Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that biogas and biomethane should primarily be reserved for hard-to-abate sectors like petrochemical production and industrial heating, as electrification via renewable energy is more cost-effective for power and heat. It highlights that biogas only addresses a minority of agricultural emissions (at most 28.9%) and warns that scaling production to meet targets, such as the EU's 35 bcm goal by 2030, could threaten food security by requiring significant arable land. Additionally, the briefing notes risks from fugitive methane emissions, high reliance on public subsidies, and safety hazards including explosions and toxicity.

The LAC campaign urges South Africa to advocate for climate reparations and a non-fossil fuel development vision for Africa at COP27, while domestically accelerating the transition to renewable energy and phasing out coal by 2040.

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) reports that between September 2020 and August 2022, five major oil companies—BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, Aramco, and Chevron—spent $23.7 million on US Google Search ads, with $10.9 million dedicated to greenwashing. The report highlights a discrepancy between these companies' public sustainability claims and their internal documents, while also noting that Google continued to accept $421,000 from the Competitive Enterprise Institute for climate denial ads despite promising to stop doing so.

H2 Energy Sdn Bhd installed a 2.88 kWp solar-powered hydrogen system at the Long Loyang Clinic in Sarawak on 8 August 2022. The system provides 24/7 electricity for essential medical equipment and refrigeration, replacing a costly and irregular diesel-based supply. The project is estimated to benefit 2,172 people indirectly and avoid 6 tonnes of CO2 annually. H2 Energy is exploring further scalable applications for rural clinics, schools, and settlements in Malaysia, Australia, and Cambodia.

The document argues that coal mine methane (CMM) is a critical but underreported driver of emissions in New South Wales, accounting for over 90% of the state's energy sector methane emissions. Ember proposes two new pillars for the NSW EPA's Action Plan: 'Inform and Plan' and 'Mitigate'. The 'Inform and Plan' pillar suggests collaborating with international initiatives like the International Methane Emissions Observatory and implementing high-tier IPCC measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) methodologies to address reporting gaps. The 'Mitigate' pillar recommends a 75% reduction target for methane emissions by 2030, the closure of 'gassy' thermal coal mines, and a commitment to no new coal mines or expansions. The report highlights that current reporting may be significantly underestimated, citing IEA estimates that Australia's reported CMM emissions could be missing 800 thousand tonnes.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies produce combined methane emissions of 12.8 million tonnes, representing 11.1% of global livestock-related methane. These emissions exceed the total methane footprints of countries like Russia, Canada, and Australia. The authors highlight a severe lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of the analyzed companies fail to report total supply chain (scope 3) emissions. The report criticizes governments for relying on 'techno fixes' like anaerobic digesters rather than reducing livestock numbers, and calls for binding targets and a just transition toward agroecology.

The report estimates that five major meat and ten major dairy companies emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 11.1% of global anthropogenic methane emissions from livestock. These companies' total greenhouse gas emissions (734 million tonnes CO2 equivalent) exceed those of Germany. The authors highlight a significant lack of transparency, noting that 60% of these companies do not report full supply chain (Scope 3) emissions, and none report supply-chain methane. The document calls for mandatory emissions disclosure and a reduction in livestock numbers to meet the 1.5°C global warming limit.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of global anthropogenic methane emissions and 11.1% of livestock-related methane. These combined emissions exceed the methane footprints of several countries, including Russia, Canada, Australia, and Germany. The authors highlight a pervasive lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of the companies fail to report total GHGs or scope 3 emissions, and none report supply chain methane. The report calls for mandatory reporting, binding reduction targets, and a systemic shift away from industrial animal agriculture.

The report estimates that five of the largest meat companies and ten of the largest dairy corporations emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of global anthropogenic methane emissions and 11.1% of global livestock methane. Total greenhouse gas emissions for these companies reach 734 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, exceeding Germany's national emissions. The authors highlight a lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of the analyzed companies do not report total emissions or Scope 3 emissions, and none reported supply chain methane. The report calls for binding reduction targets, mandatory reporting, and a systemic shift toward agroecology to meet the 1.5°C global warming limit.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of global anthropogenic methane emissions and 11.1% of global livestock methane. The combined greenhouse gas emissions of these companies (734 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent) exceed those of Germany. The document highlights a significant lack of corporate transparency, with 60% of the analyzed companies failing to report total emissions or scope 3 emissions. It calls for binding emission targets, mandatory reporting, and a systemic shift toward agroecology to meet the 1.5°C warming limit.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies collectively emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of all anthropogenic global methane emissions and 11.1% of global livestock-related methane. The authors highlight a significant lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of these companies do not report total emissions across their value chain (Scope 3). The document calls for binding government targets for agricultural emissions and a systemic shift toward agroecological systems to meet the 1.5°C warming limit.

The document argues that 'net zero' targets are a 'smoke screen' allowing corporations to maintain fossil fuel and industrial agriculture business models. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' (NbS) and carbon offsets as mechanisms that lead to land grabbing, the displacement of Indigenous and peasant communities, and the co-optation of agroecology. The report highlights the technical failures of carbon offsets, the volatility of biological carbon storage compared to fossil carbon, and the risks of 'digital soil carbon' platforms that allow agribusinesses to control farmer data and land use.

The document argues that 'net zero' strategies serve as a 'smoke screen' for large corporations to continue fossil fuel extraction and industrial agriculture. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' and soil carbon sequestration as mechanisms that facilitate land grabbing, data appropriation, and the co-optation of agroecology, ultimately benefiting agribusiness and tech firms while undermining the rights of small-scale producers and Indigenous peoples.

The document argues that 'net zero' targets are deceptive tools used by fossil fuel and agribusiness giants to avoid radical emission cuts. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' (NBS) and soil carbon sequestration as mechanisms that facilitate land grabbing, marginalize small-scale farmers, and prioritize corporate profit over genuine agroecology and food sovereignty.

The document argues that 'net zero' pledges act as a 'smokescreen' for corporations to continue fossil fuel extraction and industrial agriculture. It specifically critiques nature-based solutions (NbS) and soil carbon sequestration, claiming these mechanisms facilitate land grabbing, data harvesting by agribusiness and IT firms, and the co-option of agroecology. The report contends that carbon offsetting relies on a false 'equivalence' between volatile biomass carbon and long-term fossil carbon, ultimately benefiting corporate power over small-scale food producers.

The report argues that 'net zero' targets are a 'smokescreen' allowing corporations to maintain fossil-fuel-based business models through carbon offsetting and 'nature-based solutions'. It contends that these mechanisms lead to land grabbing, the dispossession of Indigenous and peasant communities, and the co-option of agroecology. The document specifically highlights the risks of soil carbon farming as a means for agribusiness and IT companies to harvest farm data and exert control over land use. It concludes that real climate justice requires a transition to food sovereignty and a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels rather than reliance on unverifiable carbon credits.

The document examines the 'fair and equitable treatment' (FET) standard, a controversial provision found in nearly 95% of international investment agreements. It argues that the vagueness of FET leads to inconsistent interpretations by arbitral tribunals, which can result in 'regulatory chill' for states. The brief analyzes five common treaty formulations of FET and concludes that even 'new-generation' agreements often produce the same unpredictable outcomes as older ones. To mitigate these risks, the authors propose three policy options: excluding FET standards entirely, using alternative terminology like 'fair administrative treatment,' or implementing a strictly defined, closed list of breach conditions that explicitly excludes investor expectations.

The document examines the 'fair and equitable treatment' (FET) standard in international investment agreements, noting its prevalence in nearly 95% of such treaties and its role in 83% of treaty-based arbitrations. It argues that the vagueness of FET leads to inconsistent interpretations by tribunals, which can result in 'regulatory chill' for states. The brief outlines five common formulations of FET and suggests three primary policy alternatives: excluding the FET standard entirely, using alternative terminology like 'fair administrative treatment', or implementing a strictly defined, limited FET standard with a closed list of violations.

The document analyzes the 'fair and equitable treatment' (FET) standard, which appears in nearly 95% of international investment agreements and is the basis for approximately 83% of investor-state arbitrations. It argues that the lack of a precise definition allows tribunals to expand the standard's scope, creating legal unpredictability and 'regulatory chill' for states. The brief details five common drafting approaches—ranging from unqualified FET clauses to those linked to customary international law—and concludes that even 'new generation' treaties often produce the same results as older ones. To protect their right to regulate, the authors suggest three policy options: excluding the FET standard entirely, using alternative terminology like 'fair administrative treatment', or implementing a strictly defined, closed list of violations that explicitly excludes investor expectations.

The Seal River Watershed in northern Manitoba is a 50,000 km2 area that is 99.97% intact and serves as one of Canada's largest free-flowing drainage basins. The report highlights its critical role in biodiversity, storing 1.7 billion tonnes of carbon and supporting species at risk such as polar bears and barren-ground caribou. Economically, the watershed provides at least CAD 214 million in annual ecosystem goods and services (EGS), including ecotourism and caribou harvesting, while the stored carbon is valued at CAD 314.5 billion. The document advocates for the creation of an Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) led by the Sayisi Dene, Northlands Denesuline, Barren Lands First Nation, and O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation to prevent threats from mining, hydroelectricity, and road development. It suggests the Manitoba government implement interim protections, establish a feasibility committee, and provide technical support for Indigenous Guardians programs.