Search Climate Insights Directory

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform WH Group that its estimated methane emissions are 0.3 million tonnes, contributing to a broader industry trend of poor transparency regarding Scope 3 emissions. The letter recommends that the company set absolute emissions reduction targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, establish separate methane targets, reduce animal numbers in supply chains, and align with UN standards for net-zero commitments.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to Yili to highlight the company's estimated methane emissions of 0.4 million tonnes and the lack of public disclosure regarding its supply chain emissions. The letter calls for Yili to set absolute emissions reduction targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, establish separate methane targets, reduce animal numbers in its supply chain, and align its lobbying with global climate goals.

The document argues that current agri-food transition finance is often unambitious and lacks alignment with science-based pathways, particularly regarding scope 3 emissions. It introduces five Transition Principles and five Hallmarks to ensure that corporate transition plans are rooted in action rather than pledges, exclude offsets, and align with a 1.5°C trajectory. The paper also reviews various existing frameworks, such as SBTi FLAG and the EU Platform on Sustainable Finance, to identify how they address broader goals like biodiversity, water use, and just transition.

The report finds that the fashion industry remains heavily dependent on synthetic fibres, with 25% of analyzed brands increasing their use. It highlights a significant lack of supply chain transparency and an overreliance on recycled polyester from PET bottles rather than fibre-to-fibre recycling. While many brands support proposed EU Textile Strategy legislation, there is a stark gap between their public sustainability marketing and actual decarbonization progress.

The report finds that the fashion industry remains heavily dependent on synthetic fibres, with 25% of analyzed brands increasing their use. It highlights a critical lack of transparency in supply chains and criticizes the reliance on PET bottle recycling as a 'false solution' that does not reduce overall synthetic volumes. Most brands fail to address microfiber pollution or invest significantly in fiber-to-fiber recycling, while some continue to source polyester from coal-based production despite climate pledges.

The report finds that the fashion industry remains heavily dependent on synthetic fibres, with 25% of analyzed brands increasing their use over the last five years. It highlights a systemic lack of supply chain transparency, an over-reliance on recycled polyester from PET bottles as a 'false solution', and a failure to set absolute Scope 3 emissions targets. While many brands express support for the EU Textile Strategy's regulatory measures, the report argues there is a significant gap between these public stances and actual corporate action.

The report evaluates transition planning among ASEAN companies in sectors like cement, steel, and chemicals against the Climate Bonds Initiative's 'Five Hallmarks' of a credibly transitioning company. It finds that while net-zero commitments are increasing, most plans are fragmented and lack the robust, costed, and science-based pathways necessary for a 1.5°C alignment. The document provides specific analysis of companies such as Siam Cement Group and PTT, and offers guidance on improving the credibility of sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) by ensuring they include material emission scopes and absolute targets.

The report finds that Carlyle and NGP have significant exposure to transition risk, with a large portion of their planned capital expenditure for upstream oil and gas projects incompatible with the Paris Agreement's goals. It argues that Carlyle's 'net zero' targets are insufficient because they exclude Scope 3 emissions and minority investments, and suggests that investors push for stronger transition planning and transparency.

The report finds that Carlyle and NGP have significant exposure to transition risk, with a large portion of their planned capital expenditure for upstream oil and gas projects incompatible with the Paris Agreement's goals. It argues that Carlyle's 'net zero' target is insufficient because it excludes Scope 3 emissions and minority investments, and warns that continuing to expand fossil fuel production risks creating stranded assets as global demand shifts toward renewables.

The report finds that The Carlyle Group and NGP Energy Capital have significant exposure to transition risk, with a large portion of their upstream portfolio's planned capital expenditure incompatible with the Paris Agreement's goals. It argues that Carlyle's 'net zero' targets are insufficient because they exclude Scope 3 emissions and minority investments, while its investment strategy continues to favor production expansion despite IEA warnings that no new oil and gas fields are needed for a 1.5°C scenario.

The We Mean Business Coalition's "4 As of Climate Leadership" framework provides a strategic guide for companies to achieve net-zero emissions. It emphasizes setting science-based targets (Ambition), integrating climate goals into core business operations and supply chains (Action), aligning corporate lobbying with climate targets (Advocacy), and maintaining transparent ESG reporting (Accountability).

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies produce combined methane emissions of 12.8 million tonnes, representing 11.1% of global livestock-related methane. These emissions exceed the total methane footprints of countries like Russia, Canada, and Australia. The authors highlight a severe lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of the analyzed companies fail to report total supply chain (scope 3) emissions. The report criticizes governments for relying on 'techno fixes' like anaerobic digesters rather than reducing livestock numbers, and calls for binding targets and a just transition toward agroecology.

The report estimates that five major meat and ten major dairy companies emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 11.1% of global anthropogenic methane emissions from livestock. These companies' total greenhouse gas emissions (734 million tonnes CO2 equivalent) exceed those of Germany. The authors highlight a significant lack of transparency, noting that 60% of these companies do not report full supply chain (Scope 3) emissions, and none report supply-chain methane. The document calls for mandatory emissions disclosure and a reduction in livestock numbers to meet the 1.5°C global warming limit.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of global anthropogenic methane emissions and 11.1% of livestock-related methane. These combined emissions exceed the methane footprints of several countries, including Russia, Canada, Australia, and Germany. The authors highlight a pervasive lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of the companies fail to report total GHGs or scope 3 emissions, and none report supply chain methane. The report calls for mandatory reporting, binding reduction targets, and a systemic shift away from industrial animal agriculture.

The report estimates that five of the largest meat companies and ten of the largest dairy corporations emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of global anthropogenic methane emissions and 11.1% of global livestock methane. Total greenhouse gas emissions for these companies reach 734 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, exceeding Germany's national emissions. The authors highlight a lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of the analyzed companies do not report total emissions or Scope 3 emissions, and none reported supply chain methane. The report calls for binding reduction targets, mandatory reporting, and a systemic shift toward agroecology to meet the 1.5°C global warming limit.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of global anthropogenic methane emissions and 11.1% of global livestock methane. The combined greenhouse gas emissions of these companies (734 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent) exceed those of Germany. The document highlights a significant lack of corporate transparency, with 60% of the analyzed companies failing to report total emissions or scope 3 emissions. It calls for binding emission targets, mandatory reporting, and a systemic shift toward agroecology to meet the 1.5°C warming limit.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies collectively emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of all anthropogenic global methane emissions and 11.1% of global livestock-related methane. The authors highlight a significant lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of these companies do not report total emissions across their value chain (Scope 3). The document calls for binding government targets for agricultural emissions and a systemic shift toward agroecological systems to meet the 1.5°C warming limit.

By 30 September 2022, cumulative global GSS+ debt topped USD3.5 trillion, with green bonds surpassing the USD2 trillion milestone. While Q3 2022 saw a decline in issuance volumes due to geopolitical and macroeconomic factors, the market remains dominated by EUR, USD, and CNY denominations. In the Middle East and Africa (MEA), the GSS+ market has reached USD33.2 billion, characterized by a high proportion of sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) compared to the global average, reflecting the region's concentration of hard-to-abate sectors.

The report estimates that the global military carbon footprint is approximately 5.5% of global emissions, which would make the global military sector the fourth largest national carbon footprint in the world, exceeding that of Russia. The authors argue that military emissions are systematically under-reported due to voluntary reporting obligations under the Paris Agreement and a lack of robust data collection. Using a methodology based on personnel numbers, stationary emissions, mobile-to-stationary ratios, and supply-chain multipliers, the study estimates operational GHG emissions (scopes 1 and 2) at approximately 500 MtCO2e, or 1.0% of global GHGs. The report notes these figures are conservative as they exclude the 'global military carbon bootprint'—emissions from warfighting impacts such as infrastructure damage and ecosystem destruction.

The document contends that Canada's oil and gas industry, bolstered by windfall profits, should fund its own decarbonization rather than relying on public subsidies. It highlights that current government supports, such as those for carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS), often fail to yield meaningful emissions reductions and may even enable increased production. The author argues that public funds would be more effectively spent on proven low-carbon technologies like renewable energy and grid electrification to meet Canada's 2030 climate targets and ensure long-term energy security.