Search Climate Insights Directory

The Mining and Environmental Justice Community Network of South Africa (MEJCON-SA) and Mining Affected Communities United in Action (MACUA) have lodged an appeal to the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment to set aside an environmental authorisation (EA) granted by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) on 09 May 2025 to Tetra4 (Pty) Ltd. The EA allows Tetra4 to extend its production right to incorporate 18 additional wells across 80 farm portions in the Free State Province. The appellants argue that Tetra4 used a Basic Assessment Report (BAR) process under section 102 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) to circumvent a previous ministerial order from 01 August 2024, which had set aside a larger 'Cluster 2' expansion due to inadequate climate and groundwater assessments.

This responding statement, submitted by groundWork to the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE), argues for the dismissal of Karpowership SA (PTY) Ltd’s appeal against the refusal of an Environmental Authorisation (EA) for a gas-to-power project in Richards Bay. groundWork contends that the project is neither necessary nor desirable, citing significant environmental risks, inadequate public participation, and the existence of more cost-effective, renewable energy alternatives.

The briefing argues that the EU's RePowerEU target to produce 35 billion m3 of biomethane by 2030 lacks an environmental impact assessment, creating risks of methane leakage and the intensification of industrial livestock farming. It finds that no existing EU policy sufficiently mitigates the environmental and social impacts of the sector, and that financial frameworks may channel over €37 billion into projects without robust sustainability checks. The report highlights a systemic issue with methane leaks, noting that real-world losses may be higher than official estimates, and warns that using biomethane to maintain existing gas grids could delay the phase-out of fossil fuels.

The document highlights the disproportionate contribution of livestock to anthropogenic methane emissions and the failure of major meat and dairy producing nations and corporations to set ambitious reduction targets. It argues that technical fixes alone are insufficient and that a systemic shift toward lower meat and dairy consumption is required to meet Paris Agreement goals.

The report highlights that the agricultural sector is the largest source of methane emissions in the EU, accounting for 53% of total anthropogenic methane emissions in 2019. It argues that current EU policies lack the ambition and urgency needed to meet the Global Methane Pledge's 30% reduction target by 2030. A study by CE Delft indicates that while a 'business-as-usual' scenario would only yield a 13.4% reduction, the EU could potentially reduce emissions by 49% to 68% if all available mitigation measures are adopted, including a widespread shift toward healthier diets with lower meat and dairy consumption. The report emphasizes that dietary changes alone could reduce total EU methane emissions by 15% to 19%. It recommends that the EU establish science-based methane reduction targets for the agricultural sector, promote plant-based diets through the Sustainable Food Systems Framework Law, and impose binding methane reporting and reduction targets on companies operating within the EU.

The statement warns that adopting GWP* would allow the livestock industry to greenwash emissions and undermine the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C target. It recommends maintaining GWP100 or GWP20 for reporting and mitigation policies.

The Methane Matters Consortium argues that the EU's Vision for Food and Agriculture ignores the critical need to reduce methane emissions from animal agriculture. The authors state that over 50% of EU methane emissions originate from agriculture and that current voluntary measures are insufficient. They recommend establishing binding methane reduction targets, reforming the Common Agricultural Policy to support farmers in reducing herd sizes, and promoting plant-based diets to meet the goals of the Global Methane Pledge.

The authors argue that the current RED III methodology over-credits manure-based biomethane by using unrealistic baseline assumptions for manure management and incorrectly treating manure as a zero-emission waste feedstock. They call for a revision of the default avoided-emissions credit and a reassessment of system boundaries to include upstream livestock emissions.

The report 'Toxic Accounts' by Clean Creatives examines how BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell shifted their marketing strategies from 2020 to 2024. The analysis finds that these companies moved away from net-zero ambitions and 'greenwashing' toward a strategy of 'fossil fuel dominance,' emphasizing energy security and the indispensability of oil and gas. The document details the use of 'false solutions'—such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), blue/gray hydrogen, and certain biofuels—to justify continued fossil fuel production. It highlights specific campaign evolutions, such as BP's shift from 'greening companies' to 'energy security' and ExxonMobil's 'Breaking Free' anti-EV campaign, arguing that these narratives delay the clean energy transition to prioritize short-term shareholder returns.

The document asserts that methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain are significantly underestimated, potentially making gas power more harmful to the climate than coal if leakage rates exceed 3%. For Japan, which imports over 90% of its gas as LNG, this creates both climate risks and energy security vulnerabilities. The briefing advocates for a transition away from gas through policies such as phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, prioritizing grid infrastructure for electrification and renewables, simplifying permitting for renewables, and implementing Carbon Contracts for Difference (CfD).

The document details the Climate Bonds Initiative's (CBI) voluntary labelling scheme designed to align agricultural debt instruments with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. It provides a three-step certification process (pre-issuance, issuance, and post-issuance) and defines eligible agriculture projects across three categories: whole production units, interventions within production units (mitigation and adaptation), and supporting activities. The guide highlights Brazil as a key market, noting that while land use is the second largest green bond category there, crop-specific issuance is growing, citing three certified cases: Rizoma Agro, Solinftec, and Produzindo Certo.

The document provides a framework for Brazilian livestock producers to issue certified green bonds aligned with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Climate Agreement. It details a three-step issuance process—pre-issuance, issuance, and post-issuance—and defines eligible projects across three routes: whole production units, specific unit interventions, and supporting activities outside the farm. To achieve certification, issuers must meet specific screening indicators, including no land conversion since 2010 and demonstrated low-carbon animal management. The guide highlights Brazil's significant role as a global livestock producer and the potential for green bonds to reduce methane emissions, which account for nearly 65% of the country's agricultural emissions.

The document outlines the Climate Bonds Standard and Certification Scheme to align livestock investments with the 1.5ºC global warming limit. It details a three-step process for certification—pre-issuance, issuance, and post-issuance—and defines eligible livestock projects across three routes: whole production units, on-farm interventions, and off-farm activities. The guide emphasizes the potential for green bonds to decarbonize the Brazilian livestock sector, which is one of the world's largest producers of beef, pork, and poultry.

The Bioenergy Criteria Background document outlines the framework for certifying bioenergy projects as climate-aligned. It establishes a temporal declining trajectory for life-cycle GHG emissions, aiming for near-zero emissions by 2050. The document defines eligible biomass feedstocks—categorized into agricultural, forestry, processing waste, and aquatic biomass—and sets strict sustainability requirements to prevent negative impacts on biodiversity, food security, and carbon stocks. Special emphasis is placed on mitigating methane emissions in the biogas and biomethane value chain through the adoption of 'best-practice' scenarios and leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs. Additionally, it provides a framework for assessing the adaptation and resilience of bioenergy assets against climate-related hazards.

The guide outlines a framework for deploying capital to reduce methane and flaring in the oil and gas sector, with a particular focus on National Oil Companies (NOCs). It provides detailed recommendations for selecting eligible projects, quantifying emissions, and establishing credible KPIs and sustainability performance targets (SPTs) aligned with the IEA's Net Zero Scenario. The document also specifies requirements for external verification and reporting to prevent greenwashing.

A coalition of 226 scientists, financial professionals, and civil society organizations argues that including fossil gas in the EU Taxonomy contradicts climate science and risks turning the framework into a greenwashing tool. The authors highlight the high climate impact of methane leaks and assert that such a move would undermine the EU's global climate leadership and the goals of the Green Deal.

The open letter argues that fossil gas is incompatible with the EU's climate-neutrality goals and the 1.5°C temperature limit. It claims that investing in renewable energy creates up to three times more jobs per euro than fossil fuel investments and that fossil gas infrastructure is generally incompatible with renewable gases at scale.

ClientEarth employs a legal-centric strategy to enforce environmental laws, challenge corporate pollution, and reshape financial systems. Key achievements include winning the right for the public to challenge the EU in court on environmental decisions, securing the closure of coal plants in Europe, and litigating against fossil fuel companies for misleading advertising and abandoned wells. The organization focuses on four primary pillars: breaking new legal ground for justice, aligning financial flows with planetary needs, transforming food and land use, and phasing out fossil fuels in energy and transport.

The report 'Cradle to Grave' details the systemic health impacts of fossil fuels across their entire value chain—extraction, refining, transport, combustion, and disposal. It highlights how these processes cause respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurological diseases, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities in 'sacrifice zones'. The document argues that current climate policies overlook these multidimensional health harms and calls for the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, the adoption of the 'Polluter Pays' principle, and a transition to renewable energy to prevent millions of premature deaths.

The document outlines the systemic health impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle, emphasizing that pollution affects individuals from fetal development through old age. It highlights the disproportionate burden on marginalized communities and calls for an immediate end to fossil fuel expansion, the elimination of subsidies, and the adoption of a 'polluter-pays' principle to fund a health-centered transition to renewable energy.