Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines a step-by-step process for assessing organisational GHG footprints, based on international standards like the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064. It defines three scopes of emissions: Scope 1 (direct), Scope 2 (indirect energy), and Scope 3 (other indirect value chain emissions). A central feature is the provision of a database of emission factors specifically developed for the Estonian context, covering energy production, vehicle fuels, and waste management. The guide also discusses the relationship between GHG accounting and regulatory frameworks such as the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and the EMAS environmental management system.

The report analyzes BP's decarbonization targets and investment strategies, claiming they are insufficient to meet 1.5°C goals. It highlights that BP's scope 3 emission targets cover only a fraction of total emissions and that the company continues to invest in new oil and gas fields, including unconventional sources. The author recommends that shareholders vote against BP's advisory 'Say on Climate' vote, support a shareholder resolution for Paris-aligned targets, and vote against the reelection of the Board of Directors.

Reclaim Finance asserts that Repsol's climate targets are inadequate, noting the company will overshoot its carbon budget by 78.7% by 2050. The statement highlights that Repsol plans to maintain oil and gas production at approximately 650 kboe/day through 2025 and allocate over 65% of CAPEX to fossil fuels, including high-risk projects in the Arctic and fracking. Despite goals for 20 GW of renewable capacity by 2030, the author argues this does not offset the lack of absolute emission reductions. Consequently, the document recommends shareholders vote against the 'Say on Climate' advisory vote and the reappointment of four directors responsible for fossil expansion.

Reclaim Finance asserts that Equinor's climate plan is insufficient to meet 1.5°C targets, noting that the company will exceed its carbon budget by 2037. The statement criticizes Equinor for continuing to develop new fossil fuel resources, including unconventional and Arctic projects, and for relying on unproven CCUS scalability. It recommends that shareholders reject the company's transition plan and support resolutions calling for absolute GHG reduction targets and a cessation of exploration.

The briefing concludes that ENI is not on track for the 1.5°C climate goal, as its cumulative greenhouse gas emissions are projected to exceed its allocated carbon budget by at least 13.6% by 2050. The analysis finds that ENI's short-to-medium term plans are incompatible with 1.5°C because the company continues to invest in oil and gas expansion, with production expected to grow until 2025. Furthermore, the report argues that ENI relies unsustainably on carbon offsets and Carbon Capture Use and Storage (CCUS) to meet its targets, while its capital expenditure remains heavily focused on fossil fuels despite claims of diversification.

RMI proposes the RE Emissions Score to move beyond qualitative assessments of renewable energy procurement. The score calculates the percentage of Weighted Avoided Emissions relative to Total Induced Emissions, using marginal emissions factors and a procurement factor based on the ratio of Energy Attribute Certificate (EAC) costs to the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). This approach aims to incentivize companies to locate operations in low-emissions grids and fund new renewable capacity in high-emissions grids.

The report examines how COP26 outcomes, such as pledges to end deforestation and phase out fossil fuel vehicles, drive demand for critical minerals in Africa. It emphasizes that while the energy transition offers economic opportunities, mining companies must adopt ESG frameworks and UN Sustainable Development Goals to ensure a 'just decarbonisation process' and avoid community conflict. The document highlights the challenge of scope 3 emissions and recommends that African governments create incentive platforms for decarbonisation.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2022 assesses 25 multinational companies, finding that most 'net zero' pledges are ambiguous and lack deep emission reduction commitments. The report highlights a systemic reliance on low-quality carbon offsets and renewable energy certificates (RECs) that often fail to provide additional climate benefits. While a few companies demonstrate leadership in renewable energy procurement and value chain engagement, the overall integrity of corporate climate strategies remains low, with many targets falling short of the 1.5C Paris Agreement goal.

The document analyzes the EU's proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which aims to prevent carbon leakage by imposing a carbon price on imports in sectors like iron, steel, cement, aluminum, fertilizers, and electricity. It specifically examines the phase-out of free EU ETS allowances, the exclusion of export rebates, the scope of emissions (direct vs. indirect), and the crediting of third-country climate policies. Swedish stakeholders are divided: industry groups generally fear competitiveness losses due to the lack of export rebates and the exclusion of Scope 2 emissions, while environmental groups advocate for a faster phase-out of free allowances.

The paper finds major discrepancies between military GHG emissions data published by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). It concludes that 'headline' figures understate scope 1 and 2 emissions by 36% to 71% and that lifecycle emissions and war-fighting impacts are entirely omitted from official statistics.

The report argues that the climate pledges of major oil and gas companies are 'empty promises' designed to deceive the public. It finds that none of the analyzed companies' plans meet the standards required to limit warming to 1.5°C, as they often exclude Scope 3 emissions, rely on unproven carbon capture technology, and continue to invest in fossil fuel exploration and production.

The report examines how the mining industry must balance the surge in demand for critical minerals needed for low-carbon technologies with the necessity of reducing its own greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate-driven risks like water scarcity and tailings dam failures.

The report documents the legal victory of Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC, where the District Court in The Hague ordered Shell to reduce its net carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. It explains the use of the 'duty of care' and human rights arguments to hold a corporate actor liable for its contribution to climate change, including Scope 3 emissions. The document also provides a 'mini-toolkit' for other NGOs planning strategic climate litigation, covering research, fundraising, and media strategies.

Brambles has reduced its scope 1 and 2 emissions by 47% since 2010 and is pursuing a 1.5ºC aligned science-based target for its global supply chain. The company's sustainability goals include achieving 100% renewable electricity by 2025, implementing a 'two-for-one' tree planting commitment to increase carbon sequestration, and transitioning to 100% recycled or upcycled plastic waste by 2030. Additionally, Brambles advocates for policy incentives to decarbonize the commercial vehicle sector through electrification and hydrogen technology.

The document critiques TotalEnergies' plan to issue Sustainability-Linked Bonds (SLBs), asserting that the company's climate targets and overall corporate strategy are misaligned with the Paris Agreement. It highlights flaws in the company's KPIs, specifically regarding scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, and points to a projected 50% growth in hydrocarbon production by 2030 as evidence of a strategy at odds with climate science. The briefing concludes that these bonds serve as a marketing tool to secure funding for oil and gas expansion rather than a genuine mechanism for energy transition.

Power Forward 4.0 finds that 60% of Fortune 500 companies have set at least one climate or energy target, a 12-percentage-point increase since 2017. While GHG reduction targets are most common (54%) and Science-Based Targets (SBTs) have increased sixfold, only 20% of the Fortune 500 have set or committed to an SBT. The report highlights a rise in net-zero commitments (17%) and 100% renewable energy targets (58 companies), though it notes significant gaps in the financial, fossil fuel, and retail sectors. Despite progress, the report argues that voluntary action is insufficient and calls for federal and state policies, such as carbon pricing, to align the US private sector with the Paris Agreement and the US Nationally Determined Contribution.

The document advocates for the EU to establish a comprehensive environmental due diligence framework within its sustainable corporate governance directive. It argues that human rights protections alone are insufficient because environmental damage can occur without direct human harm. The briefing proposes that companies be obligated to identify, prevent, and remedy adverse impacts across their entire value chains, aligned with international standards like the Paris Agreement and OECD Guidelines. It suggests a broad definition of environmental impacts—including climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss—and calls for a robust enforcement regime combining administrative, criminal, and civil liability to ensure victims, including those outside the EU, have access to justice.

A coalition of NGOs calls on Total shareholders to reject the company's climate strategy and leadership, citing insufficient emission reduction targets, planned increases in hydrocarbon production, and a lack of transparency regarding Scope 3 emissions.

The paper proposes a tradable performance standard for the U.S. cement industry that sets an emissions intensity benchmark. Producers exceeding the benchmark must surrender credits, while those below it generate tradable credits, creating a financial incentive for decarbonization. The authors recommend a standard covering Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions per unit of clinker and mineral additives, with stringency increasing annually. To prevent carbon leakage, the standard would apply to both domestic production and imports. The paper emphasizes that this standard must be part of a broader policy suite, including innovation funding and market-demand policies, to address the high costs and technical barriers of deep decarbonization technologies like carbon capture, use, and storage (CCUS).

The paper argues that a low-carbon product standard—a market-based regulation establishing emissions intensity benchmarks with tradable credits—can incentivize the U.S. steel industry to adopt abatement technologies. It recommends regulating finished steel products (sheets, plates, bars, beams, pipes, and tubes) at the point of first sale, covering Scope 1, Scope 2, and significant upstream Scope 3 emissions (coke, lime, and direct-reduced iron). To prevent carbon leakage and maintain competitiveness, the authors suggest applying the standard to all steel products sold or imported into the U.S., including indirect steel products above a certain value threshold. The paper emphasizes that while such a standard is a powerful tool, it must be complemented by R&D funding, government procurement, and other policies to achieve full decarbonization.