Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing outlines five trends for climate-aligned finance in 2022: the substantiation of net-zero commitments through interim targets, the publication and assessment of credible transition plans, a shift toward real-economy impact over paper alignment, the adoption of forward-looking data and metrics, and the expansion of sectoral alignment agreements for high-emitting industries.

ClientEarth supports the FCA's proposed SDR and labelling framework in principle but warns that without strict criteria and enforcement, the regime could formalise greenwashing. The organization advocates for the adoption of 'double materiality' in disclosures, the removal of the 'Responsible' label, and the refinement of the 'Sustainable-Transition' label to avoid confusion with climate-specific terminology. It further calls for mandatory sustainability impact metrics and a clear enforcement roadmap to ensure accountability for fund managers.

The report defines 'climate-washing' as a subset of greenwashing specifically targeting climate change claims and examines the rising trend of litigation used to hold state and non-state actors accountable. It categorizes misleading communications into three areas: corporate/governmental commitments (such as net-zero pledges), product attributes (such as labeling natural gas as 'clean'), and the disclosure of financial risks and investments. The authors highlight a gap between public climate pledges and actual emission reductions, noting that many companies continue to invest in fossil fuels while advertising clean energy. The document provides recommendations for companies, policymakers, NGOs, and lawyers to combat disinformation and increase transparency.

The catalog consists of 10 independent educational activities linked to five BC3 research lines: Climate Basis, Low Carbon, Terrestrial Ecosystems, Adaptation Laboratory, and Integrated Models of Human and Natural Systems. These activities employ active methodologies, such as cooperative learning and research-based learning, to develop students' scientific and social competencies. Key topics include carbon footprint calculation, planetary boundaries, climate justice, degrowth, and urban heat islands. The guide also provides a conceptual overview of climate change, citing IPCC AR6 data to emphasize the need to limit global warming to 1.5 ºC by reducing global emissions by 43% and methane emissions by 34% by 2030.

The report argues that the climate pledges of major oil and gas companies are 'empty promises' designed to deceive the public. It finds that none of the analyzed companies' plans meet the standards required to limit warming to 1.5°C, as they often exclude Scope 3 emissions, rely on unproven carbon capture technology, and continue to invest in fossil fuel exploration and production.

The report argues that 'net zero' initiatives are being manipulated by 'Big Polluters' to create an illusion of climate action while continuing to expand fossil fuel portfolios. It specifically analyzes the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, the UN's High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) on Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities, and the Race to Zero campaign. The analysis highlights how leadership roles in these bodies are held by individuals and organizations with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry, such as executives from banks that provide billions in fossil fuel financing and lawyers representing oil majors. For instance, the report notes that member banks of the Race to Zero, Net-Zero Banking Alliance, and GFANZ invested over US$500 billion in fossil fuels in 2021, with 25% directed toward new expansion. The document concludes that these initiatives allow polluters to greenwash their business plans and avoid meaningful regulation.

The report analyzes the links between 'Big Polluters' and three major net-zero initiatives: the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, the High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) on Net-Zero Commitments of Non-State Entities, and the Race to Zero. It argues that these initiatives are compromised by leaders and advisors with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry, allowing companies to 'greenwash' their business models while continuing to finance fossil fuel expansion. The document highlights specific instances where financial institutions and corporate executives within these bodies have a history of funding fossil fuels or opposing environmental justice, thereby questioning the credibility of the standards and guidelines these bodies produce.

The report analyzes the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM), the UN High-Level Expert Group (HLEG), and the 'Race to Zero' alliance, asserting that these bodies are compromised by ties to the fossil fuel industry. It details how board members and advisors have professional links to companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP, or financial institutions that continue to fund fossil fuel expansion. The document argues that these connections allow polluters to use 'net zero' frameworks as a tool for greenwashing and to avoid regulations that would require actual emission reductions at the source.

The Center for International Environmental Law argues that COP26 failed to address the root causes of the climate crisis, specifically fossil fuels, and instead relied on 'false solutions' like carbon offsets. The statement highlights the exclusion of civil society and Indigenous Peoples from negotiations, the inadequacy of climate finance for adaptation and loss and damage, and the persistence of 'greenwashing' by corporate interests. While noting some progress in marginal alliances like the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance, the author concludes that the official negotiated outcomes lack the ambition and equity required to keep global warming below 1.5°C.

ClientEarth has issued a formal letter to Deloitte alleging that the firm is failing to demonstrate how it incorporates material climate risks into its audits of listed companies. The document asserts that existing standards from the IASB, IAASB, and FASB already require the consideration of climate-related matters. Referencing a report by Carbon Tracker and the Carbon Accounting Project, ClientEarth claims that Deloitte and other auditors are habitually failing to provide evidence of climate risk assessment, creating an information gap for investors and risking legal liability in jurisdictions such as the UK and US. The letter calls on Deloitte to review its audit practices, ensure consistency between financial statements and narrative climate commitments, and adopt Paris-aligned accounting assumptions.

ClientEarth asserts that KPMG and other auditors are failing to incorporate material climate-related financial risks into company audits, despite clear guidance from standard-setters like the IFRS Foundation and IAASB. Referencing a Carbon Tracker report, the letter highlights a systemic lack of transparency regarding climate-sensitive assumptions and a failure to align accounts with the Paris Agreement. ClientEarth warns that this creates a material information gap for investors and exposes KPMG to regulatory sanctions and legal liability in the UK and US.

ClientEarth asserts that EY and other auditors are failing to incorporate material climate-related financial risks into company audits, despite clear guidance from standard-setters like the IFRS Foundation and IAASB. Referencing a Carbon Tracker report, the letter highlights a systemic lack of transparency regarding climate-sensitive assumptions in financial statements. ClientEarth warns EY of potential legal and regulatory liabilities in the UK and US and calls for a comprehensive review of its audit practices for carbon-intensive firms.

ClientEarth has issued a formal letter to PwC alleging systemic failures in the audit of climate-related financial risks. The document asserts that existing IFRS, US GAAP, and IAASB standards already require the consideration of material climate risks, yet a report by Carbon Tracker indicates that PwC and other auditors frequently fail to demonstrate this scrutiny. ClientEarth warns that such failures create an information gap for investors and expose PwC to regulatory sanctions, shareholder claims, and potential criminal liability. The letter calls for a comprehensive review of PwC's audit practices for carbon-intensive companies and a commitment to using Paris-aligned accounting assumptions.

The statement critiques 'Nature-based Solutions' (NbS) as a deceptive framework used by governments and corporations to justify 'net zero' targets without implementing deep emission reductions. It asserts that NbS rely on flawed assumptions about carbon sequestration and risk triggering massive land grabs in the Global South, citing the example of ENI in Mozambique. The author calls for structural changes, immediate emission cuts by developed nations, and the protection of Indigenous rights over market-based environmental schemes.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that Ryanair Ltd's claims of having "low CO2 emissions" and being the "lowest emissions airline" were misleading. While the ASA accepted the CO2 per passenger-kilometre metric, it found that the advertisements lacked sufficient information for consumers to verify emission reductions compared to other carriers and noted that the airline's data calculations omitted well-known competitors. The case is cited as an example of "greenwashing," where companies falsely brand services as climate-friendly to mislead consumers.

Carbon Market Watch advocates for a dual approach to carbon market activism, combining the exposure of 'brazen greenwashing'—such as 'carbon-neutral fossil fuels'—with active participation in governance bodies like the TSVCM and VCMI to ensure human rights and accounting integrity.

ClientEarth argues that the Society of Lloyd’s is risking 'greenwash' by making public net-zero commitments while keeping the specific guidance issued to managing agents private. The letter asserts that without transparency, it is impossible to verify if Lloyd's is following a science-based pathway or maintaining its previous 'Fuel Targets' to exit coal, tar sands, and Arctic oil. ClientEarth warns that misleading statements could breach the legal and regulatory duties of the Society and its Council members under FCA and PRA rules.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the COP26 deforestation pledge as a rebranding of failed initiatives like REDD+, asserting that it facilitates corporate greenwashing through carbon credits and offsets. The statement highlights the hypocrisy of signatory nations, citing the EU-Mercosur agreement's impact on the Amazon and the lack of binding regulations to protect Indigenous Peoples' rights and stop industrial agriculture and extractive industries.

The document critiques the current global energy system as a driver of climate change and systemic oppression, particularly affecting women in the Global South. It warns against 'false solutions'—such as greenwashing and 'purplewashing'—where corporations adopt environmental or feminist rhetoric without challenging underlying power structures. The report advocates for a 'Feminist Just Energy Transition' based on energy democracy, public ownership, and the centrality of care work and life sustainability over profit accumulation.

The report by Friends of the Earth International contends that the current energy system is built on systemic oppression, including patriarchy and neocolonialism, which disproportionately affects women, indigenous peoples, and the Global South. It warns against 'false solutions' such as greenwashing and 'purplewashing' (superficial feminism), where corporations use renewable energy or gender equality rhetoric to mask continued exploitation. The authors advocate for a feminist energy transition centered on the 'sustainability of life,' public ownership, degrowth, and the recognition of care work, rather than market-led technical fixes.