Search Climate Insights Directory

The Landbanking Group (TLG) is introducing Nature Equity Assets (NEAs), a new asset class that uses real-time Measuring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) technology to value the ecological uplift of High Integrity Forests (HIFs) and regenerative agriculture. The instrument employs a blended finance approach, providing discounted loans to land stewards—primarily Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs)—who repay the capital through commodity sales and outcome-based payments from corporate or government funders. Initial pilot projects are targeting the soy and cacao value chains in Brazil, with future expansions planned for Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Quantitative modeling suggests that regenerative agriculture is more profitable for land stewards than conventional methods, though standalone conservation projects currently require concessional grants to be viable.

The We Mean Business Coalition argues that for NDCs to be 'investible', they must move beyond ambitious targets to include concrete implementation policies. The document proposes a three-pillar approach: setting ambitious economy-wide and sector-specific targets, developing consistent national and international policy frameworks, and establishing transparent dialogue between governments and businesses. It highlights that while renewable energy and electric vehicle adoption are accelerating, sectors like heavy industry and aviation require more targeted government intervention to overcome investment barriers. The report provides illustrative examples of successful policy-driven investments in India, Brazil, Sweden, the EU, and the US.

The report reveals how 'Big Meat and Dairy' companies employ a 'corporate playbook' of distraction, delay, and derailment to maintain the status quo and avoid environmental regulation. The industry uses greenwashing, industry-funded science to downplay methane emissions, and aggressive lobbying to secure 'agricultural exceptionalism,' ensuring that climate actions remain voluntary and supported by public subsidies rather than mandatory regulations. The analysis highlights a significant disparity between the industry's public PR regarding 'techno-fixes' and its actual investment in low-carbon solutions, while documenting the systematic weakening of climate policies like the EU's Farm to Fork strategy.

The Climate Bonds Initiative's Agriculture Production Criteria provide a framework for certifying agri-food production assets and entities. The criteria focus on two primary mitigation elements: reducing absolute greenhouse gas emissions (specifically N2O, CH4, and CO2) and sequestering carbon in agricultural soils and biomass. A mandatory precondition for all certifications is that the land must be deforestation- and conversion-free (DCF). For entities and sustainability-linked debt, the document defines 'Aligned' and 'Transition' tiers based on whether the entity's emission intensity meets a 1.5°C transition pathway immediately or by 2030. The framework also incorporates mandatory safeguards for climate adaptation and resilience, biodiversity, water management, social standards, and animal welfare to prevent unintended negative impacts.

The report identifies a strategy of 'agricultural exceptionalism' employed by the meat and dairy industry to avoid environmental regulation. It details three primary tactics: distracting the public via greenwashing and targeting youth on social media; delaying action by promoting voluntary technical solutions over systemic dietary changes; and derailing legislation through extensive political lobbying and funding in the US and EU. The document highlights the industry's use of specific scientific narratives, such as the GWP* metric and 'regenerative agriculture', to minimize the perceived impact of methane emissions.

The report exposes how 'Big Ag' employs a playbook of distraction, delay, and obstruction—similar to tactics used by the tobacco and oil industries—to prevent the regulation of agricultural emissions and the transition to plant-based diets. Through the analysis of 22 major companies, the authors find that these corporations use greenwashing, industry-funded science to downplay methane's impact, and aggressive lobbying to maintain a 'carrot without a stick' policy environment where changes remain voluntary and subsidized.

The report details how 'Big Meat and Dairy' companies employ tactics similar to those of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to avoid environmental regulation. These strategies include 'greenwashing' through weak net-zero targets, funding industry-biased research to minimize the impact of methane emissions, and aggressive lobbying to prevent binding legislation. The document highlights a pattern of 'carrot-only' approaches where companies promote voluntary technological fixes while spending more on advertising than on actual R&D for low-carbon solutions. A detailed case study on Italy reveals the use of transnational far-right narratives and online disinformation to frame cultivated meat as a threat to tradition and health, thereby supporting legislative bans.

The report argues that 'Big Meat and Dairy' corporations employ strategies similar to those of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to avoid environmental accountability. It identifies three primary tactics: distraction through greenwashing and targeting Gen Z; delaying action by promoting voluntary technical solutions over systemic dietary changes; and derailing legislation through political lobbying and 'revolving doors' between industry and government. The analysis covers 22 major corporations across four continents, finding that none meet UN integrity standards for climate goals. Specific case studies highlight how these tactics have weakened the EU's Green Deal and Farm to Fork strategy, influenced the US Inflation Reduction Act, and blocked agricultural emission regulations in New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, and Italy.

The report identifies a 'corporate playbook' used by the meat and dairy industry to avoid environmental regulation through three main tactics: distraction (greenwashing and funding biased science), procrastination (prioritizing advertising over low-carbon R&D), and dismantling (aggressive lobbying to weaken climate policies). It highlights how these strategies are applied globally, particularly in the EU, US, and Brazil, to maintain the status quo of animal agriculture.

The report reveals a 'corporate playbook' used by 'Big Meat and Dairy' to avoid environmental regulation through greenwashing, industry-funded science, and aggressive political lobbying. It argues that these companies use 'distract, delay and derail' tactics—similar to those used by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries—to maintain the status quo and prevent dietary shifts toward plant-based proteins. The investigation highlights how the industry promotes voluntary technological fixes over mandatory emissions cuts and leverages political influence to secure 'all-carrots-and-no-sticks' regulatory approaches.

The report exposes how 'Big Meat and Dairy' corporations employ strategies similar to those of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to avoid environmental regulation. It identifies three primary tactics: distracting the public through greenwashing and targeting Gen Z via social media; delaying action by promoting voluntary targets and industry-funded science (such as GWP* metrics and 'regenerative agriculture'); and derailing legislation through political lobbying and 'revolving door' appointments. The analysis covers 22 major corporations across four continents, highlighting a systemic lack of scientific integrity in their climate goals and a preference for spending on advertising over low-carbon research and development. Specific case studies in the US, EU, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, and Great Britain illustrate how these tactics have successfully weakened policies like the EU Green Deal and the Global Methane Pledge.

The report outlines a multi-phase strategy to establish a specialty crop industry in the Mid-Mississippi Delta (Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee) as a climate-resilient alternative to California's production. It identifies suitable crops, analyzes labor and infrastructure gaps, and proposes innovative, equity-focused business models to ensure wealth creation for underserved farmers. The project has transitioned from research to action through the 'Collective Impact Framework' and the launch of the Delta Harvest pilot project.

The report examines the role of sustainable debt in transitioning the agri-food sector to net-zero, highlighting the need for finance to reach smallholder farmers. It introduces new Climate Bonds Sector Criteria for Agriculture Production and Deforestation and Conversion Free (DCF) Sourcing to standardize green activities. The analysis reveals that while sovereign issuers dominate the AFOLU sustainable debt market, there is a critical need for more material KPIs beyond scope 3 GHG emissions and greater transparency in the loan market to scale impactful investments.

The 2024 Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor finds that while corporate climate targets are gradually improving, they remain largely insufficient to align with a 1.5°C pathway. The median 2030 emission reduction commitment for the 51 assessed companies is only 30-33% of full value chain emissions, falling short of the 43-48% required globally. The report highlights a critical lack of depth in scope 3 targets and warns that proposed flexibility mechanisms, such as the VCMI beta Scope 3 Flexibility Claim, could effectively nullify these commitments. It also identifies an over-reliance on 'false solutions' like bioenergy, carbon capture, and land-based carbon dioxide removals (CDR), particularly in the agrifood and fashion sectors. The authors argue for a transition from voluntary initiatives to formal accountability through mandatory regulation and accredited verification.

The report critiques the industrial agribusiness model, describing it as a network of transnational corporations and financial institutions that prioritise profit maximisation through large-scale monocultures and high-input systems. It argues that these entities promote 'false solutions'—including voluntary certifications, sustainable intensification, and regenerative agriculture—to greenwash their image, capture policy-making processes, and commodify nature through carbon markets. The document highlights the negative impacts of this model, such as deforestation in Indonesia and Brazil, human rights violations, and the displacement of small-scale farmers in Argentina, while contrasting these with 'real peoples' solutions' based on food sovereignty and agroecology.

The report critiques the industrial agri-food system, describing it as a network of producers, processors, and retailers that prioritizes profit maximization through intensive monocultures and chemical inputs. It argues that corporate-led initiatives—such as sustainability certifications, 'sustainable intensification,' and 'regenerative agriculture'—are 'false solutions' designed to greenwash industrial practices, capture carbon markets, and shift responsibility to consumers. The document highlights the negative impacts of this model, including deforestation, human rights violations, and the marginalization of small-scale farmers, while contrasting these with 'people's solutions' based on food sovereignty and agroecology.

The report critiques the industrial agribusiness model, describing it as a network of transnational companies and financial institutions that prioritize profit and scale over environmental and social health. It argues that the industry employs 'false solutions'—market-based mechanisms and corporate-led certifications—to avoid genuine regulation and maintain control over the global food system. The document highlights specific examples, including the failure of RSPO certifications in Indonesia and the impact of no-till farming in Argentina, to demonstrate how these tactics often exacerbate deforestation and undermine small-scale producers.

The document argues that the current ecological crisis is driven by fossil-fuel-based economic systems and excessive consumption. It calls for a fundamental shift in economic and behavioral patterns, emphasizing the interconnectedness of climate change, biodiversity loss, water scarcity, air pollution, and social inequality. The guide advocates for a 'just transition' that protects the poor and marginalized, who suffer most from environmental degradation despite contributing the least to it.

The WWF Markets Institute highlights the need for a systemic global transformation of food systems to address climate change and population growth. Key trends include a rapid increase in extreme weather events and a shift toward understanding soil as a biome. The report advocates for market mechanisms that reflect the true environmental cost of food and warns that the rapid adoption of AI may outpace public sector regulation and exacerbate inequality.

The project supported 885 people in lower eastern Kenya, focusing on regenerative farming, syntropic agroforestry, and water infrastructure to improve biodiversity, soil health, and economic output for female smallholder farmers. Key achievements include the rehabilitation of 1.01 hectares for a demonstration farm, the installation of 43 household vertical gardens, and the construction of 3 water pans, alongside the training of 177 people in sustainable agriculture and 17 young men in water infrastructure maintenance.