets, virgin plastic taxes, and a global treaty on plastic pollution.

The report advocates for a mandatory deposit return system (DRS) in Austria to achieve EU targets of a 90% collection rate for single-use plastic bottles by 2029 and a 30% recycled content rate by 2030. It identifies a 'plastic pollution lobby'—including Altstoff Recycling Austria (ARA), major retailers like REWE, Spar, Hofer, and Lidl, and various beverage producers—that opposes the DRS to protect existing financial interests and market positions. The document highlights that a DRS is the most cost-effective method for high-quality recycling and is supported by 83% of the Austrian public, contrasting this with the current system where only 25% of plastic packaging is recycled.

The report argues that a deposit return system (DRS) is the most cost-effective and environmentally sound method for Austria to achieve the EU's target of collecting 90% of plastic bottles by 2029. It identifies a powerful coalition—led by Altstoff Recycling Austria (ARA) and including major retailers like REWE Group, Spar, Hofer, and Lidl, as well as beverage companies—that is lobbying the Austrian government against a DRS to protect licensing fee revenues and market dominance. The document highlights that 83% of Austrians support a DRS and rebuts industry claims that current collection rates are sufficient or that a DRS would be too expensive.

The document examines EFILA, established in 2014, asserting that its members and board consist of law firms and individuals with direct financial stakes in the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system. It highlights how EFILA's policy recommendations to the European Commission regarding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) oppose meaningful reforms, such as appellate mechanisms or limits on investor rights, to protect the profitability of the arbitration industry. The briefing details specific high-profile cases and the 'revolving door' career of EFILA's general secretary to illustrate the conflict of interest inherent in the group's advocacy.

The report details how a network of industry associations and lobby groups, including PlasticsEurope and EUROPEN, worked to weaken the EU's circular economy goals and the Single-Use Plastics Directive. It highlights specific efforts to avoid mandatory tethered bottle caps and to delay separate collection targets. In Austria, the report describes a coalition of retailers and beverage companies, orchestrated by Altstoff Recycling Austria AG (ARA), that has lobbied against the introduction of a deposit return system despite strong public support and evidence of its effectiveness.