Search Climate Insights Directory

The Coalition on Materials Emissions Transparency (COMET) argues that current corporate GHG reporting, primarily based on the GHG Protocol, is insufficient for driving decarbonization because it relies on averages and corporate boundaries rather than actionable product-level data. To address this, COMET proposes shifting toward the use of primary data from direct suppliers, implementing fixed boundaries for comparability, and defining product boundaries that incentivize market-driven decarbonization. These principles aim to make Scope 3 emissions visible and traceable, facilitating a transition to zero-carbon production.

The External Review finds that WRI is 'Mostly on Track' with its 2018-2022 Strategic Plan, achieving 71.3% of its targets by October 2021. While WRI remains a critical global player in environment and development, the review identifies significant risks related to rapid organizational growth, a potential tilt from research toward advocacy, and under-resourced core functions. The report highlights a need for a 'step-change' in monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) and a more systematic integration of poverty, gender, and social equity (PGSE) across its programs. WRI's Africa office is also 'mostly on track,' though it faces challenges in coordinating global programming with regional priorities.

The briefing argues that as countries increase climate ambition, border carbon adjustment (BCA) mechanisms are becoming inevitable to prevent carbon leakage in energy-intensive sectors. To prevent these tools from becoming protectionist, the author proposes a framework of principles—such as the primacy of leakage protection, revenue sharing, and credit for equivalent foreign carbon prices—and best practices regarding coverage, data standards, and appeal mechanisms. The author suggests the World Trade Organization (WTO) as the ideal multilateral forum for discussing these standards, specifically highlighting the 2021 Ministerial Conference (MC12) as a critical starting point.

The report argues that current GHG accounting systems rely too heavily on approximations and are unsuitable for comparing scope 3 emissions between companies. To resolve this, RMI proposes a framework consisting of unified accounting principles that prioritize primary data, a technical architecture based on distributed ledger technology to track embodied carbon at the product level, and the creation of "digital twins" of carbon emissions to enable emissions to function as a unit of trade. This system aims to transform climate intelligence into actionable business intelligence and support the development of a global carbon market under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.

The briefing argues that as countries increase climate ambition and carbon pricing, border carbon adjustment (BCA) mechanisms are becoming inevitable to prevent carbon leakage. To avoid these tools becoming protectionist or causing trade disputes, the author proposes a framework of principles—such as prioritizing leakage protection over competitiveness and granting credit for foreign carbon prices—and best practices, including the use of international data standards. The document suggests the World Trade Organization (WTO) as the ideal multilateral forum for discussing these guidelines to provide a bulwark against national protectionist pressures.

The report outlines strategies for organizations to manage business air travel emissions, emphasizing the need for direct reductions over carbon offsets. It discusses the use of absolute and intensity targets, the importance of senior management leadership, and the role of decision-support tools in encouraging sustainable travel choices.

WWF International provides a framework for corporate forest and climate goal-setting, advocating for a mitigation hierarchy that prioritizes avoiding and reducing footprints before pursuing compensation. The guide argues that protecting existing forests is significantly more effective for climate mitigation than tree planting, noting that preventing the loss of one hectare of mature forest avoids approximately 100 tons of carbon, whereas tropical reforestation sequesters only about 3 tons per hectare annually. It further recommends that companies align carbon credit purchases with specific quality criteria and national commitments (NDCs) and pursue transformational change through improved land tenure and multi-stakeholder initiatives.

WWF provides guidance for corporations on the voluntary purchase of carbon credits, emphasizing that such purchases must be supplementary to a transparent, science-based strategy to reduce Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. The document cautions against using terms like "carbon neutral," "net zero," and "offsetting" due to potential misleading interpretations and the evolving regulatory context of the Paris Agreement. It establishes seven quality criteria for "high-quality" credits—real, measurable, additional, permanent, avoiding leakage, monitored/verified, and complying with safeguards—and advises against credits from nuclear, fossil fuel, or certain biomass projects. Additionally, it introduces the concept of "insetting" as a way to address emissions within a company's value chain, though it notes that standards for insetting are still evolving.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) supported Bogotá and Mérida in implementing mandatory energy-efficient building regulations by adapting national guidelines to the local level. In Mérida, WRI used the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and multi-stakeholder working groups to identify savings and oversee regulation adoption. In Bogotá, WRI collaborated with the Colombia Green Building Council to improve national guidance and advocate for a city-level energy-efficient building code. By 2018, both cities became the first in their respective countries to adopt such mandatory regulations, aiming to reduce energy and water consumption, lower air pollution, create green jobs, and avoid carbon-intensive infrastructure lock-in.

The report examines the challenges facing sustainable investing due to substandard ESG data, highlighting issues such as lack of standardization, poor coverage, and a specific inability to quantify physical climate risks. Based on interviews with investment practitioners managing $5.2 trillion in assets, it argues that while disclosure frameworks like TCFD and SASB are improving the landscape, investors still lack the granular asset-level data and standardized methodologies required to translate sustainability metrics into financial materiality. The document proposes several solutions, including the development of a Physical Resilience Protocol and the use of geospatial data to fill context gaps in corporate reporting.

The report analyzes the proliferation of sustainability metrics in the infrastructure asset class, distinguishing between project screening tools and accounting tools. It identifies key challenges in standardization, such as the high degree of project idiosyncrasy (materiality), the trade-off between measuring management practices versus performance indicators, and the influence of varying regional regulatory regimes. The authors conclude that while there is a desire for a single industry standard, the complexity of infrastructure will likely lead to a continued diversification of tools, with pioneering investors often using multiple systems simultaneously to balance project-level relevance with portfolio-level aggregation.

The report analyzes twelve sustainability standards for infrastructure, categorizing them into project screening tools (e.g., SuRe, Envision, CEEQUAL, ISCA, IFC Performance Standards) and accounting tools (e.g., SASB, TCFD, GHG Protocol, UN PRI). It evaluates these tools based on comprehensiveness, objectivity, clarity, transaction costs, and traction. The study finds that the industry lacks a single global standard, with investors often using multiple tools depending on the project's local context and regulatory regime. It highlights a fundamental tension between 'preservationist' public sector assessments, which determine if a project should be built, and 'conservationist' investor metrics, which focus on implementing projects in the most sustainable way possible.

The guide explains the mechanisms of GHG reporting for corporations and utilities, detailing the GHG Protocol's three scopes of emissions. It specifically examines Scope 2 accounting, contrasting location-based and market-based methods and emphasizing the importance of supplier-specific emission factors provided by utilities. The document also outlines the reporting requirements for utilities, such as those under The Climate Registry, and discusses the differences between GHG accounting and renewable energy accounting.

Agricultural emissions accounted for approximately 13 percent of total global emissions in 2011, totaling 6 billion tonnes. The primary sources are methane from cattle and nitrous oxide from fertilizers and soil waste, which together comprise 65 percent of the sector's emissions. Global agricultural emissions grew by 8 percent between 1990 and 2010 and are projected to reach nearly 7 billion tonnes per year by 2030, driven largely by population growth and dietary shifts in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Mitigation opportunities include improving crop and grazing management, reducing food loss and waste, and shifting dietary preferences away from meat, particularly beef.

The document outlines the scale and sources of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, identifying the sector as the second largest global emitter. It highlights the role of methane and nitrous oxide, lists the top emitting countries, and discusses the impact of land-use change and dietary shifts. Finally, it presents the GHG Protocol guidelines as a tool for farms to inventory and reduce their carbon footprint through improved production practices and demand-side changes.

The document introduces the CaRROT toolkit, an MS Excel-based tool for Kenya's flower industry to account for GHG emissions, energy, and water consumption. It outlines the assessment methodology based on ISO, IPCC, and GHG Protocol standards, and identifies climate-related business opportunities such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and voluntary carbon markets. The report recommends establishing sectoral baselines and enhancing capacity building to transition the industry toward a low-carbon model.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) reports its internal climate management and GHG emissions for the 2013 reporting year. WRI has established 2020 reduction targets for Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions, supported by an internal carbon fee of $50/mt CO2e on business travel. While Scope 1 and 2 emissions decreased, Scope 3 emissions—particularly from purchased goods and services—increased. WRI identifies reputational and operational risks related to climate change and is piloting primary data collection with its supply chain.

The external review assesses WRI's transition toward a more global presence, specifically its expansion into China, India, and Brazil, and its shift toward a 'do-tank' model. While praising WRI's analytical excellence, reputation, and successful engagement with the business sector, the review identifies needs for better program focus, increased attention to poverty and gender, and a more systematic approach to partnership management. It recommends that WRI refine its balance between strategic research and tactical implementation to maintain its comparative advantage as a high-impact global think tank.

The document explains the methodology of the Green Footstep tool, which calculates the net carbon flow of building projects by analyzing site development, construction, and operation. It defines carbon neutrality as achieving a net carbon storage level equal to or greater than the site's native state. The paper provides specific formulas for calculating native site carbon storage, emissions from site development, and operational emissions. For construction emissions, it details an Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO LCA) approach based on 1997 US economic data, offering coefficients for residential, multifamily, manufacturing/industrial, and commercial/institutional sectors. It also includes a historical validation comparing 1997 energy intensity coefficients with 1967 data, noting a general decrease in energy intensity for most sectors except commercial and institutional buildings.

The report evaluates the consistency of carbon offset protocols across different programs, specifically focusing on landfill methane, manure digesters, and afforestation. By comparing U.S. EPA Climate Leaders’ protocols with those of the CDM, RGGI, CCAR, and CCX, the analysis finds that quantification is not yet standardized, meaning a ton of carbon offset is not consistently valued across different project protocols.