Search Climate Insights Directory

The report profiles 12 private equity firms—including Blackstone, Carlyle, and KKR—detailing their substantial portfolios of oil, gas, and coal assets. It argues that these firms fuel the climate crisis and environmental injustice while their executives accumulate immense wealth and social prestige. The document provides specific examples of environmental violations, such as oil spills and methane leaks, and highlights the firms' tendency to avoid global climate pledges like those made at COP26.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, on behalf of the Life After Coal Campaign, submits a formal objection to the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy's draft Gas Master Plan Basecase Report. The submission argues that the plan is 'reckless and unnecessary', contradicting South Africa's constitutional obligations to protect citizens from climate change and ignoring energy modelling that suggests gas-to-power is not required for energy security.

Natural Justice argues that South Africa's Gas Master Plan perpetuates fossil fuel dependence and undermines the Just Energy Transition and the Global Methane Pledge. The organization highlights significant gaps in the plan regarding community compensation for land expropriation, the lack of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), and the failure to address fugitive methane emissions. Furthermore, it criticizes the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy for an inadequate public comment period and the absence of risk mitigation strategies for gas explosions or economic fluctuations.

Natural Justice argues that South Africa's Gas Master Plan is incompatible with the country's climate commitments and the Climate Change Bill. The submission highlights risks including fugitive methane emissions, fossil fuel dependency, and the potential for inadequate compensation for land expropriation. It calls for a transition toward renewable energy, the adoption of the 'free prior and informed consent' (FPIC) principle for affected communities, and a more transparent public participation process.

The Institute for Policy Integrity supports the EPA's November 2021 proposed standards for methane emissions in the oil and natural gas sector but urges the agency to expand the scope of regulated sources to include abandoned wells and flares. The organization further recommends enhancing the EPA's regulatory analysis through distributional analysis, extended time frames, and the quantification of co-benefits. Additionally, it advocates for a more robust justification of discount rates and the inclusion of global damages within the social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG), asserting that the SC-GHG represents a lower bound of climate impacts.

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 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 Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations wrote to Arla Foods to highlight a 'complete lack of action' from major meat and dairy companies regarding methane emissions. Based on a report titled 'Blindspot', the authors state that none of the 20 companies analysed report methane emissions separately or have concrete targets to reduce them. Arla specifically scored 14.8 out of 100 in the ranking, with the authors noting a lack of specific commitments and only 'minor investment' in technical methane abatement and protein alternatives. The letter recommends that Arla set science-based targets aligned with 1.5°C, report CO2 and methane separately, and shift toward sustainable food systems including reduced meat and dairy production.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform Groupe Bigard that it scored 0 out of 100 in a ranking of global meat and dairy companies' climate policies, specifically noting a lack of methane emission reporting and reduction targets. The letter demands disclosure of investments in methane abatement and meat alternatives and recommends the adoption of science-based targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, including scope 3 emissions.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations wrote to Cargill on 20 December 2021, citing a report that found a "complete lack of action" among the 20 largest meat and dairy companies regarding methane emissions. The letter highlights that Cargill scored 15.2 out of 100 in the foundation's ranking and lacks specific methane reduction targets or separate reporting for methane emissions. The authors recommend that Cargill set science-based targets aligned with 1.5C, establish absolute methane reduction plans, invest in alternative proteins, and support policies promoting sustainable diets. The letter also requests specific data on investments in methane abatement and meat alternatives over the last five years.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations critique Danish Crown for its lack of concrete methane reduction targets and reporting, scoring the company 9.6 out of 100 in a ranking of 20 meat and dairy companies. The letter demands disclosure of investments in methane abatement and alternative proteins and recommends the adoption of science-based targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, including absolute emission reductions and a shift toward sustainable food systems.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to Danone to highlight the company's insufficient action on methane emissions, noting that Danone scored 30.2 out of 100 in a ranking of 20 meat and dairy companies. The letter demands disclosure of investments in methane abatement and alternative proteins and recommends that Danone set science-based targets for absolute methane reductions in line with a 1.5°C global heating limit.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform the Dairy Farmers of America (DFA) that the company scored 12.8 out of 100 in a ranking of climate policies, indicating a lack of meaningful action to reduce methane emissions. The authors state that none of the 20 companies analysed in their 'Blindspot' report report methane emissions separately or have concrete targets to reduce them. The letter recommends that DFA set science-based targets aligned with 1.5°C, report CO2 and methane separately, invest in alternative proteins, and support policies that shift diets toward sustainable options.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations argue that major meat and dairy companies, specifically Fonterra, are failing to address methane emissions. They recommend the adoption of science-based targets, separate reporting for methane and CO2, and increased investment in alternative proteins to align with the 1.5°C global heating limit.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to FrieslandCampina to highlight the company's lack of action on methane emissions, scoring it 8.8 out of 100 in a ranking of 20 meat and dairy companies. The letter demands disclosure of investments in methane abatement and alternative proteins and recommends setting absolute methane reduction targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform Itoham Foods Inc. that it scored 1.6 out of 100 in a ranking of meat and dairy companies' climate policies, specifically noting a lack of methane-specific emissions reporting and targets. The letter demands disclosure of investments in methane abatement and alternative proteins and recommends the adoption of science-based targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, including the reduction of absolute emissions and support for sustainable diets.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to JBS Foods to demand concrete action and transparency regarding methane emissions. Citing their 'Blindspot' report, the authors state that none of the 20 largest meat and dairy companies analysed report methane emissions separately or have meaningful targets to reduce them. JBS specifically scored 9.6 out of 100 in the ranking. The letter recommends that JBS set science-based targets aligned with 1.5°C, report absolute emissions rather than intensity, and invest in alternative proteins. It also requests specific data on investments in methane abatement and meat alternatives over the last five years.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations wrote to Lactalis Group on 20 December 2021, citing a report that found a "complete lack of action" among the 20 largest meat and dairy companies regarding methane emissions. The letter highlights that Lactalis scored 3.2 out of 100 in their ranking and lacks specific methane targets or separate emissions reporting. The authors recommend that Lactalis set science-based targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, establish absolute methane reduction plans, invest in alternative proteins, and support policies promoting sustainable diets. The letter also requests specific data on investments in methane abatement and dairy alternatives over the last five years.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organizations write to Marfrig to highlight the company's lack of concrete methane reduction targets and to request specific data on investments in abatement technologies and meat alternatives.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform Mengniu Dairy that it scored 4.0 out of 100 in a ranking of climate policies, noting the company has not set specific methane reduction targets or reported methane-specific emissions. The authors call for the company to adopt science-based targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, report CO2 and methane separately, and invest in alternative proteins.