Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that krill fishing is inherently unsustainable as it threatens a fragile ecosystem already stressed by climate change. It highlights the dominance of Aker BioMarine in the market and identifies numerous European retailers and aquaculture companies that use krill-based feed or sell krill oil supplements. The document criticizes the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification for failing to account for climate change and predator impacts, and calls for an immediate moratorium on krill fishing.

The report argues that krill fishing is inherently unsustainable as it threatens a fragile ecosystem already stressed by climate change. It highlights the dominance of Aker BioMarine in the market and identifies numerous European retailers selling salmon fed with krill meal. The document criticizes the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification for ignoring climate change effects and calls for an immediate moratorium on krill fishing.

The report details how krill fishing, dominated by Aker BioMarine, exacerbates climate-driven threats to the Antarctic ecosystem by competing with key predators for food. It exposes a lack of transparency in supply chains, where krill meal is used in aquaculture feeds sold by major European retailers, and krill oil is widely sold as dietary supplements. The document criticizes the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification for ignoring climate change and predator impacts, and calls for an immediate moratorium on krill fishing.

The report argues that Antarctic krill fishing is unsustainable, threatening a fragile ecosystem already stressed by climate change. It highlights how the industry, dominated by Aker BioMarine, uses greenwashing and problematic certifications like the MSC to justify its operations. An investigation reveals that krill-oil supplements are widely sold by the world's largest retailers and krill meal is extensively used in European salmon aquaculture, often without consumer-facing labels or retailer policies to exclude it.

The author asserts that the plastic industry is set to double production by 2030 while only 9% of plastic has been recycled globally. The text highlights how companies like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo use voluntary targets to mask a lack of progress and lobby against deposit return systems in the US. Additionally, it criticizes European supermarkets for a lack of transparency regarding their plastic footprints and for employing greenwashing tactics to avoid systemic change.

The report highlights a disconnect between business-as-usual growth projections for animal agriculture and climate science, which predicts significant production losses and stranded assets. A survey of 201 investors reveals that while 82% view climate change as a material risk to meat and dairy investments, 55% believe investors are not sufficiently addressing these risks. The document emphasizes the critical need for methane reduction, noting that livestock is responsible for 32% of anthropogenic methane emissions, and calls for financial institutions to demand transparent reporting and support a transition toward alternative proteins.

The report finds that total EU methane emissions were 15.2 Mt in 2019, with livestock agriculture contributing 53%, waste 27%, and energy 13%. While a business-as-usual trend suggests a 13.4% reduction by 2030, the report estimates a maximum theoretical reduction potential of 49% to 68%. Achieving the 30% (Pledge) and 45% (Science) targets requires significant behavioral changes in livestock agriculture, specifically a shift toward healthier diets with lower meat and dairy consumption, alongside technical measures in the energy and waste sectors.

The report finds that European supermarkets generally exhibit low transparency and ambition regarding plastic reduction, with an overall average score of 13.1%. Most retailers rely on voluntary commitments and recyclability rather than waste prevention and reuse systems. While some UK retailers show higher performance, there is significant inconsistency in policies across international retail groups, and some companies are accused of greenwashing through ineffective recycling schemes that result in waste being exported and dumped in third countries like Turkey.

The report finds that European supermarkets generally exhibit low transparency and ambition regarding plastic reduction, often relying on voluntary commitments and recycling-focused strategies rather than systemic reuse. An analysis of 74 retailers reveals an average total score of only 13.1%, with significant disparities in performance between different countries where the same retail chains operate. The document highlights tactics used by retailers to delay legislative progress, such as lobbying against deposit return systems (DRS), and criticizes 'greenwashing' practices, including the mislabeling of single-use plastics as reusable.

The report finds that European supermarkets generally perform poorly in addressing the plastic crisis, with an average score of 13.1% across transparency, commitments, and policy support. While some UK and Irish retailers score higher, most companies lack basic data on their plastic footprints and prioritize recyclability over waste prevention. The analysis highlights a tendency toward 'greenwashing,' where retailers promote voluntary pledges or flawed collection schemes instead of systemic changes or supporting binding legislation.

The report reveals a significant gap between the public communications of European retailers and their actual performance in reducing plastic pollution, with a global average score of only 13.1% across transparency, commitments, and policy support. While some retailers like Aldi in the UK and Ireland score higher, the majority fail to provide basic data on their plastic footprints or support mandatory reuse targets. The analysis highlights a systemic preference for voluntary commitments and recyclability over waste prevention and reuse, while warning against 'greenwashing' practices such as exporting flexible plastics to third countries like Turkey where they may be illegally burned.

The report finds that European supermarkets generally perform poorly in addressing the plastic crisis, with an average score of 13.1% across transparency, commitments, and policy support. While some UK and Irish chains score higher, most companies lack basic data on their plastic footprints and fail to implement systemic changes like reusable packaging. The analysis highlights a preference for voluntary commitments over binding regulations and warns against greenwashing practices, such as exporting flexible plastics to third countries like Turkey.

The report finds that European supermarkets generally exhibit low ambition and transparency regarding plastic pollution, with a global average score of only 13.1%. Most retailers prioritize recyclability over waste prevention and reuse, often relying on voluntary commitments and 'greenwashing' tactics rather than systemic changes. While some UK and Irish retailers score higher, there is significant inconsistency within international groups, and very few support binding government targets or comprehensive deposit return systems.

The report finds that European supermarkets generally perform poorly in managing plastic pollution, with a mean score of 13.1% across transparency, commitments, and policy support. While some UK and Irish chains like Aldi score higher, many others show minimal transparency and a preference for voluntary commitments over systemic changes like reuse and mandatory deposit systems. The analysis highlights instances of greenwashing, where plastic waste collected in stores was exported and illegally dumped in Turkey.

The report investigates ten prominent textile certification and voluntary schemes, concluding that most are unambitious, opaque, and lack independence. It argues that these initiatives provide a 'licence to greenwash' for fashion brands, allowing them to project a sustainable image while continuing to rely on fossil-fuel-derived synthetic fibres and overproduction. The analysis highlights specific failures in the Higg Index, Cradle to Cradle, and the Microfibre Consortium, while noting that only a few schemes, like OEKO-TEX®, deliver on their narrow promises of chemical management. The document concludes that voluntary self-regulation has failed and calls for mandatory government legislation to ensure true sustainability and accountability in the fashion sector.

The briefing argues that a comprehensive global methane agreement is necessary to achieve a 40-45% reduction in emissions by 2030 to maintain the 1.5°C warming target. It proposes three pillars of action: an updated monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) framework utilizing satellite technology; national methane action plans targeting the energy, agriculture, and waste sectors; and a system of technical and financial assistance for developing countries. The authors highlight that many mitigation measures, particularly in the energy sector, are low-cost or can be implemented at no net cost.

The document argues that reducing methane emissions by at least 45% by 2030 is essential to meet the 1.5°C target. It details sector-specific interventions: transitioning to agroecology and plant-based diets in agriculture, eliminating fossil fuels and fixing leaks in the energy sector, and implementing a waste hierarchy focused on organic waste prevention and composting in the waste sector. It further proposes a global governance framework based on monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), national action plans, and financial assistance for developing countries.

The report argues that while the Global Methane Pledge aims for a 30% reduction by 2030, a 40–45% reduction is necessary to meet the 1.5°C target. It details sector-specific interventions: shifting to plant-rich diets and improving livestock management in agriculture; phasing out fossil fuels and implementing leak detection in energy; and prioritizing organic waste prevention and composting in the waste sector. It further advocates for a global governance framework based on monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), national action plans, and financial assistance for developing countries.

The report argues that EPR should be a core component of the EU's strategy for sustainable textiles to operationalise the 'polluter pays' principle and reduce over-consumption. It recommends a harmonised EU-wide approach to EPR, including a consistent definition of 'producer', a broad scope of in-scope products, and the use of eco-modulation to incentivise better design. Because EPR alone cannot address all environmental, social, and animal welfare impacts, the report proposes a suite of complementary measures, such as banning hazardous chemicals, implementing minimum eco-design requirements for durability and repairability, and introducing recycled content targets. The authors advocate for a single, industry-owned, not-for-profit EPR scheme per Member State to better coordinate strategic infrastructure investment and data reporting.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations wrote to Arla Foods to highlight a 'complete lack of action' from major meat and dairy companies regarding methane emissions. Based on a report titled 'Blindspot', the authors state that none of the 20 companies analysed report methane emissions separately or have concrete targets to reduce them. Arla specifically scored 14.8 out of 100 in the ranking, with the authors noting a lack of specific commitments and only 'minor investment' in technical methane abatement and protein alternatives. The letter recommends that Arla set science-based targets aligned with 1.5°C, report CO2 and methane separately, and shift toward sustainable food systems including reduced meat and dairy production.