Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that the GWP* metric allows major methane polluters to claim climate neutrality or "no additional warming" by merely stabilising emissions rather than eliminating them. It details how this approach is being embedded into the policies of New Zealand and Ireland, promoted by industry lobbies in Germany and the UK, and pushed by researchers and trade bodies in Brazil ahead of COP30. The author contends that government-linked research bodies are providing a "veneer of scientific legitimacy" to these industry-driven narratives to weaken national and international climate ambitions.

A coalition of non-profits calls on the European Commission to maintain leadership of the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) amid uncertainty regarding U.S. commitment. The letter advocates for the EU to implement its Methane Regulation, transition away from industrial animal agriculture, include a methane target in its NDC, and mobilise public grants for developing countries, noting that 111 of the 159 GMP signatories are official development assistance recipients.

The document recommends that the European Commission set binding sectoral gross emission reduction targets for the agri-food sector, avoiding carbon offsets and technical fixes in favour of agroecological and organic farming. It calls for a strategy to transition away from intensive livestock rearing, including a reduction in farm animal numbers and a corresponding dietary shift. Finally, it proposes the establishment of an Agri-Food Just Transition Fund to de-risk business transformation and a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy to remunerate farmers for ecosystem services.

The document argues that the EU's Circular Material Use Rate has stagnated, increasing only from 10.7% in 2010 to 11.5% in 2022, necessitating a shift from waste management to direct resource-use reduction. It calls for the appointment of a dedicated European Commissioner for Circular Economy to oversee binding resource-use targets, fiscal shifts from labour to raw material extraction, and the integration of circular criteria into trade policies like the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. The authors advocate for a 'Circular Single Market' to reduce geopolitical vulnerabilities and dependence on primary materials, alongside strengthened Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) frameworks and the use of public procurement as an accelerator for circularity. Additionally, the letter emphasizes the role of local and regional authorities, who are responsible for over 70% of Green Deal implementation, and the need to align funding with the top tiers of the waste hierarchy: prevention, re-use, and recycling.

The briefing examines the climate impact of 22 global meat and dairy corporations, finding that their combined emissions are comparable to those of entire countries or major oil companies. It argues that the industry uses 'green smokescreens'—such as weak net-zero targets, unproven techno-fixes, and regenerative agriculture—to distract from the need to reduce livestock production. The document further highlights a lack of mandatory agricultural methane targets in the 11 countries where these companies are headquartered, attributing this to 'agricultural exceptionalism' and industry political influence.

The report examines 22 of the world's largest meat and dairy companies, finding that their combined emissions are comparable to those of major oil companies and entire nations. It argues that corporate net-zero targets are largely non-aligned with the 1.5°C warming limit and that the industry relies on 'techno-fixes'—such as feed additives and biogas—and 'regenerative agriculture' to distract from the need to reduce livestock production. The analysis further highlights a lack of mandatory agricultural methane targets in the 11 countries where these companies are headquartered, attributing this to 'agricultural exceptionalism' and industry political influence.

The Changing Markets Foundation argues that the 2022 EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles lacked sufficient ambition and calls for binding material footprint targets, a ban on the destruction of unsold goods, and mandatory disclosure of production volumes. It advocates for the decarbonisation of supply chains through financial support for Global South suppliers and the implementation of a textile-specific Unfair Trading Practices (UTP) directive to protect workers' rights and living wages. Additionally, the brief recommends strengthening the Substantiating Green Claims directive to require ex-ante verification of environmental claims and the inclusion of social impact data in Digital Product Passports.

The briefing argues that the meat and dairy industry employs misleading narratives—such as claims regarding food security, growing demand, and emissions leakage—to distract from the need to reduce livestock numbers and methane emissions to meet Paris Agreement goals.

The report finds that synthetic fibres account for 69% of textile production and are projected to reach 73% by 2030. An evaluation of 50 major brands reveals a trend of increasing corporate secrecy, with 54% failing to respond fully to the survey. Most brands (45 out of 50) are categorized as 'trailing behind' or in the 'red zone' due to high synthetic usage and low transparency. The report highlights that brands use tactics similar to the fossil fuel industry, such as citing a 'need for more research' to delay action and using industry initiatives like The Microfibre Consortium (TMC) as a cover for inaction. Furthermore, the report criticizes the reliance on recycled polyester from plastic bottles as a 'false solution' that does not address microplastic pollution. Finally, it notes weak industry support for upcoming EU legislation and the global plastic pollution treaty, suggesting a preference for maintaining the status quo of the fast fashion model.

The document argues that the meat and dairy industry employs misleading narratives—including claims about food security, nutritional necessity, and 'regenerative' farming—to obstruct climate action and maintain high production levels. It contends that these tactics distract from the urgent need to reduce methane emissions and shift toward plant-rich diets to meet Paris Agreement goals.

The report finds that the fashion industry is increasing its dependency on fossil-fuel-based synthetic fibres, with 69% of all textiles currently being synthetic. It highlights a significant lack of transparency, with 60% of surveyed brands providing incomplete or no data on synthetic volumes. The document criticizes the industry's reliance on recycled polyester from PET bottles as a 'false solution' that does not address microplastic shedding or the overproduction inherent in fast fashion. Most brands are categorized as 'trailing behind' or in the 'red zone' for their lack of meaningful microfibre release policies, often relying on weak voluntary initiatives like The Microfibre Consortium (TMC). The report also notes tepid industry support for upcoming EU legislation and the global plastics treaty, suggesting a preference for the status quo.

The report finds that global fashion brands are increasing their use of synthetic fibres, with synthetic materials accounting for 69% of textile production and projected to reach 73% by 2030. It highlights a significant lack of transparency, with 54% of surveyed companies failing to respond fully. Most brands rely on recycled polyester from PET bottles, which the report describes as a false solution that disrupts bottle-to-bottle recycling and fails to address microplastic shedding. Only two brands, Reformation and Hugo Boss, have committed to phasing out synthetics by 2030. The report also notes weak industry support for EU legislation and the global plastics treaty, with many brands citing a need for further research to delay meaningful action on microplastic release.

The report finds that most major fashion brands are increasing their reliance on synthetic fibres while using 'smoke screen' tactics—such as voluntary industry initiatives and shifting responsibility to consumers—to avoid meaningful regulation and reduction of plastic pollution.

The report finds that global fashion brands are increasing their dependence on synthetic fibres to sustain the 'fast fashion' business model while using 'distraction and delay' tactics to avoid meaningful action on microplastic pollution. Despite scientific evidence linking microplastics to severe health risks, most brands lack transparency, with 54% of surveyed companies failing to respond fully to the inquiry. The study highlights that recycled polyester from plastic bottles is an ineffective solution that does not address microplastic leakage. Furthermore, the industry shows minimal support for binding legislation, such as the EU's textile strategies, preferring weak voluntary initiatives.

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 document is a formal statement by a coalition of NGOs and academics criticizing the FAO's 'Pathways towards Lower Emissions' report for underestimating the climate mitigation potential of dietary shifts. The authors argue that the report contains systemic biases and methodological failures, such as double-counting emissions and using obsolete dietary guidelines. They call for a retraction of the report, a delay of the upcoming 2050 Roadmap report until these issues are addressed, and greater transparency regarding the GLEAM livestock emissions methodology.

The document contends that carbon offsetting provides a 'social license' for high-emitting activities to continue and fails to address the root cause of climate change. It highlights systemic quality issues in carbon crediting, such as lack of additionality and non-permanent removals, and argues that the limited supply of high-quality credits cannot meet demand. The authors call for voluntary and regulatory frameworks to exclude offsetting from interim emission reduction targets, citing the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and UN HLEG recommendations as models for maintaining ambition.

The document argues that the FAO has been captured by the 'Big Livestock' sector, leading to the systematic downplaying of the environmental impacts of animal farming. It traces this shift from the 2006 'Livestock's Long Shadow' report, which highlighted livestock as a major climate driver, to more recent publications like 'Pathways towards Lower Emissions' and the 'Global Roadmap'. The author claims these later documents use flawed methodologies to lower emission estimates and prioritise industry-friendly technological fixes over necessary reductions in livestock numbers and meat consumption. The report details how industry lobbyists influence the FAO through national delegations and partnerships, resulting in a narrative that preserves the status quo of intensive livestock production.

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.