Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of organisations calls on the European Commission's DG AGRI to operationalise the EU Protein Plan through CAP national recommendations. The authors argue that reducing reliance on imported protein feed and fertilisers is essential for geopolitical security and climate resilience. They propose specific measures, including support for legume production, investment in processing infrastructure, and the promotion of agroecological farming systems to improve feed autonomy and circular nutrient management.

The report criticizes the FAO for promoting a target of 75% growth in 'sustainable aquaculture' by 2040 without distinguishing between low-impact and feed-intensive production systems. Modelling suggests that if current trends continue, demand for wild fish could rise by 85–88%, potentially diverting nutritious fish from vulnerable populations in Africa and Asia. The document highlights a 'policy drift' in the GSA, where earlier safeguards regarding nutrition and competition between aquafeed and human food were removed, allegedly influenced by the aquaculture industry and Norway. It concludes that FAO should prioritize non-fed, low-trophic aquatic foods and eliminate edible wild fish from aquafeeds to align with its founding mandate.

The letter argues that current EU biomethane policies, such as REPowerEU and REDIII, create structural incentives to maintain industrial livestock production by relying on manure as a feedstock. The authors claim this contradicts European Green Deal goals, which may require a 10-15% reduction in livestock production. They highlight risks to rural communities, including increased heavy goods vehicle traffic on narrow roads, water pollution, and methane leaks. The signatories call for an independent EU-wide impact assessment, a restriction of biomethane to hard-to-electrify industrial sectors using unavoidable waste, and a prioritisation of energy efficiency and agroecology.

A coalition of organizations warns that the EU's upcoming Livestock Strategy may fail to address the scale of animal farming's contribution to global warming. The letter argues that methane from agriculture is a critical driver of near-term warming and calls for the EU to set Paris Agreement-aligned targets, support herd size rebalancing through an Agri-food Just Transition Fund, and avoid treating biogenic methane differently from fossil methane.

The report examines the potential of the EU's CSRD and CSDDD to drive methane emission reductions in the meat and dairy industries. While the CSRD mandates transparency and disclosure of greenhouse gas data, the CSDDD requires companies to act on adverse environmental and health impacts. The document highlights that despite 'simplification' via the Omnibus I process—which reduced the number of companies in scope and removed specific climate transition plan requirements from the CSDDD—these directives still provide levers to address methane as a precursor to ground-level ozone. It argues that mandatory reporting and due diligence can prevent companies from relying on 'end of pipe' solutions like biogas and instead push for upstream mitigation.

The Changing Markets Foundation argues that the EU's Vision 2040 for Fisheries and Aquaculture must address the structural unsustainability of carnivorous aquaculture. The organization highlights how the reliance on fishmeal and fish oil (FMFO) derived from wild fisheries increases pressure on marine ecosystems and undermines food security in regions such as West Africa, India, Vietnam, Peru, and Senegal. It advocates for a policy shift that prioritizes Low Trophic Aquaculture (LTA)—such as seaweed and bivalve farming—over carnivorous finfish production, while calling for the phasing out of marine ingredients in feed and improved transparency regarding total wild fish inputs in supply chains.

The report finds a significant gap in methane action within the dairy and coffee sectors, with only three companies setting 2030 reduction targets and 15 failing to disclose emissions for 2024 or 2025. While members of the Dairy Methane Action Alliance (DMAA) generally outperform non-members, performance varies widely, and dairy co-operatives are noted as lagging. Danone is highlighted as a leader, having achieved a 29.8% reduction in methane emissions from fresh milk and dairy products by 2025. The report also notes that major global supermarkets are currently failing to disclose methane emissions or set targets, and warns that upcoming EU regulations like the CSRD and CSDDD will make such disclosures a legal obligation.

The report finds a 'leadership vacuum' in the global food retail sector regarding methane emissions. Despite the critical role of methane in short-term global warming, none of the 20 largest retailers assessed publicly reported their methane emissions or set specific targets to reduce them. While European retailers generally outperform US retailers in acknowledging the climate impact of livestock, the overall sector shows a lack of transparency and ambition. The report recommends that retailers set science-based methane reduction targets of at least 30% by 2030 and shift their product portfolios toward a 60/40 plant-to-animal protein sales split.

The document highlights a significant shortfall in agricultural methane mitigation, noting that while the Global Methane Pledge aims for a 30% reduction by 2030, current NDCs and national plans may only achieve an 8% reduction. It argues that dietary shifts and sustainable farming are essential to avoid a 2°C warming impact driven by food consumption patterns.

The document argues that existing EU laws, including the Digital Services Act and the AI Act, are insufficient to address harmful online business models based on behavioural manipulation. It urges the European Commission to use the Digital Fairness Act to close legal gaps in horizontal consumer law, specifically targeting dark patterns, addictive design, and unfair personalisation, while strengthening enforcement through the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation.

The briefing argues that the meat and dairy industry exploits narratives of efficiency and food security to obstruct transformative changes to food systems and the adoption of sustainable diets. It notes that despite scientific consensus, only 4% of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) include quantified, time-bound agricultural methane reduction targets. The document specifically analyzes industry messaging from the World Meat Congress and COP30 to illustrate how these actors hinder the inclusion of food systems in official climate conference texts.

A coalition of European and Irish organizations argues that Ireland must move beyond stabilizing current methane levels to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The letter emphasizes that agricultural methane is a primary driver of warming and calls for a just transition for farmers and rural communities, supported by EU financing and clear carbon budget trajectories to avoid stranded assets.

The briefing identifies a significant gap in global efforts to reduce agricultural methane, noting that only 4% of NDCs include specific targets for the sector. It argues that current policies rely too heavily on technical 'end of pipe' solutions like biogas and feed additives, while failing to address systemic issues such as overconsumption of animal protein and the need for dietary shifts. The document highlights 'agricultural exceptionalism' as a barrier in high-livestock producing countries and warns that some nations, such as Aotearoa (New Zealand), are weakening their targets. It recommends that NDCs implement mandatory reduction targets aligned with a 1.5°C trajectory and prioritize sustainable diets and agroecology.

The document analyzes the strategies used by agribusiness to delay climate action, focusing on the 24th World Meat Congress and COP30. It identifies key industry narratives—such as the claim that meat is sustainable, essential for health, and that the industry is simply meeting inevitable demand—as tools to distract from the need for dietary shifts and methane reductions. The report highlights the role of industry-funded media, like the film 'World Without Cows', and the influence of agribusiness on the FAO and US dietary guidelines to maintain 'meat primacy' and avoid systemic reform.

The report finds that agricultural methane is a 'systemic blind spot' for major global investors. Despite significant financial exposure to high-emitting agrifood companies, most of the 25 investors analysed have no standalone methane policies or targets, often folding methane into broader CO2-equivalent frameworks. The analysis highlights that a small number of investors, including Vanguard, BlackRock, and Fidelity Investments, account for a disproportionate share of financed methane emissions. While some companies like Danone and Marfrig have set methane targets, others, such as Nestlé, have withdrawn from collaborative initiatives like the Dairy Methane Action Alliance. The report warns of increasing regulatory, transition, and reputational risks, particularly in the EU, and calls for investors to align with the Global Methane Pledge to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030.

The document argues that current EU textile strategies risk being undermined by the sheer volume of new apparel produced. It advocates for the French draft law's approach to modulate EPR financial contributions based on producers' practices—such as price, number of references, and company size—to create financial incentives against overproduction, aligned with the revised EU Waste Framework Directive.

A coalition of environmental organisations criticises Nestlé for withdrawing from the Dairy Methane Action Alliance (DMAA), arguing that the move contradicts the company's stated climate commitments. The authors highlight that dairy and livestock account for 37% of Nestlé's total greenhouse gas emissions and urge the company to set a science-aligned methane reduction target of at least 30% by 2030, improve reporting transparency, and prioritise emissions reductions over carbon insetting.

The report finds that recycled polyester releases significantly more microfibers than virgin polyester, contradicting industry claims of sustainability and highlighting the risks of 'bottle-to-textile' downcycling.

The report argues that the fashion industry's shift to recycled polyester is a form of greenwashing, as recycled synthetic fibres release more microplastics than their virgin counterparts. Based on tests of 51 garments from major brands, the study finds that recycled polyester releases approximately 55% more fibres per gram than virgin polyester, and these fibres are smaller and potentially more toxic. The document also highlights the issue of 'downcycling' plastic bottles into textiles, which removes them from closed-loop recycling and creates garments that cannot be effectively recycled. It concludes that the only fundamental solution is to reduce the overall use of both virgin and recycled synthetic fibres.

The report finds that recycled polyester sheds significantly more and finer microfibres than virgin polyester, challenging industry claims of sustainability. Testing of 51 garments from Adidas, H&M, Nike, Shein, and Zara revealed that recycled polyester released an average of 12,430 fibres per gram, compared to 8,028 for virgin polyester. The study argues that the 'bottle-to-textile' recycling model is a form of downcycling that worsens pollution and allows brands to mask a continued reliance on virgin plastics. It also identifies discrepancies in 'recycled' labelling, particularly with Shein, and calls for EU-wide eco-design criteria and a global plastics treaty to cap virgin plastic production.