Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines how Brazil's agribusiness sector, despite being the country's largest climate polluter, maintains a privileged position through lobbying and 'corporate capture'. It highlights the omission of agricultural methane from Brazil's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and warns that industry-led efforts at COP30, such as the 'AgriZone', aim to position the sector as a climate solution while resisting meaningful regulation.

The report examines how Brazil's powerful agribusiness sector uses greenwashing and political lobbying to avoid climate regulation, specifically regarding methane emissions, as the country prepares to host COP30. It highlights the contradiction between Brazil's global climate leadership goals and the exclusion of agricultural methane from its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). The document details corporate efforts to shape the COP30 agenda through the 'AgriZone' and media partnerships, while criticizing structural weaknesses in the Brazilian Climate Plan, such as the exclusion of agriculture from the Emissions Trading System and the inefficiency of the ABC+ Plan. It concludes that the livestock industry's influence threatens the effectiveness of Brazil's climate commitments and the broader goals of the Paris Agreement.

The report argues that Brazil's agribusiness sector exercises disproportionate political power to maintain 'agricultural exceptionalism,' allowing it to avoid strict climate regulations. It highlights the omission of agricultural methane from Brazil's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and criticizes the industry's use of misleading metrics like GWP* to downplay emissions. The document also details corporate efforts by giants like JBS, MBRF, and Minerva to shape the COP30 agenda through sponsored events and media influence, while contrasting this industrial model with a more sustainable agroecological system led by small farmers.

The Changing Markets Foundation identifies a coordinated network of 'mis-influencers'—including scientists, doctors, and journalists—who amplified industry-led hashtags like #Yes2Meat to discredit the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet. The report reveals that a small group of 100 accounts drove nearly 50% of the backlash posts and over 90% of engagement, with some individuals receiving direct industry funding or using the campaign to fundraise. Evidence from leaked documents suggests PR agencies and industry-funded centers, such as the UC Davis CLEAR Center, played key roles in this effort. The report warns that the meat industry is preparing a new communications drive to maintain its 'social licence' and derail action on climate and health science before the launch of EAT-Lancet 2.0.

The report exposes a tightly coordinated network of scientists, doctors, and journalists who used hashtags like #Yes2Meat and #ClimateFoodFacts to discredit the EAT-Lancet report. It details the role of the PR agency Red Flag and industry-funded entities like the UC Davis CLEAR Center in orchestrating these campaigns. The document also analyzes subsequent industry gatherings, such as the Dublin Declaration and the Denver Summit, as efforts to maintain the meat industry's 'social license to operate' through biased scientific narratives and identity-driven influencer campaigns ahead of the EAT-Lancet 2.0 update.

The report 'Methane Unmasked' by Changing Markets Foundation examines methane leakages at biogas plants in Denmark, focusing on the Nature Energy (Shell) plant in Videbæk and the Tønder plant. Using optical gas imaging and trace gas analysers, the investigation found significant methane releases at the Videbæk plant, including suspected intentional venting from a compressor unit stack. It also identified high methane concentrations near the Tønder plant, though the exact source could not be pinpointed. The report argues that methane leakage is a systemic problem in the biogas industry that can negate climate benefits, and it calls for stronger EU-wide regulations as current Danish third-party audits are deemed inadequate.

The letter calls for an ambitious National Methane Action Plan to be published by COP30, noting that UK domestic methane emissions have fallen by only five per cent since 2020. The authors argue that a world-leading plan must set explicit 2030 targets and address specific issues: reducing emissions from animal agriculture via land use and food strategies; eliminating biodegradable waste in landfills and increasing methane capture; and ending routine flaring and venting in domestic energy operations by 2030 while reducing emissions from imported fossil fuels.

The document argues that the EU agriculture and food system has substantial potential for emission reductions, with estimates ranging from 44% to 60% by 2040, provided structural changes and shifts to healthier diets are implemented. The authors oppose the use of international carbon offsets and 'technical tweaks' to the industrial model, instead advocating for a binding sector-specific emission target and a transition toward organic farming, paludiculture, and reduced reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. They emphasize that climate change already causes €28.3 billion in annual losses for farmers, making a systemic transition essential for long-term viability. The letter calls for the EU's next long-term budget to support farmers in this transition and for the entire agri-food value chain, including processors and retailers, to be held accountable.

The document opposes the European Commission's simplification packages for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and other environmental rules, arguing that dismantling these rules will hinder farmers' ability to adapt to climate change. It highlights that heat stress and droughts have already reduced wheat and maize yields by over 60% in some southern European regions. The signatories demand that the CAP transition from hectare-based income support to incentive-based models, specifically calling for eco-schemes to receive 30% of direct payments by 2026-2027 and the implementation of sustainable peatland management. The statement emphasizes that administrative simplification should focus on digitalization and satellite data rather than suspending performance reports or weakening environmental standards.

The document is a joint civil society statement opposing the European Commission's Omnibus proposal, which the signatories claim erodes corporate accountability and environmental protections in the EU.

The report finds a systemic lack of methane accountability among top US and European supermarkets, with none of the 20 largest retailers setting specific methane reduction targets despite the significant impact of animal agriculture on global heating.

The report examines Arla's climate strategies, finding that its net-zero commitments fail to meet most UN recommendations and that its focus on technological solutions like biogas does not address its primary methane emissions. It further alleges that Arla engages in lobbying to derail EU climate legislation and uses misleading marketing campaigns to present its products as carbon neutral.

The report argues that Arla Foods employs 'smokescreens' to hide its significant methane footprint and derail climate legislation. It highlights a gap between Arla's net-zero pledges and its actual practices, noting that the company prioritizes intensity-based targets for Scope 3 emissions rather than absolute reductions. The document details Arla's reliance on biogas as a 'silver bullet' solution, which the authors claim incentivizes industrialization and larger herd sizes over sustainable grazing. Furthermore, it documents Arla's direct and indirect lobbying in the EU to exclude agriculture from the Methane Strategy and block plant-based alternatives in school programs. The report also examines legal challenges in Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands regarding Arla's 'carbon neutral' marketing claims, which courts found to be misleading.

A joint call from over 130 signatories requesting an EU Action Plan for Plant-Based Foods by 2026 to improve health, environmental resilience, and strategic autonomy in protein production.

The report finds that the dairy and coffee sectors are failing to address methane emissions, with 18 out of 20 analyzed companies scoring less than 50% on a comprehensive performance scale. While some companies acknowledge the climate impact of methane, there is a widespread reluctance to reduce dairy production, and most lack specific methane targets or transparent reporting practices.

The report finds that most large dairy and coffee companies lack credible methane targets and transparency, with 18 of 20 companies scoring less than half of the available points in a comprehensive assessment. While some dairy companies show slight progress, coffee house companies performed poorly, and only one company, Danone, possesses both a methane-specific target and a detailed action plan.

The report examines the FAO's aquaculture growth targets and the 2025 Guidelines for Sustainable Aquaculture (GSA), arguing that they lack necessary protections to prevent the diversion of edible wild fish into fishmeal and fish oil (FMFO). Through modelling and case studies in West Africa, the document demonstrates how feed-intensive aquaculture increases pressure on wild fisheries and undermines local food security, particularly for vulnerable populations in Africa and Asia. It further alleges that the FAO's policy framing has been influenced by industry interests, shifting from a 'food-first' approach to one focused on efficiency and 'responsible sourcing' that permits continued extractive growth.

The report finds that the dairy and coffee house industries are failing to address methane emissions with urgency, with 18 out of 20 analysed companies scoring less than half of the available points in a performance assessment. While methane's climate impact is widely recognised, most companies lack specific reduction targets, credible action plans, or transparent, disaggregated reporting of methane emissions (CH4). Danone was the only company to set both a methane-specific target and an aligned detailed plan. The report highlights a significant gap in corporate accountability, noting that even members of the Dairy Methane Action Alliance (DMAA) generally achieve only about a third of the total possible score, though they outperform non-members.

The report exposes how Brazil's powerful agribusiness sector uses political capture and greenwashing to avoid climate accountability, specifically by omitting agricultural methane from the country's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and lobbying to weaken environmental protections ahead of COP30.

The report argues that Brazil's agribusiness sector, dominated by giants like JBS, MBRF, and Minerva, exerts systemic control over political and public narratives to avoid climate regulation. It highlights a critical 'blind spot' in Brazil's updated NDC, which omits agricultural methane emissions despite the sector accounting for 75.6% of the country's total methane. The document details how the 'ruralist caucus' (FPA) controls Congress and pushes for controversial methane metrics like GWP* to downplay warming impacts. It also exposes the 'AgriZone' and other industry-led events surrounding COP30 as tools for greenwashing, while noting that structural weaknesses in the Climate Plan, Tax Reform, and Forest Code continue to favour industrial agriculture over sustainable agroecological farming.