Search Climate Insights Directory

The report outlines a methodology to distinguish between green, transition, and phase-down activities to mobilise private capital for Australia's net zero goals. It defines 'green' activities as consistent with Paris Agreement goals and 'transition' activities as those with a continued role in a net zero economy that lack low-carbon alternatives. The methodology recommends using internationally recognised 1.5°C aligned climate-science scenarios, specifically from the IEA and Climateworks, to objectively determine eligibility and avoid greenwashing and carbon lock-in.

The report analyzes over 285 million social media posts from June 2022 to July 2023 to identify trends in meat and dairy misinformation. It categorizes misinformation into 'disparage' narratives targeting alternatives and 'enhance' narratives promoting animal products. The study finds that a small number of 'misinfluencers' drive significant engagement, often linking food systems to far-right conspiracy theories like 'The Great Reset'. These narratives are shown to undermine scientific consensus and hinder government efforts to reduce agricultural emissions in countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands.

ClientEarth calls for global leaders at COP28 to implement bold legal actions to phase out fossil fuels. The organization emphasizes the need to eliminate the $7 trillion in global fossil fuel subsidies reported by the IMF for 2022 and to combat greenwashing and disinformation used by the fossil fuel industry to delay climate action. ClientEarth advocates for bans on fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship, citing precedents such as the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and its own legal actions against companies like BP, KLM, and Total.

The Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) collaborated with the Estonian government to create the country's first unified carbon footprint calculation methodology and emissions factor database. This tool allows public and private sector organizations to assess their environmental impact on a consistent basis, helping to avoid greenwashing and support EU environmental policy. Initial implementation in the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Interior has led to measurable reductions in carbon emissions, waste, and water consumption, with the Estonian government aiming to expand these assessments across all ministries.

The report distinguishes between biodiversity offsetting, which aims for 'no net loss' to compensate for development impacts, and biodiversity credits (biocredits), which are voluntary investments in conservation. It argues that offsetting is often ineffective because biodiversity losses are difficult to quantify and ecosystems are not interchangeable. While biocredits are presented as a more positive investment, the report warns they may facilitate greenwashing or prioritize profitability over ecology. It highlights the role of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the promotion of 'nature markets' by the UK, France, Australia, and the EU, while suggesting alternatives like target-based ecological compensation or centralized private sector funds.

A letter from a multidisciplinary group of scientists to President Biden calling for a fast and fair phaseout of all fossil fuels, increased climate finance for low- and middle-income countries, the operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund, and the protection of COP28 negotiations from fossil fuel industry interference.

The report examines the GWP* metric, which focuses on changes in methane emissions over time rather than absolute levels. It argues that this methodology allows high-polluting companies and countries to present minor reductions as negative emissions, thereby escaping accountability and undermining the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C goal. Through case studies of Tyson, Fonterra, and New Zealand, the document demonstrates how GWP* can make significant emitters appear climate neutral. It further details lobbying efforts by the animal agriculture industry in the US, UK, Ireland, and New Zealand to adopt this metric.

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 guide outlines a five-step process for corporates to issue transition-linked bonds: building a credible transition plan, selecting a thematic label, creating a sustainable financing framework, executing the bond issuance, and conducting post-issuance reporting. It emphasizes the necessity of science-based, 1.5°C-aligned decarbonisation pathways and the integration of social safeguards to ensure a just transition. The document details the differences between Use of Proceeds (UoP) bonds and Sustainability-Linked Bonds (SLBs), providing criteria for selecting material Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Sustainability Performance Targets (SPTs). It also highlights market trends, such as the 'greenium' (cheaper pricing for labelled debt), and warns against greenwashing risks associated with non-transparent frameworks or carbon lock-in activities.

The document is a resource list compiled by Friends of the Earth International, cataloguing various publications that challenge the legitimacy of 'false climate solutions'. It highlights materials focusing on the risks of net-zero targets, nature-based solutions, carbon markets, and geoengineering, often linking these mechanisms to land grabbing and corporate greenwashing.

Reclaim Finance analyzed 40 bond packages issued by 13 fossil fuel companies in 2023, totaling US$45 billion, to expose the financial institutions facilitating fossil fuel expansion. The report highlights a significant policy gap where banks and asset managers continue to provide corporate-level financing and bond structuring for oil and gas developers despite public net zero commitments. It specifically notes that some fossil fuel bonds have been included in ESG funds and marketed as 'sustainability-linked bonds'.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the UNFCCC's Recognition and Accountability Framework must prevent greenwashing by prohibiting the use of carbon offsets for within-value chain mitigation. The submission proposes strict criteria for net-zero pledges, including coverage of scopes 1-3 and transparency in reporting absolute emissions. It further suggests that non-compliance should lead to the revocation of UNFCCC privileges, such as observer status, for high-emitting non-state actors.

Over 60 figures from civil society, economics, and academia call for the French government to adopt ambitious exclusion criteria for the ISR label, specifically targeting companies expanding fossil fuel production, to align the label with climate goals and avoid misleading investors.

Over 60 representatives from academia, business, and various organisations have urged the French government to ensure the socially responsible investment (SRI) label does not include oil and gas companies with expansion strategies that conflict with France's climate goals.

A coalition of financial actors, academics, and NGOs calls on the French government to ensure the credibility of the reformed ISR label by excluding companies developing new fossil fuel projects. The signatories argue that allowing such investments constitutes greenwashing and contradicts national and international climate goals, specifically the 1.5°C target. They support the Label Committee's proposal to exclude non-conventional fossil fuels and advocate for a broader exclusion of conventional hydrocarbon projects to align private savings with the ecological transition.

Clean Creatives and a group of agencies have petitioned B Lab to apply the same strict certification criteria to advertising and PR agencies as it does to fossil fuel companies, citing the conflict of interest when B Corp agencies support polluters like Shell and PetroCanada.

The Climate Bonds Initiative argues that Japan's GX plan requires strengthening in several key areas to be truly 1.5°C-aligned. Key recommendations include prioritizing established renewable technologies, setting a clear phase-out date for unabated coal power by 2035, strictly limiting gas investments, and tightening standards for low-carbon hydrogen and ammonia. The report emphasizes that the success of Japan's planned 20 trillion yen GX Economic Transition Bonds depends on rigorous alignment with scientific pathways to mobilize private capital and avoid stranded assets.

Reclaim Finance argues that TotalEnergies' claims of diversification are misleading, as the company intends to increase oil and gas production through 2028 and expand its liquefied natural gas (LNG) capacity. The report highlights that the company's renewable energy growth is largely driven by acquisitions of existing projects rather than new construction, and that its 'clean' hydrogen and electricity goals still rely heavily on fossil gas. A specific case study on the Papua LNG project illustrates the potential for significant carbon emissions and human rights violations, while the report concludes by urging financial institutions to stop supporting new fossil fuel projects.

Reclaim Finance argues that TotalEnergies' claims of diversification are misleading, as the company intends to increase absolute oil and gas production by 2030 and is aggressively expanding its liquefied natural gas (LNG) portfolio. The report highlights that the company's renewable energy growth relies heavily on acquisitions rather than new capacity and criticizes the Papua LNG project for its projected climate and human rights impacts.

The statement warns that fossil fuel companies are leveraging taxpayer-funded DACCS technology to offset emissions and maintain their social license to operate. It highlights Occidental Petroleum's Stratos project as a primary example of how carbon capture can be linked to enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which may actually increase net CO2 emissions. The author urges EU policymakers to ensure the Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) bans the use of removals for offsetting to prevent similar corporate greenwashing in Europe.