Search Climate Insights Directory

The document highlights the tension between global trade and agricultural sustainability, noting that while trade is essential for food security, it can exacerbate deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions. It argues that while individual governments can implement sustainable trade tools, collective action through the WTO would increase effectiveness. The author suggests several avenues for this cooperation, including reinvigorating existing committees, utilizing the Trade and Environmental Sustainability Structured Discussions (TESSD), or adopting a dedicated dialogue proposed by Brazil.

The document argues that while the WTO has historically neglected the environment, there is a current paradigm shift toward recognizing trade's role in addressing climate change and biodiversity loss. It assesses the outcomes of the Thirteenth Ministerial Conference (MC13), highlighting failures in fisheries subsidies and the absence of explicit climate commitments in the Ministerial Declaration, while noting progress in plurilateral initiatives like the Dialogue on Plastic Pollution. Experts propose reforming subsidy rules for fossil fuels and agriculture, leveraging 'Aid for Trade' for just transitions, and adopting the legal principle of 'Common Concern of Humankind' to guide trade law. The report emphasizes the need for regulatory alignment on circular economy principles and the ability of the WTO to coordinate trade-related climate measures, such as Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms, to avoid global trade fragmentation.

The policy brief examines the systemic failure of global financial systems to value nature, noting that nature-related risks worth $5 trillion are not priced into investment decisions. It advocates for a multi-pronged approach to bridge the nature finance gap, including meeting the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) targets of $20 billion annually by 2025 and $200 billion by 2030. The author argues that while carbon markets are a necessary short-term tool, they are flawed for long-term nature finance due to issues with permanence and additionality. Instead, the brief promotes the scaling of the $4 trillion global bioeconomy, the use of debt-for-nature swaps, and the implementation of payments for ecosystem services (PES), such as levies on digital sequence information and Brazil's Tropical Forests Forever Facility. It emphasizes that these transitions must be led by global south governments and indigenous peoples to ensure equitable governance and avoid 'sub-prime' transactions.

The report reveals how 'Big Meat and Dairy' companies employ a 'corporate playbook' of distraction, delay, and derailment to maintain the status quo and avoid environmental regulation. The industry uses greenwashing, industry-funded science to downplay methane emissions, and aggressive lobbying to secure 'agricultural exceptionalism,' ensuring that climate actions remain voluntary and supported by public subsidies rather than mandatory regulations. The analysis highlights a significant disparity between the industry's public PR regarding 'techno-fixes' and its actual investment in low-carbon solutions, while documenting the systematic weakening of climate policies like the EU's Farm to Fork strategy.

The analysis reveals that 31% of properties that deforested in Brazil between 2020 and 2022 accessed subsidized rural credit, with a small number of large properties absorbing a significant portion of these funds. The study finds that deforestation is highly concentrated among the largest credit recipients, particularly in the Cerrado biome, and argues that current credit restrictions based on environmental embargoes are insufficient because most deforested properties are not embargoed.

The report exposes how 'Big Ag' employs a playbook of distraction, delay, and obstruction—similar to tactics used by the tobacco and oil industries—to prevent the regulation of agricultural emissions and the transition to plant-based diets. Through the analysis of 22 major companies, the authors find that these corporations use greenwashing, industry-funded science to downplay methane's impact, and aggressive lobbying to maintain a 'carrot without a stick' policy environment where changes remain voluntary and subsidized.

The report details how 'Big Meat and Dairy' companies employ tactics similar to those of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to avoid environmental regulation. These strategies include 'greenwashing' through weak net-zero targets, funding industry-biased research to minimize the impact of methane emissions, and aggressive lobbying to prevent binding legislation. The document highlights a pattern of 'carrot-only' approaches where companies promote voluntary technological fixes while spending more on advertising than on actual R&D for low-carbon solutions. A detailed case study on Italy reveals the use of transnational far-right narratives and online disinformation to frame cultivated meat as a threat to tradition and health, thereby supporting legislative bans.

The report identifies a 'corporate playbook' used by the meat and dairy industry to avoid environmental regulation through three main tactics: distraction (greenwashing and funding biased science), procrastination (prioritizing advertising over low-carbon R&D), and dismantling (aggressive lobbying to weaken climate policies). It highlights how these strategies are applied globally, particularly in the EU, US, and Brazil, to maintain the status quo of animal agriculture.

The report reveals a 'corporate playbook' used by 'Big Meat and Dairy' to avoid environmental regulation through greenwashing, industry-funded science, and aggressive political lobbying. It argues that these companies use 'distract, delay and derail' tactics—similar to those used by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries—to maintain the status quo and prevent dietary shifts toward plant-based proteins. The investigation highlights how the industry promotes voluntary technological fixes over mandatory emissions cuts and leverages political influence to secure 'all-carrots-and-no-sticks' regulatory approaches.

The report exposes how 'Big Meat and Dairy' corporations employ strategies similar to those of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to avoid environmental regulation. It identifies three primary tactics: distracting the public through greenwashing and targeting Gen Z via social media; delaying action by promoting voluntary targets and industry-funded science (such as GWP* metrics and 'regenerative agriculture'); and derailing legislation through political lobbying and 'revolving door' appointments. The analysis covers 22 major corporations across four continents, highlighting a systemic lack of scientific integrity in their climate goals and a preference for spending on advertising over low-carbon research and development. Specific case studies in the US, EU, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, and Great Britain illustrate how these tactics have successfully weakened policies like the EU Green Deal and the Global Methane Pledge.

The authors call for a coordinated effort by the WTO, OECD, IMF, and World Bank to create a robust analytical base to identify and eliminate 'bad subsidies'—those that distort trade and harm the environment—while promoting 'good subsidies' that address market failures. The text highlights the high costs of fossil fuel and agricultural subsidies and the carbon footprint of state support in the aluminium sector, advocating for a socially responsible, progressive transition to sustainable government support.

Between 2019 and 2023, agribusiness interests spent over $523 million lobbying on the US food and farm bill, with spending peaking in 2023. The report highlights the role of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) in opposing climate action and environmental regulations while advocating for commodity subsidies. It recommends that Congress prioritize small and marginalized farmers and strengthen antitrust enforcement to curb corporate power.

The document advocates for 'nature-positive trade' to support the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework's goal to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. It highlights that over half of global GDP is dependent on nature and urges the WTO to implement policies such as lowering tariffs on environmental goods and eliminating perverse subsidies. While noting progress through initiatives like the Dialogue on Plastics Pollution, it expresses disappointment over the lack of agreement at the Thirteenth WTO Ministerial Conference regarding fisheries and agricultural subsidies.

The document examines the conflict between current global food systems and biodiversity, noting that while food systems depend on natural capital, they are the primary drivers of biodiversity loss. It highlights that USD 700 billion in annual government agricultural support often incentivizes harmful practices like the overuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. To address this, the author analyzes three national case studies: the UK's transition to paying for 'environmental public goods', India's support for organic 'clusters' to improve soil health, and Brazil's ABC+ plan for climate adaptation and low-carbon agriculture. The paper concludes that achieving the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework's Target 18 requires better practical guidance for policymakers and greater coherence between international frameworks, including the WTO, the Paris Agreement, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

The report identifies two primary misinformation strategies: 'disparage' (78% of cases), which attacks alternative proteins and climate science, and 'enhance' (22%), which promotes animal products through health-washing and greenwashing. It highlights the role of 'misinfluencers'—where 50 accounts drive 50% of total engagement—and examines how these narratives intersect with far-right ideologies and real-world policy debates in the Netherlands and Ireland.

The report identifies livestock production, rice cultivation, and land use as primary methane sources in agriculture, highlighting that the sector accounts for approximately 42 percent of anthropogenic methane emissions. It argues that mitigating these emissions provides significant health co-benefits, such as reducing tropospheric ozone and respiratory illnesses caused by biomass burning and manure management. Proposed solutions include transitioning to plant-rich diets, implementing alternate wetting and drying (AWD) in rice farming, and adopting regenerative agricultural practices. The document emphasizes the need for systemic policy changes, including the reform of agricultural subsidies and the implementation of mandatory emissions regulations, while noting that livestock remains a critical nutritional and economic resource in the Global South.

The Forest Declaration Assessment identifies a significant funding gap for global forest goals, estimating a need for up to USD 460 billion annually for protection and restoration. Simultaneously, it highlights a conflict in public spending, where agricultural subsidies—termed "gray" finance—amount to between USD 378 and USD 635 billion per year in activities potentially harmful to forests.

The author argues that while governments can implement unilateral trade-related tools to promote sustainable agriculture, transboundary environmental challenges require multilateral coordination through the WTO. The paper identifies three 'windows of opportunity' for the WTO: addressing environmentally harmful agricultural subsidies, managing sustainability requirements and standards to reduce costs for developing countries, and utilizing the new work program on food insecurity to build resilience in least developed countries and net food-importing developing countries (NFIDCs).

The Union of Concerned Scientists argues that the US food and farm system is dominated by industrial corporations that damage the environment and exploit workers. To address this, the brief recommends that Congress cosponsor the Agriculture Resilience Act (ARA) to increase USDA investments in agroecology, carbon capture, and climate-resilient research, and the Justice for Black Farmers Act (JBFA) to combat systemic discrimination and prevent further land loss among Black farmers.

The document outlines sustainability standards for the mining and processing sectors, such as the ICMM Mining Principles and IRMA Standard, which emphasize biodiversity conservation and the mitigation hierarchy. It provides financial estimates for forest protection, noting a global need of USD 45–460 billion annually to meet Paris Agreement goals, while contrasting this with 'gray finance'—including agricultural subsidies estimated between USD 378 billion and USD 635 billion per year—that may risk deforestation. Additionally, it identifies the emergence of green taxonomies in the EU and Colombia and risk assessment frameworks in countries like Brazil and Malaysia to align financial flows with nature preservation.