Search Climate Insights Directory

The report identifies a critical 'blind spot' in climate policy regarding livestock methane, finding that neither the largest producing nations nor the biggest meat and dairy companies have set targets aligned with the 45% reduction required by 2030 to limit global warming to 1.5°C. While some countries report emissions, most lack concrete action plans to transform food production and consumption. Similarly, an analysis of 20 global meat and dairy giants revealed poor performance, with none reporting methane emissions separately or establishing specific methane reduction targets.

The report identifies the livestock sector as a critical 'blind spot' in climate policy, noting that neither the largest meat and dairy producing nations nor the top 20 global corporations in these industries have set targets consistent with a 45% methane reduction by 2030. While some governments report emissions, few have concrete action plans to transform food production and consumption. Among the 20 largest companies, none report methane emissions separately, and only three include Scope 3 emissions in their targets. The document argues that technical fixes are insufficient and that a systemic transition toward healthier diets with fewer animal products is essential to meet Paris Agreement goals.

The report highlights a critical failure by major livestock-producing nations and corporations to address methane emissions, despite the gas's high potency and short atmospheric lifespan. It finds that most assessed countries lack absolute methane reduction targets and that the largest meat and dairy companies fail to report methane emissions separately or implement concrete abatement plans. The document advocates for a systemic transition toward plant-rich diets and the implementation of both technical and behavioral mitigation measures to meet Paris Agreement goals.

The Framework for Sustainable Finance Integrity provides a technical set of 'Necessary Action' metrics across three categories—targets and objectives, implementation, and metrics and transparency—to align the financial sector with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. It identifies significant gaps between current leading practices of major financial coalitions and the scientific requirements for a viable net zero pathway, particularly regarding short-term emissions targets, the phase-out of all fossil fuel finance, and the integration of social justice and biodiversity into financial mandates.

Carbon Market Watch analyzed 18 "carbon neutral" fossil fuel claims, primarily involving liquefied natural gas (LNG), and found that every claim failed to meet basic criteria for environmental integrity and transparency. The report argues that fossil fuels cannot be carbon neutral because the firms involved are not aligned with 1.5°C pathways and rely on flawed "tonne-for-tonne" offsetting. Key failures include the omission of Scope 3 emissions in one-third of claims, a total lack of transparency regarding the price paid for carbon credits, and the use of impermanent nature-based sinks to offset long-term fossil carbon emissions. The report recommends that fossil fuel firms cease these claims, stop new exploration, and shift toward a "contribution" model for climate finance.

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.

Reclaim Finance claims that TotalEnergies is using 'climate-KPI linked' debt to fund a strategy that remains heavily reliant on oil and gas, arguing that these sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) lack the ambition required by the Paris Agreement and the 1.5°C trajectory.

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.

ClientEarth has submitted a referral request to the FCA alleging that Just Eat Takeaway.com N.V. failed to disclose material climate-related risks and impacts in its 2020 Annual Report. The document argues that Just Eat's reporting is vague, potentially misleading, and fails to provide a fair review of its business or its long-term viability in a net-zero economy. Specifically, it highlights the absence of a Paris-aligned transition strategy and inadequate data on the environmental impact of food packaging and digital operations. ClientEarth requests that the FCA impose financial penalties, issue a public censure, and require the company to rectify its reporting deficiencies.

ClientEarth argues that the FCA is failing to enforce existing climate-related reporting rules, leading to a prevalence of 'greenwishing' and misleading disclosures among UK-listed companies. The document highlights specific failures by companies such as Centamin plc, Synthomer plc, and Bodycote plc, where material climate risks are omitted or presented inconsistently. ClientEarth calls for a comprehensive review of company reporting and robust enforcement action to align the FCA's activities with the UK Government's 2050 net-zero commitment and the statutory objectives of protecting consumers and market integrity.

The report examines how green bonds and transition finance can support South Africa's shift from a coal-dependent energy system to a low-carbon economy. It highlights the critical role of the two largest emitters, Eskom and Sasol, and proposes various financial models, including sovereign green bonds and asset-backed securities, to attract international capital while managing the social implications of a 'Just Transition'.

ClientEarth argues that the FCA's proposed disclosure requirements in CP21/17 and CP21/18 are insufficient to provide the granularity needed for informed investment decisions. The briefing recommends mandatory disclosures, the inclusion of Scope 3 emissions, and the alignment of financial accounts with the Paris Agreement and the UK's net-zero target. It specifically calls for expanding the scope of regulated firms and listed entities subject to these rules and introducing robust enforcement to prevent greenwashing.

The guidance outlines a target-setting framework for the aviation sector based on the Science Based Targets initiative's (SBTi) Sectoral Decarbonization Approach (SDA). It defines carbon intensity pathways derived from the IEA's Sustainable Development Scenario, requiring the sector to reduce average carbon intensity by approximately 35-40% between 2019 and 2035, and 65% by 2050. The framework covers Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions, excluding non-CO2 factors due to scientific uncertainty. It provides specific instructions for aircraft operators to converge toward sector intensity levels and for aviation service users to address Scope 3 emissions, including a linear annual reduction rate of 0.4% for business air travel. The document also specifies criteria for the use of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) and explicitly excludes out-of-value-chain carbon offsets from meeting science-based reduction targets.

RMI proposes a framework for 'climate intelligence' based on four pillars: emissions visibility, standardized accounting, digitized infrastructure using distributed ledger technology, and the scaling of these standards in markets. The document highlights the need to harmonize over 250 existing GHG accounting methodologies to create a 'digital schema' for carbon attribution. A key initiative mentioned is Horizon Zero, funded by a $10 million grant from the Larsen Lam Climate Change Foundation, which aims to apply digital disclosure models from the cryptocurrency industry to heavy industrial sectors like steel and cement. The author contends that digitization will make GHG and ESG disclosures as seamless as financial accounting, aligning with emerging regulatory trends in the EU and US.

The document advocates for a comprehensive EU directive on corporate due diligence to prevent environmental harm. It argues against size-based thresholds for companies, citing the seafood and timber industries as examples where small and medium enterprises (SMEs) can cause significant damage. It emphasizes the necessity of a 'life cycle' approach to value chains, particularly for fossil fuels (addressing Scope 3 emissions and methane leakage) and plastics (addressing pellet pollution). Finally, it calls for mandatory, detailed public reporting to ensure corporate accountability, using the automotive sector's emissions and battery supply chains as a case for transparency.

ClientEarth argues against the use of materiality assessments for climate metrics, advocates for mandatory Scope 3 emissions disclosure, and calls for transition plans to include science-based targets aligned with national commitments and a 1.5°C pathway.

The Bank of England's proposed strategy to decarbonize its Corporate Bond Purchase Scheme (CBPS) is based on three principles: incentivizing net zero action through engagement, leading by example, and ratcheting up requirements over time. Reclaim Finance argues that this approach is flawed due to an over-reliance on engagement over divestment, a lack of clear timelines and resources for monitoring company progress, and insufficient exclusions of oil and gas companies. The author recommends that the Bank exclude companies involved in new fossil fuel projects or those deriving majority revenues from fossil fuels, and calls for the immediate integration of scope 3 emissions for carbon-intensive and finance sectors.

ClientEarth argues that Lloyd's of London's 2020 ESG Report fails to align the insurance market with the Paris Agreement goals. The letter highlights gaps in the 'Climate Targets', such as the lack of restrictions on oil and gas (outside tar sands and the Arctic) and the absence of scope 3 emissions targets. ClientEarth asserts that the Society of Lloyd's has a legal duty under PRA Solvency II rules and the 'prudent person principle' to manage climate risks, which include physical risks making assets uninsurable and transition risks leading to stranded assets. The document questions whether the Climate Targets are binding and calls for transparent public disclosure of managing agents' compliance.

The author contends that Total's climate strategy is incompatible with the IEA's net-zero scenario, as the company continues to expand oil and gas production while allocating only a small fraction of investment to renewables. The text highlights a contradiction among major investors—including AXA, BNP Paribas, and Amundi—who claim climate commitments but voted in favor of Total's plan to protect short-term dividends.

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.