Search Climate Insights Directory

The document analyzes the strategies used by agribusiness to delay climate action, focusing on the 24th World Meat Congress and COP30. It identifies key industry narratives—such as the claim that meat is sustainable, essential for health, and that the industry is simply meeting inevitable demand—as tools to distract from the need for dietary shifts and methane reductions. The report highlights the role of industry-funded media, like the film 'World Without Cows', and the influence of agribusiness on the FAO and US dietary guidelines to maintain 'meat primacy' and avoid systemic reform.

The document advocates for 'lifecycle thinking' in packaging to avoid 'greenwashing' and suboptimal design. It explains that both overpackaging and underpackaging create environmental burdens, and that the optimal design varies by product. The report details the functions of packaging—containment, protection, utility, and communication—and evaluates various end-of-life (EOL) options, noting that waste management infrastructure in low-income countries often relies on open dumps. It concludes that policy interventions like Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and Deposit Return Schemes (DRS) are essential for improving material collection and sorting.

Reclaim Finance advocates for a revised SFDR framework (SFDR 2) to address confusion and greenwashing caused by the original 2019 regulation. The organization supports the exclusion of fossil fuel developers from sustainable and transition categories, calls for clearer criteria for 'transition' assets, and identifies inconsistencies in the European Commission's proposal regarding reporting obligations and fund claims.

The document argues that the original SFDR created confusion and enabled greenwashing due to a lack of clear minimum guarantees. It proposes that the revised 'SFDR 2' should exclude fossil fuel developers from all categories, establish stricter and clearer criteria for 'transition' assets, and resolve inconsistencies regarding reporting obligations for non-categorized funds to restore investor trust.

The report finds that recycled polyester releases significantly more microfibers than virgin polyester, contradicting industry claims of sustainability and highlighting the risks of 'bottle-to-textile' downcycling.

The report argues that the fashion industry's shift to recycled polyester is a form of greenwashing, as recycled synthetic fibres release more microplastics than their virgin counterparts. Based on tests of 51 garments from major brands, the study finds that recycled polyester releases approximately 55% more fibres per gram than virgin polyester, and these fibres are smaller and potentially more toxic. The document also highlights the issue of 'downcycling' plastic bottles into textiles, which removes them from closed-loop recycling and creates garments that cannot be effectively recycled. It concludes that the only fundamental solution is to reduce the overall use of both virgin and recycled synthetic fibres.

The report finds that recycled polyester sheds significantly more and finer microfibres than virgin polyester, challenging industry claims of sustainability. Testing of 51 garments from Adidas, H&M, Nike, Shein, and Zara revealed that recycled polyester released an average of 12,430 fibres per gram, compared to 8,028 for virgin polyester. The study argues that the 'bottle-to-textile' recycling model is a form of downcycling that worsens pollution and allows brands to mask a continued reliance on virgin plastics. It also identifies discrepancies in 'recycled' labelling, particularly with Shein, and calls for EU-wide eco-design criteria and a global plastics treaty to cap virgin plastic production.

The report analyzes over 300 advertisements from four oil majors, arguing that they used 'paltering'—mixing truth with omissions—to mislead the public about emissions reductions, renewable energy investments, and the viability of technologies like carbon capture and algae biofuels.

The report provides a detailed appendix of advertising campaigns from four major oil companies—BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell—from 2000 to 2025. It identifies the agencies and professionals involved and describes the strategic goals of these campaigns, which often focused on rebranding the companies as environmentally responsible, promoting natural gas as a 'bridge' fuel, and shifting focus toward individual carbon footprints and low-carbon technologies like algae biofuels and carbon capture.

The report examines how activists and civil society in Latin America and the Caribbean use climate litigation to block fossil fuel expansion and promote policies aligned with the Paris Agreement. It highlights a predominantly rights-based approach, emphasizing the right to a healthy environment and the protection of Indigenous communities. The analysis identifies significant institutional barriers in the region, including high litigation costs, structural violence against environmental defenders, and a lack of specialized judicial training. While the region leads the Global South in climate litigation volume, it lags behind the Global North in lawsuits targeting private corporations directly. The document also warns of 'backlash' through investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, where companies use international arbitration to challenge decarbonization policies.

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.

The document defines climate disinformation as deliberately incorrect information used to manipulate or protect economic interests, and greenwashing as communication used by governments and companies to appear more sustainable than they are. It advises journalists to avoid 'false equidistance' by reflecting the scientific consensus that over 99% of specialized studies attribute climate change to human activity. Recommended reporting techniques include 'prebunking' (warning audiences about disinformation tactics) and the 'truth sandwich' method (starting and ending with facts while briefly addressing the myth). The guide emphasizes investigating the funding of science, particularly links to the fossil fuel industry, and examining the real-world impact of proposed climate solutions like carbon capture and plastic recycling, which it notes are often promoted by the fossil fuel industry despite limited impact. It highlights that while disinformation is a global phenomenon, its effects are most acute locally in regions with extractive projects and 'green transition' promises.

The document assesses India's 2024 guidelines against greenwashing, which prohibit vague environmental claims and require credible evidence for substantiation. These measures aim to align Indian businesses with international standards, enhance consumer trust, and improve competitiveness in global value chains, particularly within the retail, textile, and fast-moving consumer goods sectors. The text emphasizes that successful implementation relies on increasing consumer awareness, building institutional capacity, and strengthening third-party verification mechanisms such as eco-labels.

The document is an open letter from Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) and a coalition of 203 organizations and 202 experts. It argues that coordinated disinformation campaigns, primarily funded by the fossil fuel industry, are delaying the energy transition and sabotaging the Paris Agreement goals. The authors call on COP30 participants to move beyond the mere recognition of this threat to mandatory, verifiable actions that hold technology platforms, media, and the advertising sector accountable for the spread of manipulative content.

The document argues that coordinated climate disinformation, largely driven by the fossil fuel industry and amplified by Big Tech, constitutes a global emergency that delays the energy transition and threatens public health and human rights. It calls on COP30 participants to move beyond the mere recognition of this threat to implement mandatory, verifiable actions and regulatory measures against the monetization of disinformation and greenwashing.

The document argues that coordinated disinformation campaigns, primarily funded by the fossil fuel industry and disseminated via Big Tech and media, are delaying the energy transition and threatening public health and human rights. It calls for COP30 in Belém to move beyond the mere recognition of this issue to mandatory, verifiable actions and regulatory measures against the monetization of disinformation and greenwashing.

The report examines how Brazil's agribusiness sector, despite being the country's largest climate polluter, maintains a privileged position through lobbying and 'corporate capture'. It highlights the omission of agricultural methane from Brazil's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and warns that industry-led efforts at COP30, such as the 'AgriZone', aim to position the sector as a climate solution while resisting meaningful regulation.

New York State Attorney General Letitia James secured a settlement requiring JBS to reform deceptive marketing practices, report progress to the state for three years, and pay $1.1 million toward climate-smart agriculture in New York. The settlement follows allegations that JBS falsely marketed a trajectory toward net-zero emissions by 2040 while expanding meat processing. Mighty Earth has also initiated a lawsuit in Washington, DC, for violations of the Consumer Practices Protection Act and a case with the UK Financial Conduct Authority regarding Barclays' underwriting of $3 billion in Sustainability-Linked Bonds for JBS. The document asserts that JBS excludes the vast majority of its climate footprint—over 95%—from its net-zero calculations by reporting only Scope 1 and 2 operational emissions. Additionally, the text highlights JBS's expansion into Nigeria with a $2.5 billion investment in six slaughterhouses, alongside its history of Amazon deforestation and Clean Water Act violations in the US.

The report examines how Brazil's powerful agribusiness sector uses greenwashing and political lobbying to avoid climate regulation, specifically regarding methane emissions, as the country prepares to host COP30. It highlights the contradiction between Brazil's global climate leadership goals and the exclusion of agricultural methane from its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). The document details corporate efforts to shape the COP30 agenda through the 'AgriZone' and media partnerships, while criticizing structural weaknesses in the Brazilian Climate Plan, such as the exclusion of agriculture from the Emissions Trading System and the inefficiency of the ABC+ Plan. It concludes that the livestock industry's influence threatens the effectiveness of Brazil's climate commitments and the broader goals of the Paris Agreement.

The report argues that Brazil's agribusiness sector exercises disproportionate political power to maintain 'agricultural exceptionalism,' allowing it to avoid strict climate regulations. It highlights the omission of agricultural methane from Brazil's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and criticizes the industry's use of misleading metrics like GWP* to downplay emissions. The document also details corporate efforts by giants like JBS, MBRF, and Minerva to shape the COP30 agenda through sponsored events and media influence, while contrasting this industrial model with a more sustainable agroecological system led by small farmers.