Search Climate Insights Directory

The ICJ has ruled that end-use emissions from burning extracted fossil fuels must be factored into environmental impact assessments (EIAs). To mitigate legal risks, states are advised to update regulations to account for all downstream and Scope 3 emissions, regardless of whether production would have occurred elsewhere. The brief recommends that these emissions be assessed cumulatively and in alignment with global climate objectives.

The RMI framework establishes rules for the issuance, transfer, and retirement of Book-and-Claim Units (BCUs) for low-emissions iron and steel. It introduces a dual functional-unit system (iron and crude steel) with eligibility thresholds anchored to ResponsibleSteel's Decarbonization Progress Level 3 (DPL3). To prevent fossil lock-in, the framework mandates route-specific criteria, including a 2035/2040 phase-out for BF-BOF eligibility and strict 90% capture rates for CCS/CCUS. It defines rigorous accounting methods—direct and enhanced substitution—to prevent over-claiming and double counting, while prohibiting on-product claims to maintain the incentive for physical green steel procurement.

Analysis of the Global Oil and Gas Extraction Tracker (GOGET) reveals that the time from discovery to production for new oil and gas fields has increased significantly, averaging 15.1 years for fields starting in 2025 compared to 4.9 years between 1960 and 1980. This trend is driven by the depletion of easy-to-access reserves, forcing companies toward technically complex '20K' high-pressure reservoirs, deepwater projects, and 'acid gas' fields. Additional delays stem from stricter environmental regulations, such as the UK's 2025 requirement to include Scope 3 emissions in impact assessments, and ecological risks in protected areas. The report argues that these long lead times increase the risk of creating stranded assets and conflict with the 1.5 °C warming limit, suggesting that capital should be redirected toward renewable energy.

The document analyzes how a 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion establishes that states must include end-use emissions (downstream effects) in environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for fossil fuel projects. It highlights that while the opinion is non-binding, it provides authoritative legal guidance that is already influencing national and regional courts in the UK, Norway, and the EU. The brief recommends that governments update their regulations to require the quantification of combustion emissions and align these assessments with global climate objectives, such as IPCC 1.5°C pathways, to mitigate legal risks.

The document examines how a July 2025 International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion mandates that environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for fossil fuel projects include emissions from the final combustion of the extracted fuels. It highlights that while states determine the exact content of EIAs, they must account for downstream effects to meet due diligence and Paris Agreement obligations. The briefing cites precedents in the UK and EFTA Court, as well as subsequent rulings by the European Court of Human Rights and the Borgarting Court of Appeal, to demonstrate the growing legal requirement to quantify end-use greenhouse gas emissions.

The document argues that the ICJ's 2025 advisory opinion transforms the legal landscape for investment disputes by establishing that climate action is a binding legal obligation rather than a discretionary policy choice. This shift undermines investor claims based on 'legitimate expectations' for fossil fuel activities and provides states with stronger defenses against claims of unfair and inequitable treatment (FET) or indirect expropriation. The author recommends that states reform investment treaties to exclude climate measures from compensation claims, limit prospective damages based on future fossil fuel revenues, and negotiate agreements to neutralize survival clauses in treaties like the Energy Charter Treaty.

The ICJ's 2025 Advisory Opinion establishes that states have binding legal obligations to protect the climate system, which includes phasing out fossil fuel production and subsidies. This finding challenges the legal basis for many investor-state claims, as it undermines the 'legitimate expectations' of investors in carbon-intensive industries and provides states with stronger defenses against claims of fair and equitable treatment (FET) violations. The brief argues that the prospect of ISDS can cause 'regulatory chill,' deterring necessary climate action. It recommends that states reform investment treaties through sector-based carve-outs, restrict forward-looking damages based on projected fossil fuel revenues, and coordinate withdrawals from outdated agreements like the Energy Charter Treaty.

The document argues that the global military carbon footprint estimates provided by Bohigas et al (ranging from 0.5% to 1.3% of global emissions) are unreliable due to implausible assumptions and incomplete data. Specifically, it notes that the lower estimate assumes non-US militaries have zero emissions, while the upper estimate relies on US emissions intensity which may not reflect the higher fossil-fuel intensity of other major military spenders like China, Russia, India, and Saudi Arabia. The author further highlights the omission of aviation's upper-atmosphere heating effects, 'scope 3+' war-fighting impacts, and the potential of environmentally-extended input output models (EEIOMs) to provide more accurate data.

The document identifies a gap in corporate climate reporting where current GHG accounting cannot credibly reflect the impact of specific mitigation interventions. To address this, the authors propose a multi-statement reporting framework that combines traditional accounting with a new 'Mitigation Intervention' statement. This framework utilizes consequential accounting to measure causal effects of interventions both inside and outside corporate value chains, supported by eligibility principles, governance, and independent verification to reduce greenwashing and encourage high-impact action.

The document translates the ICJ's advisory opinion into practical tools for climate litigation, focusing on the 'stringent due diligence' States must exercise to regulate private actors, particularly in the fossil fuel industry. It highlights that States may be in breach of international obligations if they fail to prevent significant climate harm through the production, licensing, or subsidizing of fossil fuels. The brief also connects these findings to specific case categories, including licensing, duty to regulate, corporate frameworks, accountability for loss and damage, and greenwashing, emphasizing the 1.5°C temperature goal as a legal standard.

The report argues that fossil fuel supermajors use the voluntary carbon market (VCM) as a strategic pillar to maintain a green image while continuing carbon-intensive operations. It details how these companies and trade associations like IETA and API lobby for weaker credit quality standards and increased flexibility in offsetting Scope 3 emissions. The document specifically critiques the governance of the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) and the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI), alleging that the inclusion of industry representatives in decision-making roles creates significant conflicts of interest that risk diluting integrity standards.

Agriculture contributes roughly one-quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions, with nitrogen fertilizer production, distribution, and use generating an estimated 1.31 gigatons of CO2-equivalent annually. While low-emission solutions like renewable-powered electrolysis exist, high costs and fragmented supply chains prevent scaling, as farmers cannot absorb price premiums and food companies lack direct mechanisms to fund producers. To bridge this gap, RMI and the Center for Green Market Activation (GMA) are launching a pilot book-and-claim system. This allows food and beverage companies to purchase Environmental Attribute Certificates (EACs) to claim verified emissions reductions toward Scope 3 targets, providing producers with the revenue certainty needed to finance capital-intensive green ammonia projects without disrupting conventional farmer procurement.

The report finds that agricultural methane is a 'systemic blind spot' for major global investors. Despite significant financial exposure to high-emitting agrifood companies, most of the 25 investors analysed have no standalone methane policies or targets, often folding methane into broader CO2-equivalent frameworks. The analysis highlights that a small number of investors, including Vanguard, BlackRock, and Fidelity Investments, account for a disproportionate share of financed methane emissions. While some companies like Danone and Marfrig have set methane targets, others, such as Nestlé, have withdrawn from collaborative initiatives like the Dairy Methane Action Alliance. The report warns of increasing regulatory, transition, and reputational risks, particularly in the EU, and calls for investors to align with the Global Methane Pledge to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030.

The report finds that investor climate targets are often opaque, lack ambition, and are poorly linked to real-world emission reductions. Analysis of 83 global investors reveals that many targets rely on volatile financial metrics, exclude scope 3 emissions, and are frequently reported as achieved long before their deadlines. The document recommends that investors adopt science-based sectoral targets, increase transparency in reporting, and align climate solutions investments with established taxonomies.

The NewClimate Institute provides a critique of the second draft of the SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard v2.0, noting improvements in scope 3 emission source identification and reporting granularity while highlighting concerns regarding the 1% threshold for emission responsibility, the use of non-durable removals for fossil emissions, and the frequency of standard renewals.

RMI conducted pilots with BCG, Roland Berger, and Estuaire to compare contrail accounting methods. The results show that a bottom-up, flight-specific approach is significantly more accurate than the standard 1.7x multiplier, revealing that 2% of flights cause 80% of contrail impacts. The report advocates for a phased transition toward high-fidelity accounting to enable targeted corporate travel policies and alignment with emerging EU regulations.

The document outlines a granular, asset-level process for financial institutions (FIs) to map a company's transition footprint. This process involves five key steps: assessing double materiality to prioritize business lines, gathering detailed asset-level data, identifying retrofit and retirement timelines, selecting appropriate transition benchmarks (such as NDCs or peer data), and evaluating the resulting transition exposure. The guide emphasizes that moving beyond high-level emissions disclosures to asset-specific analysis allows FIs to identify carbon lock-in, policy misalignment, and opportunities for early retirement of high-emissions assets.

The report investigates whether corporate use of carbon credits substitutes or complements internal emission reductions. A review of existing literature shows mixed results: while several studies find a positive correlation between carbon credit use and internal emission reductions, a peer-reviewed study by Stolz and Probst (2025) finds no significant correlation and provides qualitative evidence of 'mitigation deterrence' in some cases. Interviews with companies indicate that the role of carbon credits is shifting due to greenwashing concerns and the rise of science-based targets (SBTi). The authors conclude that developing a robust empirical study to prove causality is inherently challenging due to endogeneity, data limitations in the CDP database, and structural changes in corporate climate strategies.

Marfrig, the world's second-largest beef producer, has committed to becoming the first major beef company to disclose third-party supplier (Scope 3) methane emissions and aims for a 33% reduction by 2035. This target represents an annual reduction of 196,920 tons of methane. The announcement was made during a Mighty Earth event at the Belém climate summit (COP30). Marfrig intends to achieve these reductions through feed additives and farming practices. Mighty Earth is using this as a catalyst to call for similar transparency and targets from other meat industry leaders, such as JBS, and is advocating for an increase in plant-based protein sales to complement regenerative agriculture.

The Integrated Net Present Value (iNPV) framework addresses the failure of traditional cost-benefit analyses to account for the full value of process modernization in US light manufacturing. Developed by RMI and Schneider Electric, the framework provides a method for measuring and monetizing value streams across categories such as operational flexibility, risk mitigation, and market differentiation to improve investment decision-making for decarbonization.