Search Climate Insights Directory

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 argues that offshore carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an ineffective and risky strategy that prolongs fossil fuel dependence. It highlights that proposed 'hubs' in the Gulf of Mexico and North Sea face significant technical challenges, such as pressure management and leakage from legacy wells, while relying heavily on public subsidies. The document concludes that CCS often covers for expanded fossil fuel production and calls for a halt to these projects to protect marine ecosystems and accelerate a just energy transition.

The report analyzes how public development banks (PDBs) can align their operations with the Paris Agreement, distinguishing between 'project-level alignment' and 'portfolio-level net-zero' approaches. It argues that project-level alignment is the essential foundation for PDBs to support national low-emission climate-resilient development pathways, while portfolio-level tools can provide strategic benefits for those engaging with the private sector. The document details 11 operational benchmarks—such as inclusion/exclusion lists, shadow carbon pricing, and risk assessments—and provides case studies of institutions like the EBRD, BNDES, and AFD to illustrate practical implementation.

The report analyzes the economic exposure of Brazil to the EU's CBAM, noting that while current impacts are limited to specific sectors like iron and steel, the diffusion of BCAs to other major markets like the US and Japan poses a significant risk. It details the responses of the Brazilian government and the National Confederation of Industry (CNI), highlighting concerns over non-discrimination, administrative burdens, and the need for developed countries to finance technological adaptation in developing nations. The document also notes a general lack of broad public and financial sector engagement with the BCA debate in Brazil.

The report analyzes how border carbon adjustments (BCAs), such as the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), affect Trinidad and Tobago's hydrocarbon-dependent economy. It identifies significant risks to the competitiveness of key exports like ammonia and fertilizers, while highlighting opportunities for the country to accelerate its transition to a green hydrogen economy and implement domestic carbon pricing.

The United Kingdom plans to introduce a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) in 2027 to prevent carbon leakage as free allowances under its Emissions Trading System (ETS) are phased out. While similar to the EU CBAM, the UK version will cover ceramics and glass but exclude electricity, and it will lack a transition period. The report highlights risks including potential trade diversion, administrative burdens for exporters, and diplomatic tensions with developing nations who view such measures as 'environmental colonialism'. It suggests that the UK would benefit from mirroring the EU's reporting systems and exploring the linkage of their respective ETSs to reduce bureaucratic friction and economic risk.

The report analyzes MEL systems for climate change adaptation in Canada, France, Kenya, Namibia, Peru, Somalia, Tonga, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam. It finds that while all nine countries have initiated MEL efforts, most focus on monitoring and progress reporting, with evaluation and learning remaining less developed. The study emphasizes that MEL systems are iterative, context-specific processes rather than one-size-fits-all blueprints, and highlights a significant increase in the integration of MEL frameworks into National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) over the last decade.

The document examines the synergy between the Kenya Flower Council's (KFC) voluntary Flower and Ornamental Sustainability Standard (FOSS) and the government's mandatory Kenya Standard 1758 (KS 1758). It highlights how this public-private collaboration reduces compliance costs for producers, improves market access to the EU and other global markets, and enhances worker welfare and environmental management. The authors argue that this model of benchmarking standards can be replicated in other Kenyan agricultural value chains, such as grains, to address safety and quality issues.

The report analyzes seven categories of enclosure-based and open measurement methods for greenhouse gas emissions in sanitation systems. It finds that while enclosure-based methods like flux chambers are widely used, they are limited by scale. Emerging optical and remote sensing methods offer broader coverage but are constrained by high costs. The document highlights a critical lack of empirical data for non-sewered sanitation in low- and middle-income countries and advocates for standardized, affordable methodologies and increased collaboration to improve national greenhouse gas inventories.

Climate change is increasing the frequency of nighttime temperatures exceeding 18°C, 20°C, and 25°C, which impairs human sleep and increases health risks. Between 2018 and 2023, the average person globally experienced 4.8 additional days per year above 20°C and 11.5 additional days above 25°C due to climate change. The report highlights severe impacts in specific regions, such as California in the U.S. and West Bengal and Assam in India, where the number of added hot nights is highest.

The guide advises journalists to explicitly link extreme heat events to climate change and the burning of oil, gas, and coal, noting that heat is the deadliest extreme weather event. It provides sample language for reporting, recommends avoiding trivializing visuals, and suggests using tools like the Climate Shift Index for attribution.

The briefing examines the discrepancy between methane emissions reported by the oil and gas industry and those found through independent measurements. It highlights that industry-led estimation methodologies, such as the API Compendium, often fail to account for 'super-emitter' events, leading to reports that may be 94% lower than independent estimates. The author calls for regulators to mandate measured rather than estimated data to verify climate claims and ensure the effectiveness of the Global Methane Pledge.

The briefing outlines how the EU can sustain its climate leadership following the June 2024 elections by linking emissions reductions to energy security, consumer cost savings, and industrial competitiveness. It highlights the success of the RePowerEU Plan in reducing Russian gas imports and notes that wind and solar power saved EU consumers approximately EUR 100 billion between 2021 and 2023. The document emphasizes that investing in green technology and implementing social safety nets, such as retraining programmes, will ensure the transition is competitive and inclusive.

The briefing argues that current oil and gas production trajectories are incompatible with the Paris Agreement, with projected production by 2050 potentially exceeding 1.5°C-aligned needs by 260% for oil and 210% for gas. It advocates for a coordinated global phase-out led by the G7 and G20, emphasizing that new extraction projects must cease immediately. The author highlights the necessity of climate finance, noting a gap between current annual climate finance (USD 1.3 trillion) and the required green transition investment for emerging and developing economies (USD 2.4 trillion). To ensure equity, the document suggests assessing transition capacity based on GDP per capita, government revenue shares from fossil fuels, and workforce employment in the sector, while calling for the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies and the implementation of innovative funding, such as taxes on fossil fuel company revenues.

The guide offers strategic advice for political actors to engage voters on climate change by maintaining a positive tone, building trust through authenticity and empathy, and listening to local concerns. It emphasizes the importance of government leadership and the use of local, positive examples of climate action to make the transition feel normal and achievable.

The report quantifies the massive energy and financial waste inherent in the fossil fuel system, noting that nearly two-thirds of primary energy is lost before providing useful services. It identifies fossil thermal power plants and internal combustion engines as the primary drivers of this waste and posits that the transition to renewables, localization, and electrification will undercut fossil fuels through superior efficiency and lower lifetime costs.