# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHjf3lKnNww

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
News Corp's dramatic climate change backflip | Media Watch

# data[].attributes.body
https://ukcop26.org/uk-presidency/what-is-a-cop/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Page is [ARCHIVED CONTENT] and shows what the site page https://ukcop26.org/uk-presidency/what-is-a-cop/ looked like on 1 Apr 2023 at 05:49:04

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/australian-business-talks-big-on-climate-but-who-s-walking-the-talk-20211014-p58zuc.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Opinion

Economic adviser to former Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd

Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size

This week we saw a crescendo of Australian business support for climate change action. The Business Council of Australia proposed strong emissions cuts. News Corporation launched a campaign to support a target of net zero by 2050. The Australian Financial Review ran a climate summit. Long-time climate action supporters, Andrew Forrest and Mike Cannon-Brookes, made big promises to further invest in green technology.

It is great to see Australian business stepping up to the climate challenge. he environmental, social, and corporate governance website Purpose Bureau shows that more than 700 of the largest Australian companies have now committed to reduce their emissions to zero by at least 2050. The challenge now is to turn words into actions - - and there's a long way to go.

At the business end of driving down emissions, who's walking the talk? Credit:AP

Groundbreaking data released today shows that Australia's major companies are much further ahead on commitments than on concrete emissions reduction. This data, from Accenture, calculates the "emissions rate" (greenhouse gases per dollar of revenue) for major companies around the world. It then matches each company's emissions rate to the International Energy Agency's emissions-reduction pathways for its industry. The best companies emit at a level consistent with a pathway to a 1.5 degrees global temperature increase, and the worst companies' emissions are consistent with a pathway to dangerous warming above 3 degrees.

Some Australian companies are at world's best practice. Medibank, Macquarie, Commonwealth Bank, Cochlear and Brambles are just some of the companies that have emissions per dollar of revenue consistent with the IEA pathway to 1.5 degrees or lower. But, overall, only 24 per cent of Australia's largest listed companies have emissions consistent with keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees. This compares with 61 per cent of major companies in Britain and 53 per cent in Europe.

In other words, three-quarters of Australian companies currently emit at a rate that would lead to temperature increases above 1.5 degrees. And more than a third have emission consistent with a pathway to dangerous levels of warming above 3 degrees.

The worst-performing industries in Australia are mining, energy and consumer services, in which more than half of companies have emissions consistent with a pathway to dangerous levels of warming at 3 degrees or higher.

This data highlights the importance of scrutinising the recent climate commitments made by Australian businesses. Not all commitments are equal. Some represent strong credible action, and some are PR spin or "greenwashing".

The most credible climate commitments are those that include deep long-term emissions cuts as well as concrete short-term action. For example, Woolworths has committed to net zero emissions by 2050, but also committed to strong intermediate goals to be achieved much sooner. Similarly, Coles and Telstra have committed to a short-term target of 100 per cent renewable electricity by 2025 on their pathway to net zero by mid-century.

Companies that promise to eliminate emissions in 30 years but aren't taking action now lack credibility. As Greta Thunberg has said these distant targets are about "making it seem like we're acting without having to change".

Less credible commitments also rely on vague plans or unproven technologies. This was highlighted
recently when Santos, the Australian oil and gas producer, was challenged in a landmark consumer law
action. This action accused the company's emissions reductions plan of being misleading because it
relies on carbon capture technologies that are yet to be proven at scale.

More credible commitments, such as those associated with the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), come with strict criteria for abatement and independent scrutiny.

As our biggest companies strive to trumpet their environmental commitments, the need to distinguish real action from greenwashing is becoming increasingly important. A recent global review found that 40 per cent f the sustainability claims made by businesses were misleading because they were vague, narrow or selective.

The problem with greenwashing is that too many businesses might be falsely taking credit for being climate-friendly, while genuine firms don't get the recognition they deserve. Consumers are increasingly drawn to brands that offer strong sustainability credentials - but greenwashing means that those offering products with a genuine environmental benefit are not getting the customers they deserve.

This type of data is important to distinguish between companies doing the right thing and those just saying the right things. And of course, because we all need our businesses to play their part in keeping the world cool so Australia doesn't suffer even worse
droughts, bushfires, floods and other catastrophes in the future.

This week was a positive step for Australia's climate agenda, with a broad cross-section of the business community coming forward with commitments. Now we need to ensure those commitments are credible and translate into action.
The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day's most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.

Andrew Charlton is a managing director at Accenture, adjunct professor at Macquarie University and co-director of the e61 Institute for economic research. He was an economic adviser to Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd.

Most Viewed in Environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australian business talks big on climate, but who's walking the talk?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Opinion Economic adviser to former Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size This week we saw a crescendo of Australian business support for climate change action. The Business Council of Australia proposed strong emissions cuts. News Corporation launched a campaign to support a target of net zero by 2050.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/technology/environment/mission-zero-putting-australia-on-a-path-to-a-net-zero-future/news-story/83f521bfd9d592ab6defdab7d3b81ce8

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mission Zero: Getting Australia to a net zero future

# data[].attributes.headline
NDCs, climate finance and 1.5C: your Cop26 jargon buster

# data[].attributes.subject
NDCs, climate finance and 1.5C: your Cop26 jargon buster

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cop26 will be the 26th conference of the parties to the UN framework convention on climate change, the parent treaty to the 2015 Paris agreement. More than 120 world leaders are expected to attend, with more than 25,000 delegates from 197 countries, in the biggest diplomatic event on British soil since the second world war.

UNFCCC

The UN framework convention on climate change, signed in 1992 at the Rio Earth summit, binds all of the world's nations - bar a handful of failed states - to "avoid dangerous climate change". However, it did not set out in detail how to do so.

Kyoto protocol

The first attempt to turn the UNFCCC's resolution into action was the 1997 Kyoto protocol, which set targets on emissions cuts for each developed country, stipulating a 5% cut in global greenhouse gases overall by 2012. Developing countries, including China, were allowed to increase their emissions. But the protocol immediately ran into trouble when the US, which signed the treaty under Bill Clinton, could not ratify it owing to opposition in Congress. The protocol eventually came into force without US backing, in 2005, but by then was largely irrelevant, so countries set out on the long journey to a new treaty that would fulfil the UNFCCC aims, resulting eventually in the 2015 Paris accord.

Forged at a landmark summit in December 2015, this marked the first time that both developed and developing countries agreed to limit greenhouse gases in order to stay within set temperature limits. The main goal of the Paris agreement is to limit global heating to "well below" 2C above pre-industrial levels, while "pursuing efforts" to stay within the lower, safer threshold of 1.5C. Countries set out targets to stay within those limits, in the form of nationally determined contributions (NDCs).

NDCs

Nationally determined contributions are national plans containing targets on emissions cuts, usually pegged to 2030, and some details on how they will be met. They form the heart of the Paris agreement. In the negotiations leading up to the Paris summit, countries were reluctant to accept "top-down" targets like those contained in the Kyoto protocol, which set a global goal for emissions reduction then divided up the cuts needed among the developed countries. Instead, they opted for each government offering the emissions reductions it thought feasible. However, this resulted in a set of NDCs submitted at Paris that would result in catastrophic heating, of more than 3C. So the Paris agreement contains a "ratchet" mechanism by which every five years countries must return to the negotiating table with fresh commitments, to bring emissions in line with the overarching temperature targets.

1.5C

The Paris agreement contains two key goals, of limiting global heating to "well below" 2C, while "pursuing efforts" to limit temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. These temperature goals have their roots in IPCC reports. The 2007 IPCC fourth assessment report suggested the world was likely to warm by at least 1.8C even if measures were taken to limit emissions, and by 4C if emissions went untrammelled. Keeping warming to about 2C was regarded as the outer limit of safety, beyond which the impacts of climate change - heatwaves, droughts, floods, sea level rises, fiercer storms and other extreme weather - would become catastrophic and irreversible. Some big emitters, including China, argued 2C was the only realistic limit and opting for a lower goal would be economically difficult. However, small island states pointed to science showing they were likely to be inundated, by sea level rises and storm surges, at warming above 1.5C. The conflict was eventually resolved in the compromise of two goals at Paris. A further IPCC report in 2018 found extreme weather and severe impacts from even a 1.5C rise, so for Cop26 the UK hosts made "keeping 1.5C alive" the core aim of the conference.

Net zero

This basically means reducing greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible and then offsetting any remaining irreducible emissions - for instance, from industrial processes that emit carbon dioxide, or sectors such as aviation where alternative technologies are not available - by fostering carbon sinks, such as forests. The concept has come under attack from campaigners who argue that some companies and governments are using net zero as a fig leaf by assuming they can offset emissions rather than reducing them.

Mitigation

Within the context of the UNFCCC, mitigation always means the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Adaptation

(Also sometimes known as resilience.) The world has already warmed by 1.1-1.2C above pre-industrial levels, and some of the impacts of the current heating are irreversible, so even if we succeed in cutting emissions drastically, we will still need to adapt to the impacts of more extreme weather. Infrastructure, including transport, telecommunications networks, housing and rural areas will need to be adapted and protected, for instance by building railways less likely to buckle in the heat or roads less likely to melt, and building houses that will not overheat.

IPCC

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The body of the world's leading climate scientists, first convened by the UN and the World Meteorological Organization in 1988, has produced five comprehensive assessment reports since, each increasing in certainty and reinforcing the message that the climate crisis, caused by human actions that increase the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is accelerating. The latest IPCC report, the sixth, is part-way through publication: the first instalment, on the physical science of climate change, came out in August, delivering the starkest warning yet of the calamity we face. It found that the claimte crisis was "unequivocally" the result of human actions, was putting in train changes that in some cases were already "irreversible", and that some of those changes were "unprecedented" in hundreds of thousands of years. The IPCC has been criticised for giving too conservative a view of climate science - its key findings, in the "summary for policymakers", are subject to approval and amendment by governments before publication, which some say means they are unduly weakened.

Methane

A powerful greenhouse gas, which can trap heat in the atmosphere about 80 times more effectively than carbon dioxide. Whereas carbon dioxide lingers in the atmosphere for about a century once released, methane degrades in a couple of decades to carbon dioxide. It comes from leaking fossil fuel infrastructure, such as oilwells and shale gas wells, and from animal husbandry and other agriculture.

SLCPs

Short-lived climate pollutants. These are compounds such as methane, hydrofluorocarbons and soot. They degrade or fall out of the atmosphere more quickly than carbon dioxide, but while they are active can play a major role in heating the atmosphere, so actions to reduce them could buy humanity some time in cutting warming sooner. Methane, for instance, traps heat about 80 times more effectively than CO2, and moves to drastically reduce it could reduce warming by as much as 0.2Caccording to some estimates. Soot stains white snow and ice, and the dark surfaces absorb more heat, in a feedback loop. Hydrofluorocarbons are substitutes for the ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons, but they have a high warming potential, with some capable of trapping more than 11,000 times as much heat as CO2.

Carbon offsetting

Carbon dioxide has the same impact on the climate no matter where it is emitted and what the source, so if a tonne of carbon dioxide can be absorbed from the atmosphere in one part of the world it should cancel out a tonne of the gas emitted in another. So, in theory, companies, governments and individuals can cancel out the impact of some of their emissions by investing in projects that reduce or store carbon - forest preservation and tree planting are among them, but carbon credits are also awarded for projects that reduce fossil fuels in other ways, such as windfarms, solar cookstoves, or better farming methods. The practice has been controversial.

Article 6

One of the key areas still to be resolved at Cop26 is article 6 of the Paris agreement, which provides for the use of carbon markets. Countries are divided over the plans: there are concerns that some carbon credits are just "hot air" because they do not result in genuine emissions reductions; and concerns that under some proposals carbon credits could be counted twice. Some campaigners have called for article 6 and the carbon markets to be scrapped altogether. Brazil and other heavily forested nations have most interest in article 6 but disagreements over the issue overshadowed the last Cop, in Madrid in 2019, and the UK will be anxious to avoid a repeat.

Climate finance

Developing countries were promised, at the Copenhagen Cop in 2009, that they would receive at least $100bn a year in climate finance from 2020, from public and private sector sources, to help them cut greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the impacts of extreme weather. That promise was not met: OECD estimates, published in September, showed that climate finance in 2019 amounted to about $80bn, well short of the target.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NDCs, climate finance and 1.5C: your Cop26 jargon buster

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cop26 will be the 26th conference of the parties to the UN framework convention on climate change, the parent treaty to the 2015 Paris agreement. More than 120 world leaders are expected to attend, with more than 25,000 delegates from 197 countries, in the biggest diplomatic event on British soil since the second world war.

# data[].attributes.headline
Australia's worst climate culprits - corporate edition

# data[].attributes.subject
Australia's worst climate culprits - corporate edition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Image: Eric Lobbecke)

We know who Australia's biggest polluters are. Every year, the government publishes data on the largest sources of scope 1 greenhouse emissions (that is, directly produced as part of the production process of a facility) and scope 2 emissions (indirectly produced). Unsurprisingly, that list - led by AGL Energy - is dominated by large coal-fired power companies and gas companies.

But the list doesn't capture scope 3 emissions (emissions produced indirectly by a business) and it particularly doesn't capture the scope 3 emissions from the burning of Australian thermal coal exports around the world.

Nor does it capture the impact on emissions and climate policy of a company's actions. Is it seeking to exit fossil fuels, or separate its fossil fuel business from the rest of its portfolio? Is it genuinely committed to significantly reducing emissions? Or is it planning to increase its emissions or use discredited carbon capture and storage technology (CCS) as an excuse for inaction?

And what kind of role does it play in public debate? Does it engage in climate denialism, or pay lip service to accepting climate change but oppose policies to address it? Does it participate in good faith in public debate, or peddle lies and distractions? And what kind of influence does it seek over policymaking? Does it use political donations and job offers to forge strong links with politicians in order to dictate policy?

Crikey has put together a list of criteria for determining Australia's worst climate culprits. It covers level of emissions produced, commitment to decarbonisation internally, levels of political donations, what kind of role it plays in public debate, how much support it lends poor climate policy, and the extent of its political connections that enable it to sabotage climate action. The result is a tally of our worst climate culprits.

1) Santos and Woodside (tied)

The liquified natural gas (LNG) giants combine massive greenhouse emissions from their extraction and sale of natural gas with extensive political connections and a willingness to distort climate and energy policy in their own interests. Both are among the biggest political donors to both sides of politics and both have extensive connections with both sides through the employment of former political staffers as executives and former ministers as board directors.

Santos is by far the biggest corporate employer of former political staffers - mostly, but by no means exclusively, Coalition staffers, while Woodside likes not merely to have former officials in its executive ranks but to have an ex-politician or senior bureaucrat on its board.

Former Santos executives have played a key role in drafting the Morrison government's "gas-led recovery" strategy in the wake of the pandemic. Both companies continue to push for new projects that would massively increase greenhouse emissions - Andrew Forrest rightly criticised Santos' Barossa project as "one of the most polluting projects in the world." And both push CCS as a viable option for emissions reduction, despite the mountain of evidence that it doesn't work.

Santos and Woodside are climate criminals who, under any science-based climate policy, would be shut down forthwith.

2) News Corp, Whitehaven Coal, Delta Electricity, Waratah Coal and APPEA (tied)

News Corp produces only tiny emissions itself, but makes up for its lack of direct environmental impacts with a rampant climate denialism, intense opposition to climate action and a powerful political role. Instead of traditional financial donations, it donates massive airtime and newspaper coverage to the Coalition in support of climate inaction and uses its journalists to campaign against any climate action proposals. A suppurating tumour on Anglophone democracies, News Corp is a major force for climate denialism.

Whitehaven Coal is a significant coal exporter that is also a political donor to the Coalition and has strong political connections through its chair, former Nationals leader Mark Vaile. A new Whitehaven project near Gunnedah in NSW was the centre of human rights litigation by a group of young Australians in which the government, while admitting the project would add to greenhouse emissions, claimed it had no duty to protect Australians. Vaile and Whitehaven have been advocates of extremist pro-fossil fuel policies - Vaile has called for financial institutions to be compelled to lend to new coal mining projects, placing the entire financial system in jeopardy (a view well received within the government). Like a miniature Woodside, Whitehaven symbolises everything screwed up in Australian governance and policymaking - and how power really works in a country riddled with soft corruption.

Delta Electricity, like the gas giants Santos et al, combines significant emissions - via coal-fired power generation - with a strong relationship with the Coalition through its chair Trevor St Baker, a major Coalition donor, former Nationals candidate and opponent of climate action. St Baker has called for coal-fired power stations to be reopened and the scheduled closure of such generators to be delayed.

Waratah Coal is pursuing the opening up of the Galilee Basin as a major new coal field. While Waratah owner Clive Palmer - once a major Nationals donor - has held little direct sway over Coalition policy for some years, he devoted $80 million to attacking Labor at the last election, contributing to the defeat of a party proposing a significant scaling-up of action on climate change.

APPEA is the right-wing lobby group for petroleum extractors. While traditionally found urging attacks on basic workplace rights, APPEA is also a major opponent of climate action. Worried about increasing investor hostility, is banking everything on CCS. It has ramped up its political donations significantly in recent years and between 2018-20 gave a quarter-of-a-million dollars, mostly to the Coalition.

3) Origin and the Minerals Council of Australia (tied)

Origin, another major gas company and the fourth largest source of scope 1 emissions, has handed more than three-quarters-of-a-million dollars to political parties in the last decade and, like its competitors, is an ardent advocate of CCS.

While the Minerals Council is no longer as strong an advocate for expanded coal mining as it was in the days when BHP forced Brendan Pearson out, it continues to support failed CCS, and it too has lifted its donations, handing nearly $390,000 to political parties in the last two years.

4) Chevron

Rinse, repeat: a huge generator of emissions from its natural gas projects, US multinational Chevron is a huge political donor responsible for the now officially failed Gorgon CCS project.

The worst of the rest

Shell, Hancock Prospecting's joint venture in the Galilee Basin, the Business Council of Australia, and the big coal-fired power generators AGL, Energy Australia and the Queensland government's generators.

12 weeks for just $12.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Revealed: Australia's worst climate culprits - corporate edition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We know who Australia's biggest polluters are. Every year, the government publishes data on the largest sources of scope 1 greenhouse emissions (that is, directly produced as part of the production process of a facility) and scope 2 emissions (indirectly produced).

# data[].attributes.headline
What is COP26 and why is it so important?

# data[].attributes.subject
What is COP26 and why is it so important?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For two action-packed weeks in early November, all eyes will be on Glasgow as the world's leaders meet at what's been dubbed as the most important international climate summit in years: COP26.

This is the world's opportunity to deliver a credible, binding response to the climate disaster we currently face, and it must be taken seriously. The latest science has made abundantly clear that global emissions need to plummet this decade. Avoiding climate catastrophe now depends on every country bringing the most ambitious commitments and actions they can muster to the table. And this is what COP26 intends to coordinate.

There's likely to be a whole lot of policy talks, target announcements and fancy jargon thrown around in the lead up to and during the summit, so treat this explainer as your go-to guide to see you through COP26, and get you up to speed on what it's all about and why it's so important.

First things first... What does COP26 actually stand for?

'COP' refers to the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ('UNFCCC'), which is the peak decision-making body for the world's climate change commitments.

The '26' signifies that this is the 26th Conference of the Parties. They usually happen annually, though COP26 was delayed by a year due to COVID19.

Basically, COP26 will be a 2 week-long series of conferences, talks and discussions between global leaders to discuss their climate commitments and work out ways for coordinating efforts to combat climate change going forward.

Where will COP26 be held and who is going?

This year's COP is hosted by the UK and Italy and is being held in Glasgow, Scotland. So far, 100 political heads of government have confirmed their attendance, making COP26 the largest political gathering the UK has ever hosted. Australia will have government representatives in attendance, but it's still unclear whether Prime Minister Scott Morrison will be among them.

As well as government officials and delegates, a whole range of media personnel, representatives from climate organisations, business, academia and state and local governments from all over the world will also be going along to the summit.

Why is this year's COP meeting so important?

COP26 is being heralded as one of the most important climate events of the decade, and for good reason, too - global emissions MUST plummet this decade if we are to avoid catastrophic climate impacts. Importantly, COP26 falls around the 5 year mark since the Paris Agreement was signed, so countries are expected to ramp up their emissions reduction targets to satisfy their commitment to the Paris Agreement.

Hang on... What's the Paris Agreement?

Glad you asked! After many 'failed' COP summits over the years, countries finally reached a binding and universal agreement to guide and accelerate international cooperation on climate change in 2015 at COP21 in Paris. It resulted in 195 countries around the world signing a treaty, known as the Paris Agreement, agreeing to limit global warming to well below 2°C and to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5 ̊C. The latest science affirms that breaching the Agreement's temperature goal would prove disastrous for humanity, in the form of catastrophic extreme weather events and potentially unlivable conditions.
Click here to read about the difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees of warming
The Paris Agreement was an important step towards addressing the global challenge of climate change, however, it only provided the framework for getting there. Actual contributions towards cutting global emissions are determined by the countries themselves, and the first round of contributions fell woefully short, leaving the world on a path to a devastating 3°C or more of warming.

Fortunately, governments understood this shortfall when negotiating the Paris Agreement, and decided that countries must strengthen their commitments every five years. COP26 marks the end of that five year period, so it's crucial the countries ratchet up their climate goals ahead of the summit.

What sort of climate targets are we talking about?

The science says that global emissions MUST plummet this decade, so COP26 is primarily concerned with countries ramping up their commitments to reduce emissions by 2030.

Seeing their national security threatened by climate change but also driven by the economic opportunities of the global energy transition, almost all the world's wealthy nations have significantly strengthened their 2030 emission reduction targets ahead of the Glasgow conference.

Australia's key trading partners and strategic allies are rapidly shifting away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy, and have strengthened their targets to reflect that.

UK 68% below 1990 levels by 2030

US 50-52% below 2005 levels by 2030

EU 55% below 1990 levels by 2030

Canada 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2030

As for Australia, the Federal Government remains stubbornly wedded to its Abbott-era target of 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030: a commitment with no basis in scientific reality that was perceived as woefully inadequate at the time and now places us even further behind our peers. The science is clearly demanding we need to slash our pollution by 75% by 2030. But as a first step, Australia should match the updated commitments from our key allies, and pledge before Glasgow to at least half our emissions by 2030.
Sign our petition calling for the Federal Government to cut emissions this decade!
In addition to strengthened emissions reduction targets, the months leading up to Glasgow have seen countries step up with new and game-changing commitments in other ways. For example, the US has pledged to double its support for climate action in developing countries, and China has followed Japan and South Korea in ending international financing for coal.

What other issues will be on the agenda at COP26?
Mitigation and Adaptation:
Emissions reductions targets are all about mitigation - i.e. slashing emissions of greenhouse gas to limit the harm that is done to the global climate. However, another key element of the discussion is also around adaptation - what steps we will have to take in the future to adapt to the climate challenges that have already been locked in.

Adaptation is, of course, an important part of the conversation, especially for developing nations and small island states that will suffer the most under a changed climate. We've already hit 1.1 degrees of global warming and are already experiencing accelerating climate impacts because of it. Unfortunately, there is worse to come. That said, adaptation plans must not take the pressure off mitigation plans. Without significant, urgent, permanent emissions reductions, it will not be possible to adapt to the worst of climate change.

A key element of the Paris Agreement is a USD$100bn per year global commitment to fighting climate change, so this will be another important feature of the discussions. The money is used for helping developing countries reduce emissions, such as accelerating their transition to renewable energy. So far, Australia's contributions towards this global commitment are minimal, and we will need to lift our annual contribution by around 10 times if we are to fulfil our fair share towards this global goal.

Alongside the above, there is also still considerable unfinished business from previous COPs, with significant sections of the so-called 'Paris Rulebook' still unfinished after several years. Many of the most significant unresolved issues relate to the proposed market mechanism for the Paris Agreement - through which nations should be able to trade emissions reductions across country borders.

The existence of a market mechanism is seen to be important for many nations - including relatively small but wealthy nations like Singapore - to increase their ambition. Australia has played a central role in blocking the adoption of the market mechanism at past COPs, in part due to its insistence on using expired allocations from previous commitments against its 2030 targets (so-called "Kyoto credit"). It remains to be seen whether Australia will continue to block international progress for the sake of these spurious credits at COP26, as it did at the previous two conferences.

What can we expect from Australia?

Both domestic and international pressure is mounting on our Federal Government to ratchet up our climate commitments and make a pledge to reach net zero emissions ASAP, and credible science-based targets in between now and then. Recently, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg made the economic case for net zero emissions by 2050 - which would match commitments made by some of Australia's other key allies. This would be a welcome first step, but cannot be the final goal. The science is clearly indicating that Australia needs to slash our pollution by 75% by 2030, and reach net zero emissions by 2035, to do our fair share towards avoiding catastrophic climate change. It's entirely possible, but we MUST act now.

Sadly, Australia has been dragging its feet on climate change for far too long, and the Federal Government has not indicated that it is intending to turn the ship around any time soon, to become the climate leaders we know we should be. Out of all the countries in the world, Australia has the most to gain from transitioning to a renewable economy - yet also has the most to lose from inaction, due to our vulnerability to climate impacts.

At the Climate Council, however, we believe that anything is possible if there's enough momentum and public pressure building behind the cause.
Sign our petition calling for the Federal Government to strengthen its emissions reductions targets before COP26!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is COP26 and why is it so important? | Climate Council

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For two action-packed weeks in early November, all eyes will be on Glasgow as the world's leaders meet at what's been dubbed as the most important international climate summit in years: COP26. This is the world's opportunity to deliver a credible, binding response to the climate disaster we currently face, and it must be taken seriously.

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott Morrison says he wants to explain emissions plan to Australians before ‘people overseas’

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott Morrison says he wants to explain emissions plan to Australians before ‘people overseas’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The prime minister, Scott Morrison, says he wants to explain the government's emissions reduction plan - once it is agreed with the Nationals - to affected workers in Australia first, as he flags he will not attend the Cop26 Glasgow climate summit in November.

While saying he is yet to make a firm decision on his attendance at the United Nations Cop26 summit, Morrison on Tuesday said he would face another 14 days in quarantine if he did attend, and also pointed to the New Zealand prime minister, Jacinda Adern, as "also not attending".

"My first responsibility once we agree our plan for technology and the plan that will see us reduce emissions over the long term, my first responsibility is to explain that to Australians, not to people overseas, at overseas conferences," Morrison told Channel Nine on Tuesday.

"It's an important conference, but the people I need to talk to most about our plan to reduce emissions and transition our economy over the next 30 years is to Australians, people in the Hunter Valley, people up there in Queensland, people in Victoria, in the west."

In a separate interview, Morrison said the government would definitely be represented at the Glasgow summit at "a very senior level", and suggested he needed to remain in Australia to manage the reopening of the country, which is forecast when vaccination rates reach 80%.

"At that time of year, we'll be dealing with opening up, issues around Covid, international travel starting, bringing people home, students. There'll be a lot on here," Morrison told 4BC radio.

The UK's high commissioner to Austalia, Vicki Treadell, has said the UK would be "very disappointed" if Morrison did not attend the summit.

The government is still negotiating its new climate change policy internally, with a crucial meeting with the Nationals later this month to thrash out the government's commitment to a net-zero by 2050 target.

It has previously committed to updating both its long-term and 2030 emissions reduction targets of 26-28% cut on 2005 levels, which Australia agreed to six years ago under the Paris agreement.

The target has been widely criticised as not consistent with the goals of the Paris agreement, which aimed to to hold global heating to below 2C, with an aspiration not to breach 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

Liberal MPs in metropolitan seats are pushing for both a net zero by 2050 target and a roadmap to reach it that would outline shorter-term milestones, but face resistance from a clutch of Nationals MPs, mostly from Queensland, who are firmly against the net zero target.

Adding to the pressure on the federal Coalition, the New South Wales government last week agreed to a new target to cut emissions from 35% to 50% compared with 2005 levels by 2030.

Morrison said difficult decisions were needed, and he was attempting to bring the government together on a plan to reduce emissions and transition to a new economy, "which is coming".

"We can't avoid these difficult questions, and it does require a lot of debate internally to work it through together," Morrison said.

"Our plan will set out how we'll get there, not just why we'll get there and when we get there, it's the how that matters, because it's the how that determines what the costs are, how we protect jobs, how we ensure that the Australian economy remains strong into the future," he said.

"I want to keep those jobs in rural and regional Australia. We're going to get there through technology, not higher taxes. That can absolutely be achieved and we can do the right thing by future generations."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scott Morrison says he wants to explain emissions plan to Australians before 'people overseas'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The prime minister, Scott Morrison, says he wants to explain the government's emissions reduction plan - once it is agreed with the Nationals - to affected workers in Australia first, as he flags he will not attend the Cop26 Glasgow climate summit in November.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/greatest-moral-challenge-turns-out-to-be-rudds-dearest-folly-20100428-tscw.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size

Despite all the denials, we now see in black and white how the defunct - or in Kevin Rudd's language ''extended'' - emissions trading scheme already has an impact on electricity prices.

No sooner had the Prime Minister announced he was scrapping - sorry, ''extending'' - the scheme, all the energy companies came out to say the extra cost factored in for a scheme that hadn't even passed the Senate was, miraculously, no longer necessary. So now they'll only increase our already inflated bills by 36 per cent instead of 60 per cent, in EnergyAustralia's case.

Edd Aragon Credit:Edd Aragon

There you have it - a glimpse at the tip of the iceberg that was Rudd's dearest folly, that had him prancing around the world stage and which he pitched as the defining achievement of his first term.

Rudd's mission to rush out in front of the rest of the world with an ETS because climate change was ''the greatest moral challenge of our time'' has finally been exposed as flimflam. ''It's very plain that the correct course is to extend the implementation date and to assess the action by other states at the end of 2012'' was Rudd's way of announcing his backflip this week.

It vindicates the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, and his backer, Senator Nick Minchin, in their refusal last year to be coerced by their former leader Malcolm Turnbull into supporting the ETS.

In hindsight, it is even more extraordinary Turnbull was so obstinate. From the moment he rolled his hapless predecessor Brendan Nelson for articulating the exact wait-and-see position Rudd has now adopted, Turnbull and his supporters claimed the Coalition had no choice but to back Rudd.

They were supposedly terrified of handing Rudd a trigger for a double dissolution election on climate change. But even before Climategate, before the flop at Copenhagen, it was obvious that wasn't the case. As I wrote last August, Turnbull should have called Rudd's bluff, and embraced an election on a new energy tax.

Well, sure enough, Rudd blinked. He never wanted to go to voters with a new tax. He wanted to walk to the polls hand in hand with Turnbull, as a great statesman with his patsy, having pulled a fast one on an electorate soon to be burdened with the costs.

Yet one of the ABC's political sages, Alison Carabine, was claiming yesterday Turnbull was the only politician to emerge from the ETS with any ''credibility''. Hello?

Now all the ETS boosters in the business community, the rent-seekers whom Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg has dubbed the ''climate-industrial complex'', who stood to profit the most from carbon regulations, are right behind Rudd's backflip. It's business as usual, with a reported $2.5 billion saved to the economy.

Rudd is clearing the decks of anything smelly before the election, in that curiously Zen way he has of ignoring the fallout.

He is banking on the electorate forgetting his astonishing catalogue of flops and fiascos, from home insulation, school halls and his mishandling of the asylum seeker issue that has led to an influx of boats, to GroceryWatch, Fuel Watch, the 2020 Summit, Aboriginal housing, solar rebates, green loans and so on.

Even his much-promised Mandarin-speaking new relationship with China, our biggest trading partner, is a flop, with China's People's Daily last September stating ''relations between China and Australia have now hit their lowest point in a decade, since John Howard met the Dalai Lama''.

Rudd hopes the electorate will remember only the images of him visiting hospital after hospital, plonking his bottom on the bed of another astonished sick person.

There are very real human costs for all his posturing policy wonkery. The ABC's Four Corners reminded us on Monday night of another of Rudd's green-tinged follies, the catastrophic home insulation scheme, which resulted in the deaths of four young insulators. That's not to mention the $2.5 billion spent - almost half of it on fixing the bungles. That's half of the $5 billion he's thrown at the states to get them to agree to his hospitals funding rejig.

Even when he sat down next to the father of Matthew Fuller, the 26-year-old insulation installer who was the first to die under the scheme, Rudd could not bring himself to apologise.

As Kevin Fuller, Matthew's father, told Four Corners: ''Kevin Rudd burst into the meeting after about 15 minutes and sat right next to me and he didn't, he didn't remember my name, so I shook his hand and said it's Kevin, it's not that difficult to remember.''

There was no apology to the Fullers, ''no looking in my eyes or Christine's eyes and saying I'm sorry. Even sorry for your loss would've been good.''

Rudd seems to be one of those people whose self-belief never falters, even while everything is falling down around him. But he has few cheerleaders left, outside of the increasingly unhinged Crikey blog. Even the ABC's Chris Uhlmann was scathing this week: ''If you really believe that climate change is the greatest moral and economic challenge of our age, then you wouldn't retreat, would you, because if you did, people might begin to wonder what you actually believe in?''

Perhaps the best assessment of the Prime Minister this week comes from the Roman senator Tacitus, via letter writer Harry Gelber, of Hobart: ''Omnium consensu capax imperii nisi imperasset.''

Roughly, it means: everyone agrees he would have been thought capable of governing, if he had not already governed.
devinemiranda@hotmail.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Greatest moral challenge turns out to be Rudd's dearest folly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size Despite all the denials, we now see in black and white how the defunct - or in Kevin Rudd's language ''extended'' - emissions trading scheme already has an impact on electricity prices.

# data[].attributes.body
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc&ab_channel=Kurzgesagt%E2%80%93InaNutshell

# data[].attributes.headline
Want to save the Earth? Then don’t buy that shiny new iPhone

# data[].attributes.subject
Want to save the Earth? Then don’t buy that shiny new iPhone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Want to save the Earth? Then don’t buy that shiny new iPhone | John Naughton

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Apple has just unveiled the latest all-singing, all-dancing iteration of its handset, but perhaps you should resist the hype

# data[].attributes.headline
Coca Cola...world's most polluting brand? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Coca Cola...world's most polluting brand? 

# data[].attributes.body
https://therising.co/2019/11/02/coca-cola-named-the-worlds-most-polluting-brand-again/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Once again, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and PepsiCo are the world's worst plastic pollution contributors, according to a recent global audit. This marks Coca-Cola's second consecutive year as the world's most polluting brand. Other companies identified as major global polluters include the Solo Cup Company and Colgate-Palmolive. In the U.S., Nestlé ranked #1 as the country's worst polluter. The Solo Cup Company and Starbucks came next.

Lately, several major companies have announced their commitments to more sustainable practices. Yet, waste still seems to be piling up. Why is that?

Recycling not as impactful as claimed

The audit found that companies' promises to make products "100% recyclable" weren't doing much for the environment. In fact, only 9% plastic produced has actually been recycled around the world. According to the audit, the rest is either incinerated, sent to landfills, or continues to lay waste on the environment.

Just recycling is not a viable option, Von Hernandez says, the global coordinator of the Break Free From Plastic movement

"This report provides more evidence that corporations urgently need to do more to address the plastic pollution crisis they've created. Their continued reliance on single-use plastic packaging translates to pumping more throwaway plastic into the environment," Hernandez said. "Recycling is not going to solve this problem."

Creating "false solutions" to tackle plastic pollution crisis

Despite several corporations committed to improving "recyclability," there are still design flaws. Greenpeace's Southeast Asia plastic campaign coordinator, Abigail Aguilar, says this is due to companies offering "false solutions" to the plastic problem.

For instance, many companies design plastic that's either too low-quality to recycle. Or, the plastic may have chemical additives or hard-to-separate layers that make it impossible to recycle. This is when "down-cycling" comes in, which is very common. So, even if materials can be reused, they often have a significantly lower value. Other practices Aguilar called out as "false solutions" included replacing plastic with paper or bioplastics.

"These strategies largely protect the outdated throwaway business model that caused the plastic pollution crisis," Aguilar said. "And (they) will do nothing to prevent these brands from being named the top polluters again in the future."

Are companies' sustainability goals all talk?

Break Free From Plastic movement conducted the audit with aim to effectively tackle the plastic pollution crisis on a global scale.

For the audit, over 72,540 volunteers visited more than 51 countries to conduct 484 brand audits. Volunteers found over 475,000 pieces of plastic trash and cataloged over 8,000 different brands in their audits.

Major companies like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo recently announced plans to reduce plastic waste. A few months ago, both companies even cut ties with a prominent plastic lobbying group. Still, their track record continues to show high waste produced. So, what does this mean?

Coca-Cola responds to plastic pollution report

For Coca-Cola, volunteers recorded more than 11,732 plastics from 37 different countries. Alone, Coca-Cola accounted for 2.5% of the total plastic waste collected.

Coca-Cola told The Daily News they were working to reduce plastic pollution and help with cleanup efforts.

"Any time our packaging ends up in our oceans-or anywhere that it doesn't belong-is unacceptable to us. In partnership with others, we are working to address this critical global issue, both to help turn off the tap in terms of plastic waste entering our oceans and to help clean up the existing pollution."

Conclusions

Every minute, a million plastic bottles are sold globally. Every day, the plastic pollution crisis seems to grow. However, by pressuring companies for more transparency and genuine commitment to their sustainability goals, significantly reducing plastic waste may not be so impossible after all.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coca-Cola Named The World's Most Polluting Brand ... Again. | The Rising

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Once again, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and PepsiCo are the world's worst plastic pollution contributors, according to a recent global audit. This marks Coca-Cola's second consecutive year as the world's most polluting brand. Other companies identified as major global polluters include the Solo Cup Company and Colgate-Palmolive.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2018/01/16/mcdonalds-environmental-goals-sustainable-packaging-recycling/1037214001/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLOSE

McDonald's announced Tuesday that it has set two ambitious environmental goals that it wants to achieve by 2025.

The fast food giant wants to have 100% of its customer packaging come from renewable, recycled, or certified sources and have recycling available in all its restaurants.

Currently, 50% of its guest packaging comes from sustainable sources and only 10% of its restaurants are recycling.

The company says it is making this move in response to customer demand and its desire to help reduce waste and have a positive community impact.

"Our customers have told us that packaging waste is the top environmental issue they would like us to address," Francesca Debiase, McDonald's chief supply chain and sustainability officer, said in a statement.

McDonald's said it plans to work with local governments and environmental associations on better packaging designs, new recycling programs and employee and customer education plans to reach these goals.

Environmental groups that have worked with McDonald's praised the announcement.

CLOSE

"McDonald's continues to raise the sustainability bar by setting ambitious goals and collaborating with partners across the value chain for maximum impact," Tom Murray, vice president of corporate partnerships at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement.

The nation's largest restaurant company - which has faced criticism over the years on a wide variety of societal issues including childhood obesity, low wages and animal treatment - can have an oversize impact on changes in its industry.

"Today's announcement demonstrates McDonald's strong leadership in developing packaging and recycling solutions at a scale that can extend the life of our natural resources and push its industry toward more sustainable practices," said Sheila Bonini, senior vice president, private sector engagement of the World Wildlife Fund.

Brian Yarbrough, an equity analyst with brokerage firm Edward Jones, said the news will give McDonald's some publicity, but probably won't impact profitability or earnings.

"It's in the forefront of people's minds right now - recycling, green. Obviously, it's a positive development for them," he said. "It won't translate into much in same-store sales or profits."
Contributing: Zlati Meyer
Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2mBPQXE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
McDonald's sets goal of recycling, 100% sustainable packaging by 2025

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLOSE McDonald's announced Tuesday that it has set two ambitious environmental goals that it wants to achieve by 2025. The fast food giant wants to have 100% of its customer packaging come from renewable, recycled, or certified sources and have recycling available in all its restaurants.

# data[].attributes.headline
Insideretail - McDonald's launches sustainable store 

# data[].attributes.subject
Insideretail - McDonald's launches sustainable store 

# data[].attributes.body
https://insideretail.com.au/sectors/mcdonalds-launches-sustainability-flagship-in-australia-202012

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
McDonald's Australia yesterday launched its first sustainability flagship, where it will test, evaluate and implement various sustainability initiatives which can then be folded into the business' other 999 stores in Australia.

The business' 1000th store will operate on 100 per cent renewable energy generated on an on-site solar system, feature 25 core sustainability initiatives including the recycling of Happy Meal toys, and will allow customers to charge electric vehicles.

"As a sustainability innovation hub, [this restaurant] will play a crucial role in enabling us to continue to design and build commercially practical sustainability solutions in to every new Macca's restaurant in the years to come," said McDonald's Australia's national director of development Diana Grosmann.

"Over the coming three years we plan to invest more than $500 million to open over 80 new restaurants across Australia, incorporating a range of core sustainability elements from restaurant 1000, including PlayPlaces made with recycled content and energy efficient equipment, as well as the use of 100 per cent renewable energy at some restaurants."

The business will also offset deliveries made via UberEats and DoorDash from the restaurant by purchasing carbon credits, and, in early 2021, it will begin trialing a front-of-house waste recycling system which will see waste from the store recycled into carry out bags and wraps packaging.

"The opening of our 1000th restaurant is a significant achievement for Macca's, and we are proud to be continuing to find new and innovative ways to help make a positive difference to the communities we operate in," Grosmann said.

McDonald's first sustainability store's franchisee Ben Westover.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
McDonald's launches sustainability flagship in Australia - Inside Retail

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
McDonald's Australia yesterday launched its first sustainability flagship, where it will test, evaluate and implement various sustainability initiatives which can then be folded into the business' other 999 stores in Australia. The business' 1000th store will operate on 100 per cent renewable energy generated on an on-site solar system, feature 25 core sustainability initiatives including the recycling of Happy Meal toys, and will allow customers to charge electric vehicles.

# data[].attributes.headline
Forbes - Amazon delivers on sustainability commitments 

# data[].attributes.subject
Forbes - Amazon delivers on sustainability commitments 

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoorhead/2021/04/21/amazon-delivers-on-its-sustainability-commitments-and-then-some/?sh=71a4808e299d

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you follow the news or live in an area affected by any of the recent major national disasters, we could be now witnessing the effects of climate change firsthand. Just a couple of months ago, a major winter storm turned my home base of Austin into Chicago (but without the infrastructure to handle it). It's a critical time to reflect on our collective impact on the pale blue dot. This week several companies I follow in the tech space announced new, bold climate initiatives in honor of Earth Day.

Of all the businesses out there, it's hard to imagine anyone with the capacity to make a more considerable impact than Amazon. The massive online retailer's delivery vehicles crisscross the entire world daily, and we've only come to rely on its services more heavily since the onset of the pandemic. To quote an old proverb, "with great power comes great responsibility." Although it has come under heavy fire lately in the press on things like taxes and labor, Amazon had an opportunity to generate some friendlier headlines around its sustainability efforts this week. Let's take a look at the news.
The Climate Pledge continues to snowball
In September of 2019, Amazon co-founded The Climate Pledge-a pact to meet the targets of the Paris Climate Accords ten years early by achieving net-zero carbon by 2040. I've been following Amazon's progress since then (here), along with other sustainability announcements and partnerships. I did a double-take when I saw Amazon's latest big update on the initiative-52 new companies have signed on to the Pledge virtually overnight, pushing the total number of signatories past 100. These include some huge brand names, such as Alaska Airlines, Colgate-Palmolive, Heineken, PepsiCo, Telefónica, and Visa, to name a few. Imagine how many products these companies manufacture and ship combined. Now imagine if all these companies reach the Climate Pledge target by 2040. The cumulative reduction in emissions and waste would be monumental. I believe Amazon is leading here.
Boosting eco-conscious shopping options
Last September, Amazon unveiled its Climate Pledge Friendly program, inspired by the Pledge and designed to guide environmentally conscious consumers towards sustainable products. According to Amazon, over 75,000 Climate Pledge Friendly products are now available in the U.S. and EU, denoted by certifications from third parties and Amazon's own new Compact by Design designation.

This week, Amazon unveiled four new certifications for the Climate Pledge Friendly portfolio: CarbonNeutral Product (certified by Natural Capital Partners), Carbon Neutral Certification (by SCS Global Services), Climate Neutral (by Climate Partner), and lastly, the Carbon Trust Carbon Neutral Certification. Along with these new certifications come thousands of new Climate Pledge Friendly products, ranging from Flor de Caña Rum to solutions from Logitech.

Amazon also announced a 15-25% discount on Climate Pledge Friendly certified products from Seventh Generation, The Honest Company, and Ethique. The Seventh Generation and Ethique discounts will run April 20-30, while the Honest Company's will run through April 22 (so get a jump on it!).

The event also spotlighted Amazon Renewed. Many are probably acquainted with the program, in which Amazon peddles pre-owned, refurbished products, inspected, and tested to work "like new." Not only does the program cut down on electronic waste and extend product lifetimes, but it can also save customers money. Amazon claims its customers can locate many of its favorite brands for up to 40% off the original pricing. I've personally bought multiple refurbished Apple products through the program, and it all worked as promised and held up over time. It's a solid bargain. I'd love for Amazon to look into modular PCs and smartphones that seem to address environmental issues more than current product lines.

My take-I think it's great that Amazon is boosting these sustainable products. Many consumers, in theory, would love to be more conscious about its consumption, but let's face it-it takes a lot of research and knowledge to determine who and what to support. Even then, it's not always clear. The Climate Pledge Friendly program and its participants take over the legwork, serving ethical options up to customers on a silver platter. All you have to do is smash that "confirm order" button.
Investing in renewables
The second grouping of announcements made earlier in the week centered around Amazon's investments in renewable energy projects. These power a growing percentage of the company's corporate offices, fulfillment centers, Whole Foods locations, and AWS datacenters. The company revealed nine new utility-scale wind and solar projects, spanning the U.S., Canada, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

This brings the company's total renewable energy projects up to 206 worldwide-71 utility-scale wind and solar projects and 135 solar rooftops. All told, Amazon says these investments will create 8.5GW of global electricity production capacity, making it the most significant corporate buyer of renewable energy sources in Europe (2.5GW of renewable energy capacity). This scaling of Amazon's renewable energy investments is in line with its stated commitment to power 100% of its operations with renewables by 2025 (five years earlier than previously projected) and reach net-zero carbon by 2040. It'd be interesting if customers could pick AZ's based on carbon footprints.
Wrapping up
One good thing about a 1,000-pound gorilla like Amazon is that it can pull a lot of weight when applied to initiatives like this. Its footprint is massive and achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2040 would be a monumental accomplishment. I appreciate that Amazon isn't only helping consumers be more conscious of their consumption with programs like Climate Pledge Friendly but also modeling the change we need to see more.

Note: Moor Insights & Strategy writers and editors may have contributed to this article.
Moor Insights & Strategy, like all research and analyst firms, provides or has provided paid research, analysis, advising, or consulting to many high-tech companies in the industry, including 8x8, Advanced Micro Devices, Amazon, Applied Micro, ARM, Aruba Networks, AT&T, AWS, A-10 Strategies, Bitfusion, Blaize, Box, Broadcom, Calix, Cisco Systems, Clear Software, Cloudera, Clumio, Cognitive Systems, CompuCom, Dell, Dell EMC, Dell Technologies, Diablo Technologies, Digital Optics, Dreamchain, Echelon, Ericsson, Extreme Networks, Flex, Foxconn, Frame (now VMware), Fujitsu, Gen Z Consortium, Glue Networks, GlobalFoundries, Google (Nest-Revolve), Google Cloud, HP Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Honeywell, Huawei Technologies, IBM, Ion VR, Inseego, Infosys, Intel, Interdigital, Jabil Circuit, Konica Minolta, Lattice Semiconductor, Lenovo, Linux Foundation, MapBox, Marvell, Mavenir, Marseille Inc, Mayfair Equity, Meraki (Cisco), Mesophere, Microsoft, Mojo Networks, National Instruments, NetApp, Nightwatch, NOKIA (Alcatel-Lucent), Nortek, Novumind, NVIDIA, Nuvia, ON Semiconductor, ONUG, OpenStack Foundation, Oracle, Poly, Panasas, Peraso, Pexip, Pixelworks, Plume Design, Poly, Portworx, Pure Storage, Qualcomm, Rackspace, Rambus, Rayvolt E-Bikes, Red Hat, Residio, Samsung Electronics, SAP, SAS, Scale Computing, Schneider Electric, Silver Peak, SONY, Springpath, Spirent, Splunk, Sprint, Stratus Technologies, Symantec, Synaptics, Syniverse, Synopsys, Tanium, TE Connectivity, TensTorrent, Tobii Technology, T-Mobile, Twitter, Unity Technologies, UiPath, Verizon Communications, Vidyo, VMware, Wave Computing, Wellsmith, Xilinx, Zebra, Zededa, and Zoho which may be cited in blogs and research.
... Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
amazon delivers on its sustainability commitments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amazon Delivers On Its Sustainability Commitments And Then Some

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you follow the news or live in an area affected by any of the recent major national disasters, we could be now witnessing the effects of climate change firsthand. Just a couple of months ago, a major winter storm turned my home base of Austin into Chicago (but without the infrastructure to handle it).

# data[].attributes.headline
appleworld - Six initiatives to save the environment 

# data[].attributes.subject
appleworld - Six initiatives to save the environment 

# data[].attributes.body
https://appleworld.today/2020/12/30/six-sustainability-initiatives-apple-is-doing-to-save-the-environment/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Six sustainability initiatives Apple is doing to save the environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Apple is not only the world's most recognizable brand but also the most valuable, with an estimated value in 2020 of $205.5 billion. The main contributors to that value are its iPhone range and its Macs, with laptop sales recently regaining market leadership.

# data[].attributes.headline
Apple - recycling and reusing old phones 

# data[].attributes.subject
Apple - recycling and reusing old phones 

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-10-17/maybe-apple-isn-t-as-green-as-it-claims

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Apple really wants you to think it's the good tech giant. As Amazon's labor practices and Facebook's moderation policies have been the target of increasing public anger, Apple has been positioning itself as the socially conscious alternative. It claims to care deeply about privacy, and has been taking specific actions targeted at LGBTQ and racial justice movements. But one of its biggest areas of focus has been the environment.

The company has long touted the recycled materials used in its products. It's also been adding a whole range of initiatives to present itself as a sustainable brand. Apple committed to using 100 percent renewable energy, including at its sprawling new campus, while claiming to care about recycling with its Daisy disassembly robot. In October 2020, it even said it would no longer package chargers or headphones with new iPhones to stop as many from going to landfills.

At surface level, these sound like great initiatives. But digging below reveals a number of problems.

Despite all the trees at Apple's campus, the way it's constructed requires workers to drive in: the building actually has more parking than office space. Apple also makes its devices incredibly difficult to repair, and while recycling is good, ensuring people don't always have to replace their devices is much better. It was fined in Brazil for taking chargers out of the box, and critics say the company's decision on chargers and headphones was driven more by the urge to reduce shipping costs than environmentalism. Notably, the price didn't drop when the accessories were removed.

The more you dig into these corporate environmental plans, the more they prove to be clever greenwashing campaigns for unsustainable corporate practices. But that hasn't stopped Apple from doubling down on its approach.

In April this year, Apple announced its Restore Fund, with the goal of making "investments in forestry projects to remove carbon from the atmosphere." It claimed that the $200 million fund would "remove at least 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually from the atmosphere." Conservation International is a partner in the project, presumably to give the fund legitimacy in the eyes of liberal environmentalists - but the involvement of Goldman Sachs and the requirement that projects produce financial returns present serious problems.

The Restore Fund is not a philanthropic or charitable organization; it's an investment vehicle. Apple's plan is to fund forestry projects "while generating a financial return for investors," because the forests it proposes to manage will qualify for carbon credits to offset emissions in the company's supply chain. Its existing efforts with Conservation International include forests in Colombia, Kenya, and Tanzania, and while it's not yet clear where the Restore Fund will invest, there are serious problems with this method of carbon reduction.

Carbon offsets have been embraced as a means of emissions reductions by large companies and governments around the world, in part because they don't actually require those entities to reduce their emissions. They allow them to pay someone else to reduce or capture emissions instead. But offset projects have been proven time and time again not to deliver the benefits they claim.

In 2019, ProPublica journalist Lisa Song published an in-depth investigation which found that "carbon credits hadn't offset the amount of pollution they were supposed to, or they had brought gains that were quickly reversed or that couldn't be accurately measured to begin with." Song laid out the history of failed offset standards, but focused specifically on forestry projects, which have been proven in many instances not to deliver the promised carbon reductions.

In Apple's announcement, it explained that "the Restore Fund will use robust international standards developed by recognized organizations such as Verra, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the UN Climate Convention." Song's reporting found that all of these groups have been involved with questionable projects and standards.

Song provided the example of an offset project in Cambodia that "was designed to protect 13 forested sites covering a total of 246 square miles." At the time of her reporting, it had sold 48,000 credits, even though forest cover had fallen from 88 percent in 2008 to 46 percent in 2017, according to satellite imagery.

When Song contacted Verra, which "set the quality assurance standards for the credits generated," they said they needed to do their own research since the project consultants hadn't submitted an update in five years. But the credits were still being sold to offset emissions.

Tree planting and forest management take a long time to capture emissions, but companies receive immediate offsets for their investments. In 2020, Greenpeace UK explained: "Offsetting projects simply don't deliver what we need - a reduction in the carbon emissions entering the atmosphere. Instead, they're a distraction from the real solutions to climate change." If Apple wants to help manage forests, that's fine - but it should not be seeking financial returns for trying to offset emissions made elsewhere.

The Restore Fund and Apple's other environmental initiatives are not sufficient to address the environmental footprint of the company and its business practices. Apple's primary business model is selling hardware to consumers, and it has an incentive to ensure people regularly replace that hardware instead of ensuring it lasts as long as possible.

Apple frames simple spec bumps as revolutionary changes, has added a whole range of colors to its phones and computers, and does regular redesigns of product form factors. These are not done for fun or because they believe it's what customers want, but because it provides an opportunity to convince people to buy new products even though they don't need them. For many, Apple products are status symbols: having the newest phone or laptop is a way to display one's style or wealth.

As well as that, Apple's devices are also important communications tools. The company's sales were significantly higher than expected during the pandemic, as people purchased new computers, phones, and tablets for remote work and education. Apple has seen huge gains from the pandemic, and it predicts that its sales would also benefit from accelerating climate disasters.

In a 2019 report outlining the risks and opportunities presented by the climate crisis, Apple explained that "mobile devices can serve as the backbone communication network in emergency and quasi-emergency situations." Smartphones contain features like flashlights, radio, and the ability to access the internet that are invaluable during disasters, leading the company to predict they could lead to "increased customer loyalty and demand" if those disasters become more frequent.

In pointing to that report, I'm not trying to say that Apple is trying to fuel climate change to help its business. I don't believe that for a moment. But its business practices are contributing to the warming of the planet, and it is disincentivized from changing them because doing so would disrupt reliable revenue streams.

Apple's environmental initiatives are designed to greenwash fundamentally unsustainable production and consumption patterns that are essential to its bottom line. Those include everything from the mining of minerals in the Global South and the manufacture of its products in vast factories with questionable labor conditions and environmental practices to the frequent replacement and disposal of its electronic devices that could instead be built to last and repaired when they have issues to further extend their lifespan.

Apple has no incentive to build products that can easily be repaired, or to stop promoting incremental updates as hardware revolutions that people simply must have. That would reduce sales, revenues, and shareholder value. Instead, it's trying to incentivize more regular consumption through programs like its iPhone upgrade program, which allows customers to pay a monthly fee and upgrade their phone every 12 months.

Major corporations like Apple want us to believe they care about the planet and are addressing their unsustainable practices while they continue to operate in virtually the same way as before. We need to stop believing that multinational companies are going to lead the charge toward a sustainable world. Capitalism will always constrain their ability to make the changes that are truly necessary.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Apple really wants you to think it's the good tech giant. As Amazon's labor practices and Facebook's moderation policies have been the target of increasing public anger, Apple has been positioning itself as the socially conscious alternative. It claims to care deeply about privacy, and has been taking specific actions targeted at LGBTQ and racial justice movements.

# data[].attributes.headline
Apple and partners launch first-ever $200 million Restore Fund to accelerate natural solutions to climate change

# data[].attributes.subject
Apple and partners launch first-ever $200 million Restore Fund to accelerate natural solutions to climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Investment builds on the company's forestry and responsible packaging innovations to deliver new financial and climate returns

CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Apple today announced a first-of-its-kind carbon removal initiative - called the Restore Fund - that will make investments in forestry projects to remove carbon from the atmosphere while generating a financial return for investors. Launched with Conservation International and Goldman Sachs, Apple's $200 million fund aims to remove at least 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually from the atmosphere, equivalent to the amount of fuel used by over 200,000 passenger vehicles, while demonstrating a viable financial model that can help scale up investment in forest restoration.

"Nature provides some of the best tools to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Forests, wetlands, and grasslands draw carbon from the atmosphere and store it away permanently in their soils, roots, and branches," said Lisa Jackson, Apple's vice president of Environment, Policy, and Social Initiatives. "Through creating a fund that generates both a financial return as well as real, and measurable carbon impacts, we aim to drive broader change in the future - encouraging investment in carbon removal around the globe. Our hope is that others share our goals and contribute their resources to support and protect critical ecosystems."

This effort is part of Apple's broader goal to become carbon neutral across its entire value chain by 2030. While the company will directly eliminate 75 percent of emissions for its supply chain and products by 2030, the fund will help address the remaining 25 percent of Apple's emissions by removing carbon from the atmosphere. Trees absorb carbon as they grow, with researchers estimating that tropical forests hold more carbon than humanity has emitted over the past 30 years from burning coal, oil, and natural gas, despite ongoing deforestation. The partnership aims to unlock the potential of this natural solution by scaling it in a way that makes it attractive to businesses.

To ensure that the carbon stored in forests is being accurately quantified, and permanently locked out of the atmosphere, the Restore Fund will use robust international standards developed by recognized organizations such as Verra, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the UN Climate Convention. And it will prioritize investments in working forests that improve biodiversity through the creation of buffer zones and natural set-asides.

Conservation International is a co-investor in the fund and is ensuring that projects meet strict environmental and social standards. Goldman Sachs is managing the fund. The three parties will identify new projects later this year.

"Innovation is core to Apple's approach to climate solutions, and Goldman Sachs is proud to partner with them and Conservation International," said Dina Powell, Global Head of Sustainability and Inclusive Growth at Goldman Sachs. "We all agree that the urgency of climate transition requires private capital to work alongside new and established efforts aimed at sustainably removing carbon from the atmosphere with rigor and high standards. We believe launching this fund can catalyze significant additional investment capital for climate impact."

Apple's Forestry Efforts

The Restore Fund builds on Apple's legacy of work in forestry conservation. For three years running, Apple has used 100 percent responsibly sourced fibers in its packaging and improved the management of more than 1 million acres of forests globally to date. Apple has also pioneered groundbreaking carbon projects with Conservation International that protect and restore grasslands, wetlands, and forests.

"Investing in nature can remove carbon far more effectively - and much sooner - than any other current technology. As the world faces the global threat climate change presents, we need innovative new approaches that can dramatically reduce emissions," said Dr. M. Sanjayan, CEO of Conservation International. "We are excited to build on our long-standing partnership with Apple and believe the groundbreaking approach with the Restore Fund will make a huge difference and benefit communities around the world with new jobs and revenue that support everything from education to healthcare."

In 2018, Apple partnered with Conservation International, local government, and conservation organizations in Colombia to protect and restore a 27,000-acre mangrove forest in the country. The aim is to sequester 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over the project's lifetime. These mangroves not only protect the coasts and help support the livelihoods of residents in those communities where they grow, but they also store up to 10 times more carbon than forests on land. This project is the first to use "blue carbon" methodology to rigorously value the entire mangrove system - both above and below the waterline - for its climate mitigation impacts.

Apple and Conservation International have also partnered with local conservation organizations in Kenya to restore degraded savannas in the Chyulu Hills region, an area between three national parks in Kenya and just across the border from Kilimanjaro National Park in Tanzania. Scaling up this work across the degraded rangeland and natural savannas across Africa could remove hundreds of millions of tons of carbon from the atmosphere each year, while also benefiting local communities and wildlife.

Apple's customers can also take part in supporting these efforts. For each Apple Pay purchase from now through Earth Day, Apple will make a donation to Conservation International to support its efforts to preserve and protect the environment.

Working Forests and Responsible Packaging

Since 2017, 100 percent of the virgin wood fiber used in Apple's packaging has come from responsible sources - the same sort of responsibly managed working forests in which the Restore Fund intends to invest. This represents the company's first closed-loop material as part of its goal to one day make products using only recycled or renewable materials.

Progress to this goal has involved steady innovations that have the potential to change the future of sustainable packaging. After launching the first iPhone with majority-fiber packaging in 2016, Apple's newest iPhone 12 lineup now arrives to customers in packaging that comprises 93 percent fiber-based materials. This includes the fiber-based screen cover that protects the display and for the first time replaced the standard plastic film.

Apple has also taken direct steps to support the responsible production of wood fiber. Through partnerships with The Conservation Fund and World Wildlife Fund, Apple has improved the management of more than 1 million acres of working forests in the United States and China since 2015.

Apple revolutionized personal technology with the introduction of the Macintosh in 1984. Today, Apple leads the world in innovation with iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch, and Apple TV. Apple's five software platforms - iOS, iPadOS, macOS, watchOS, and tvOS - provide seamless experiences across all Apple devices and empower people with breakthrough services including the App Store, Apple Music, Apple Pay, and iCloud. Apple's more than 100,000 employees are dedicated to making the best products on earth, and to leaving the world better than we found it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Apple and partners launch first-ever $200 million Restore Fund

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Investment builds on the company's forestry and responsible packaging innovations to deliver new financial and climate returns CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Apple today announced a first-of-its-kind carbon removal initiative - called the Restore Fund - that will make investments in forestry projects to remove carbon from the atmosphere while generating a financial return for investors.

# data[].attributes.headline
Amazon (The Company) Wants To Save Part Of Amazon (The Rainforest)

# data[].attributes.subject
Amazon (The Company) Wants To Save Part Of Amazon (The Rainforest)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New initiative appears promising but whether it brings about meaningful change or is it just another one of Bezos' empty gestures remains to be seen.

In Amazon's most recent show of environmental support, the company announced its investment in a new initiative called the Agroforestry and Restoration Accelerator. This will be run through the Right Now Climate Fund - Amazon's sustainability program that was created in 2019 to restore and conserve nature - in partnership with global environment organization The Nature Conservancy. In addition to restoring the rainforest and removing existing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the initial investment in this initiative will support 3,000 Amazonian farmers by creating more sustainable sources of income. However, critics wonder whether this promises meaningful change or whether it is yet another empty gesture by Jeff Bezos led mega-retailer.

The new initiative aims to remove up to 10 million tons of carbon dioxide and restore 20,000 hectares of forest land by 2050 while developing solutions to grow the initial investment exponentially. Parallel to this, Amazon has been addressing climate change on other fronts, in part by transitioning its delivery system to use electric vehicles and switching to buying only renewable energy by 2025. In the past two years, the company has also created and added to a number of funds, such as the above-mentioned Right Now Climate Fund, The Nature Conservancy's Urban Greening program to create a guide for environmentally friendly city-building, and the Climate Pledge Fund to develop decarbonizing technologies and services.

Related: Can Lab-Grown Food Save The Environment, Or Is It Just A Fad?

Critics have been calling for Bezos to take direct action to combat climate change for years, most recently in response to his expensive space launch startup Blue Origin. This latest environmental investment appears to be a step in the right direction, though Brazilian NGOs warn that they need more than just support of sustainable crop production, so time will have to tell how much of an impact Amazon's efforts have. That being said, nature-based approaches such as forest restoration are scientifically shown to be one of the best ways to combat climate change, so at least some form of positive impact can be expected.

Still Too Little

The largest aspect of the issue at hand is that, when looking at the numbers involved in this initiative, the scale of it all seems very small. What continues to be the biggest complaint is that multi-billionaire Bezos is contributing far less than he would if he truly wanted to bring about change. The initial investment promises to support 3,000 farmers to restore 20,000 hectares of the rainforest - approximately the size of Seattle - by 2050, but the Pará region is estimated to have more than 40,000 farmers and, in the past year, has lost around 1,335 hectares to deforestation every day. In other words, the Agroforestry and Restoration Accelerator aims to restore just over 2 weeks' worth of damages in just under 30 years.

Further, the 10 million tons of carbon dioxide that this initiative plans to remove is equivalent to a single year of emissions from 2 million cars. To put that into perspective, there are estimated to be around 1.4 billion cars active today. And finally, all of this appears to count towards Amazon's Climate Pledge to become a net-zero carbon company by 2040, meaning it would only be a part of canceling out the damage Amazon continues to cause.

All in all, the tangible results of this initiative are still in question, and while objectively a step in the right direction, the whole project contribution strikes many as still being too little. There should be nothing wrong with celebrating it as progress, as long as Amazon and Bezos are made aware that they can and should do more, and are encouraged to continue taking bigger steps.

Source: Amazon

Next: Jeff Bezos Steps Down As Amazon CEO, But He's Not Going Anywhere

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amazon (The Company) Wants To Save Amazon (The Rainforest)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New initiative appears promising but whether it brings about meaningful change or is it just another one of Bezos' empty gestures remains to be seen. In Amazon 's most recent show of environmental support, the company announced its investment in a new initiative called the Agroforestry and Restoration Accelerator.

# data[].attributes.headline
16 brands doing corporate social responsibility successfully

# data[].attributes.subject
16 brands doing corporate social responsibility successfully

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
16 Brands Doing Corporate Social Responsibility Successfully | Digital Marketing Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) allows businesses large and small to enact positive change. Here are 16 great examples of brands doing CSR successfully.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.greenmatters.com/p/climate-pledge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Andrew Krosofsky

What is The Climate Pledge?

Started in 2019, The Climate Pledge was the brainchild of Amazon and Global Optimism. The pledge is a commitment that companies can make to reduce emissions enough that they can be considered net zero in the next few years. According to , the point of this is to reduce the number of greenhouse gases created by businesses, in particular, rather than individuals.

Why would companies want to sign The Climate Pledge?

According to , the companies that have already taken The Climate Pledge have done so as a means of publicly declaring their commitment to stopping climate change alongside their peers. Amazon, PepsiCo, and Visa are some of the hundred or so companies to have done so.

Of course, most business owners like Jeff Bezos understand that it's more than just their company's reputation that's at stake here. Governments and investors are beginning to realize the reality of the climate crisis. Simply put, no Earth is bad for business. The global economy, nay, society itself, cannot survive the potential destruction that would be wrought by steadily increasing global temperatures.

Investors, in particular, are keenly interested in seeing how profitable companies can be in the low-carbon economy of the future. If companies take the pledge and succeed in minimizing their environmental impact by lowering carbon emissions, it will prove to the banks, the world governments, and the people that such a thing is possible.

Is The Climate Pledge anything like the Paris Agreement?

Originally, the Paris Agreement was designed as a way for federal governments to work together to limit global warming and reach net zero emissions or better before 2030. Thanks to lax provisions, insincere promises, zero enforcement or accountability, and continued opposition from gas-guzzling big businesses, many nations are still very far from achieving the goals laid out by the agreement.

The Climate Pledge pushes the net zero emissions goal off to 2040, giving companies and world powers a further 10 years to repair our damaged atmosphere. Considering how little progress has been made to fight off climate change since the signing of the Paris Agreement, this extra decade certainly seems like a more realistic goal. If it actually does what it's supposed to do, The Climate Pledge could be humanity's way of fixing the mistakes made in implementing the Paris Agreement.

Who has signed The Climate Pledge?

According to the official Amazon Climate Pledge website, a total of 108 companies have already taken the pledge. Together, those companies generate more than $1.4 trillion in global annual revenue and employ more than 5 million people, so if they actually take the extreme action that the planet needs, they could make a real difference in fighting the climate crisis.

Some of the companies that have signed onto The Climate Pledge so far include:

AECOM

Mace Group'

Visa

Lil Packaging Ltd.

The Sustainable City

Urenco

Alaska Airlines

Morgan Sindall Group

Airmee

Teleperformance

Natural Capital Partners

Atlantia

Sainsbury's

Optimus Ride

Russell Group

HH Global

Bellrock Group

PepsiCo

Blacklane

Pollination

Telefónica

SecuriGroup

Colgate-Palmolive

Portland General Electric

Convoy

Greencore Group

LeasePlan

UST

Posti

Delphis Eco

Pregis

HEINEKEN

Direct Healthcare Solutions Ltd.

Protector Cellars

Sonnedix

Edmonton International Airport

Quorn Foods

STV Group

Elisa Corporation

Rail Delivery Group

EV Private Equity

Royal Philips

LifeStraw

FILA Solutions

Storegga Geotechnologies

Graebel

Springer Nature Group

IGS Energy

IMI

Inn at Laurel Point

Karma Automotive

Lime

What is the climate pledge arena?

The Seattle Center Coliseum, where the 1962 World's Fair was held, is currently being converted into a brand new arena, called the Climate Pledge Arena, scheduled to open in October 2021. It will be the home of the new NHL team, the Seattle Kraken, and will also host major concerts and other events. In 2020, Amazon purchased the rights to name the new arena, and Bezos chose the name Climate Pledge Arena.

The Climate Pledge Arena has a number of initiatives in place to make its operations as sustainable as possible. According to the website, it will rely on zero fossil fuel use for energy, and will instead employ solar power. It's also designed to conserve and reuse water by harvesting rainwater from the roof to use in toilets, showers, and the indoor ice rink itself. The arena will also be zero waste and employ onsite recycling and composting for all garbage.

Aug. 30 2021, Published 3:29 p.m. ET

Article continues below advertisement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Climate Pledge: How the World's Elite Are Promising to Solve the Climate Crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Andrew Krosofsky Started in 2019, The Climate Pledge was the brainchild of Amazon and Global Optimism. The pledge is a commitment that companies can make to reduce emissions enough that they can be considered net zero in the next few years.

# data[].attributes.headline
Guardian Australia - Santos sued for ‘clean fuel’ claims and net zero by 2040 target despite plans for fossil fuel expansion

# data[].attributes.subject
Guardian Australia - Santos sued for ‘clean fuel’ claims and net zero by 2040 target despite plans for fossil fuel expansion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A shareholder activist group is taking Australian oil company Santos to court over its claims it produces "clean fuel" and plans to reach net zero emissions by 2040.

Papers were filed against Santos - Australia's second largest independent oil company - on Thursday by the Environmental Defenders Officers acting on behalf of the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility.

Court documents make two claims against the company; the first concerning statements Santos made in its 2020 annual report where it claimed natural gas is a "clean fuel" that provides "clean energy".

ACCR argues this is a misrepresentation as the extraction of natural gas involves the release of "significant quantities of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere".

The second part of the lawsuit takes aim at statements by Santos that it had a "clear and credible" plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2040 by relying on carbon capture and storage (CCS).

ACCR argues reliance on CCS to achieve net zero is not credible as Santos has made "a range of undisclosed qualifications and assumptions about CCS processes" while also seeking to massively expand the extraction of fossil fuels over time.

Dan Goucher, ACCR's Director of Climate and Environment, said the litigation was important to challenge oil and gas companies where it appears they are trying to "greenwash their operations".

"We read annual reports and sustainability reports from a range of companies every day. And some of these claims are completely unjustified," Gocher said. "The key point for us I guess is that it's become very difficult for any investor to differentiate between companies making genuine claims and companies that are not genuine."

"This litigation is trying to debunk those more spurious claims."

Gocher said that both institutional investors and retail investors implicitly trust statements made by companies in their corporate documents and that it was important these are truthful.

"I'd say there's a fairly significant number of Santos shareholders that are convinced its actions are genuine. We don't believe they are genuine," Gocher said. "They intend to produce oil and gas beyond 2040."

Santos was contacted for comment but a spokesperson for the company said "it would not be appropriate for Santos to comment on matters before the court".

Dr Laura Schuijers, a senior research fellow with the University of Melbourne, said the direct challenge to Santos makes it "one to watch" following a string of recent climate change related litigations.

"Big oil and gas companies are in the spotlight at the moment," Dr Schuijers said. "The risk of being sued, litigation risk, is already significant enough. People don't want to invest in companies that are potentially seen to be a liability."

As the legal pressure mounts others are now calling on the finance sector to step up.

Quick Guide
How to get the latest news from Guardian Australia
Show

Photograph: Tim Robberts/Stone RF

Thank you for your feedback.

On Thursday, environmental finance group Market Forces published an analysis showing Australian super funds have pulled $2.5bn from high carbon emitting companies like BHP, Woodside and Santos since 2018.

The figure was obtained by calculations using disclosure documents from 10 of the largest 30 super funds to check their equity holdings for investments in 23 fossil fuel companies.

Extrapolated across the entire sector, it was estimated $5bn had been pulled from oil companies since 2018 - a figure Wil van der Pol from Market Forces said was a good start but needed to happen faster.

"Any company pursuing fossil fuel expansion doesn't deserve any support from Australian super funds," van der Pol said. "We'd like to see the flight of capital from these companies turn from a solid trickle to a raging torrent."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Santos sued for 'clean fuel' claims and net zero by 2040 target despite plans for fossil fuel expansion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A shareholder activist group is taking Australian oil company Santos to court over its claims it produces "clean fuel" and plans to reach net zero emissions by 2040. Papers were filed against Santos - Australia's second largest independent oil company - on Thursday by the Environmental Defenders Officers acting on behalf of the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sydney Morning Herald - 'Breakthrough moment': Woodside investors revolt on climate change

# data[].attributes.subject
Sydney Morning Herald - 'Breakthrough moment': Woodside investors revolt on climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This was published 1 year ago

Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size

Woodside Petroleum has been hit with a record-breaking investor push to slash emissions and link executive pay to achieving bold new targets, as Australia's oil and gas industry emerges as the next front for shareholder pressure on climate change.

More than 50 per cent of investors backed motions on Thursday for Woodside to commit to hard targets to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions and its vastly greater "indirect" emissions - known as Scope 3 emissions - from customers of its products such as power plants around the world.

Australian oil and gas giants Woodside and Santos have come under mounting investor pressure on climate change.

A similar revolt rocked Australia's second-largest oil and gas producer, Santos, last week when 43 per cent of investors voted in support of the same demands.

The climate motions, prepared by ethical investment group the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR), called for Woodside to set emissions targets in line with the goals of the Paris climate agreement to limit global warming well below 2 degrees. It also called for details of how the company's remuneration policy incentivised progress against these targets, and how Woodside's looming investments in dramatically expanding gas output in the coming years were aligned with the Paris goals.

The resolution won the backing of more than half of Woodside's investors, despite the urging of the board. The support is the highest ever in corporate Australia for a shareholder resolution calling for direct and indirect emissions targets.

"This is a breakthrough moment for investor action on climate change in Australia," the ACCR's Dan Gocher said.

"The call for companies to set target on Scope 3 emissions is now supported by more than 50 per cent of shareholders in Australia's largest oil and gas company ... a striking number in the absence of board support.

Woodside would now be in "open conflict" with the majority of its shareholders until it moved to set meaningful targets, Mr Gocher said.

Woodside, which has an ambition for "net zero" emissions for its own operations by 2050, had urged shareholders to vote down the motions, saying it was supportive of the Paris goals while its gas exports were helping to displace higher-emissions fuel sources in Asia such as coal-fired power.

"We produce an energy source, natural gas, that can displace higher emissions fuels and get the
world's energy mix shifting in the right direction," Woodside chairman Richard Goyder said. "Our industry has a big role to play."

While supporters of gas argue it's a vastly less emissions-intensive energy source than coal, critics say it remains a heavy source of emissions and believe its role in keeping global warming well below 2 degrees is limited.

A second resolution on Thursday, for Woodside to review its links to fossil fuel industry groups to determine if their positions were inconsistent with goals to arrest global warming, gained a 42 per cent yes vote.

Both resolutions were not officially put to Thursday's meeting as they depended on the passing of another motion to amend the company's constitution, but results were disclosed in the "interests of transparency"

In recent months, some of the world's top oil and gas giants including BP and Royal Dutch Shell have vowed to set targets for Scope 3 emissions, meaning they will account for the carbon footprint of the energy products they ship and sell to customers around the world. To lower indirect emissions, companies will work with customers to help them decarbonise and seek to diversify into cleaner sources of energy. BHP is Australia's only resources company to vow to set Scope 3 targets.

Emma Herd of the Investor Group on Climate Change, representing Australian and New Zealand institutional investors with $2 trillion of assets under management, said Australia's oil and gas producers were "now clearly at risk of falling behind" their European counterparts in establishing plans to diversify their businesses and set targets in line with the Paris agreement.

"The sizeable investor votes in favour of climate change resolutions at the Woodside and Santos annual general meetings are a reminder that investors are deeply concerned about the systemic threat global warming poses to sustainable returns fo their beneficiaries," Ms Herd said. "It is incumbent now on Woodside to work constructively with their investors to develop real plans to transition to a net-zero emissions company by 2050."

Mr Goyder said Woodside's response to global warming was a topic the board regularly discussed with investors. "The fact that global emissions growth is likely to slow this year due to the severe economic downturn is not in anyway an excuse for inaction," he said. "This is still major challenge for the world."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Breakthrough moment': Woodside investors revolt on climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This was published 1 year ago Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size Woodside Petroleum has been hit with a record-breaking investor push to slash emissions and link executive pay to achieving bold new targets, as Australia's oil and gas industry emerges as the next front for shareholder pressure on climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's the dirty secret behind the world's fashion addiction. Many of the clothes we donate to charity end up dumped in landfill, creating an environmental catastrophe on the other side of the world.

On the banks of the Korle Lagoon, in the Ghanaian capital of Accra, an escarpment towers at the water's edge, cattle grazing on its summit.

This ragged cliff, some 20 metres high, is formed not of earth or stone, but of landfill. Most of it - an estimated 60 per cent - is unwanted clothing.

These were garments shipped to Ghana ostensibly for resale and reuse, many sourced from clothing bins and charity collections.

But a huge proportion were never worn again.

Some 15 million used garments pour into Accra every week from the UK, Europe, North America and Australia, flooding the city's sprawling clothing market.

An estimated 40 per cent are of such poor quality they are deemed worthless on arrival and end up dumped in landfill.

As global clothing consumption skyrockets, fed by ruthless "fast fashion" brands, it's creating an environmental catastrophe.

The clothes arrive long before dawn, when the city has yet to stir. Headlights ablaze, semitrailers squeeze into ever-narrower alleys, disgorging hundreds of bales wrapped in bright orange plastic. Men and women, some bearing clipboards, inspect the goods and dispatch them.

Some of the clothes will cross Ghana, others will go as far as Burkina Faso or Côte d'Ivoire. But most will be dispersed within West Africa's biggest second-hand clothing exchange - Accra's Kantamanto markets, a bustling labyrinth of 5,000 retailers and their timber stalls, many of them overflowing with the West's unwanted fashion.

Competition for customers is fierce. Clothes are spruiked by song and are quickly discounted by day's end. Entrepreneurs seize high-end pieces with minor defects that can be mended and dyed and put back on sale for a premium.

But transporting the 55kg bales around the teeming bazaar, with its narrow passageways and thousands of customers, is impossible by mechanical means. So the job falls to Accra's ranks of head porters, or kayayei, "the women who carry the burden".

Since she was 12 years old, Aisha Iddrisu has been one such woman. With no work in her remote northern village, Iddrisu has travelled back and forth to Accra for work, now with her 18-month-old son Sheriff. She tries to earn enough money to send some back to the rest of her family, including her nine-year-old daughter.

"I didn't have much choice," she told Foreign Correspondent, "because I didn't know how else I can take care of my children if I don't come. I am not happy with this situation, but I need the money."

The market employs thousands of people, including Aisha Iddrisu, who comes here every day from her home in central Accra's sprawling slum, Old Fadama.

Foreign Correspondent: Andrew Greaves

The work is far from lucrative - Iddrisu earns about $4.50 a day. It's also notoriously hazardous; everyone seems to know a woman who has suffered a grave injury.

"Some of them get severely injured and they are sent back to the north because they can't do the job again," Iddrisu said. "When they get there, they're unable to do any work because of the injuries."

Still, Iddrisu credits the second-hand clothing industry with helping her find employment. And there are many who would agree. The local used-clothing dealers' association claims the industry has created 2.5 million jobs - a figure as plausible as it is impossible to verify.

For the past few decades, the resale of Western cast-offs has boomed here. They are so cheap, local textile makers can't compete.

Foreign Correspondent: Andrew Greaves

Wander around Accra and every spare inch of pavement seems occupied by a hawker, a new batch of old clothing folded and hung among their wares. They call them "obroni wawu" - dead white man's clothes.

The trade in second-hand clothing has steadily grown in Accra, just as it has around the world. Every year as many as 4 million tonnes of used textiles are shipped across the planet in a trade estimated to be worth $4.6 billion.

In Accra, where some 60 containers of used clothes arrive every week, the industry can be highly profitable. But it carries an unusual business risk. Importers can spend as much as $95,000 on a container of clothes and have no idea what they're buying.

It's only once a bale has been opened that the quality of the clothing is discovered. If it's in good condition, profits can tally quickly to as much as $14,000. But if the clothes are torn or stained, or long out of fashion, their importer may as well have put a torch to their money.

In the swarming Kantamanto Market, young traders, even friends, can briefly become fierce competitors when a prize new bale arrives.

There's a lot at stake - if they don't grab the best clothes they don't make money.

Emmanuel Ajaab has fought his way to the top of the industry; he's now one of the market's more prominent importers. He stands atop a pyramid of resellers and traders who each find a margin to carve off for themselves.

"I have about 100 to 150 customers who buy from me here," Ajaab said. "And remember, those that buy from me, they are going to sell it and to many other people too."

Ajaab is a firm believer in the power of his industry to create opportunity. It's certainly been true of himself. His business has not only provided jobs for his immediate family but also the capital to invest elsewhere. He now owns a construction business which competes for his time.

In Ghana, they call them "obroni wawu" - dead white man's clothes.

But the clothes business is not what it once was.

"Seventeen years back [when I started] it was good," said Ajaab, "but now what they are bringing to Africa, to Ghana ... they are continuing to reduce the quality that was given to us. Now it's very bad."

As I watched, Ajaab opened a bale from Australia and quickly separated out those clothes which might be resold at a decent price, from those which were worth far less. Familiar labels flashed by: Suzanne Grae, Target, Zara, Billabong, Just Jeans.

Very few landed on his high-quality pile. Of the 180 light summer jackets inside, 85 pieces were unsaleable: collars ringed with sweat, buttons missing, bloodstains on the sleeve. He threw his hands in the air.

"It's an insult," he said. "Assume you use your money to buy this bale. How are you going to survive?"

The bale had cost him $90. In the end, he sold $20 worth of clothes. The rest were put out with the rubbish. And it's happening more frequently. "We don't know what is going on," he said. "And if we complain to them ... to our suppliers, they say that what they get is what they are giving."

Ajaab's suppliers, like all of Kantamanto's importers, are middlemen: recyclers and rag traders, who source castoffs from high street charity shops and the private operators of clothing bins. There's little incentive for them to filter out unwearable items. Individuals who include spoiled garments in their charity shop donation are behaving woefully, he said.

"In Europe, the UK and Australia, America, they think [that in] Africa here, sorry to say, we are not like human beings. Even if somebody knocked [on] your door [to beg], you cannot just ... pick something from your dustbin. In this case ... they're doing this to us."

The growing number of poor-quality clothes arriving at Kantamanto Market is a major driver of Ghana's waste crisis. Another is the sheer volume of clothing being manufactured around the world.

Since 2000, global production of clothing has doubled.

We're buying 60 per cent more clothes now than we did 15 years ago.

But we're only keeping them for half as long.

A major survey in the UK six years ago found one in three young women considered garments "old" if they had been worn just twice.

An estimated 85 per cent of all textiles go to the dump every year, according to the World Economic Forum, enough to fill Sydney Harbour annually.

Globally, that's the equivalent of one garbage truck of textiles being burned or going into landfill every second.

These problems have only accelerated with the advent of so-called "fast fashion" - cheap, low-quality clothes produced quickly to respond to changing trends. Where brands once had two fashion seasons a year, many now produce 52 micro-seasons, flooding the market with new styles.

H&M, Zara and Boohoo are among those brands rolling out new fashion lines within days. Boohoo, for example, has more than 36,000 products available at any one time. Three years ago, the company was castigated in the British Parliament for selling five-pound items of such low quality that charity shops were unwilling to resell them.

With factories incentivised to maintain around-the-clock operations, the world's major fashion houses factor into their budgets huge waste margins. In 2018, Burberry attracted a storm of criticism when it revealed it had destroyed $50 million of stock. The same year, H&M reported an unsold global inventory worth more than $5 billion.

Liz Ricketts, an American fashion waste campaigner, has documented Ghana's textile waste disaster for a decade. Her organisation, the OR Foundation, blames major fashion houses for the waste crisis.

Where do our donated clothes go?

Australians donate 310,000 tonnes of clothing to charities every year. Many of these clothes are sold to raise $527 million for the funding of social welfare programs. But one-third of these clothes can't be sold in local op shops. Instead, they are shipped overseas. Charities sell them to Australian exporters for around 50 cents a kilogram. They're then exported to Malaysia, Pakistan and the UAE for sorting into bales based on their market segment, for example "men's shirts" or "women's jackets". Those bales are then sold to importers in Eastern Europe, the Pacific and Africa. Once these garments arrive in those markets, many end up in landfill.

"Waste is a part of the business model of fashion," she said. "A lot of brands overproduce by up to 40 per cent."

Equally, she believes consumers are "somewhat complicit". "We have decided that convenience is a human right and we think that when we go shopping we should always be able to find exactly what we want," she said. "We should find it in our size and the colour that we want. That also contributes to this overproduction."

Australia, with clothing retail sales in 2020 of about $22 billion, may not have the economic scale of the US or the UK, where combined the industry turned over $468 billion in the same period. But on a per capita basis, Australia is the highest consumer of textiles anywhere in the world outside of the US.

When these clothes fall out of favour with their owners, the vast majority of them end up in landfill. Only 7 per cent of clothes sold in Australia are classified as recycled. But it's a dubious classification - watching the Kantamanto Market clean-up at days' end gives its lie.

As night falls in Kantamanto Market, alleys full of unsaleable clothing are swept up into giant hessian sacks, ready for collection. Every dawn, garbagemen haul them into a derelict truck that groans under the weight, threatening to spill its awful load. About 6 million garments leave Kantamanto Market every week as waste.

"Close to 40 per cent of whatever shipments that are coming on a daily basis ends up to be complete chaff of no value," said Accra's waste manager, Solomon Noi. "We have become the dumping ground for textile waste that is produced from Europe, from the Americas and [elsewhere]."

"Waste is a part of the business model of fashion. A lot of brands overproduce by up to 40 per cent."

Ghana's capital has the capacity to process 2,000 metric tonnes of waste per day. But in part because of the blooming textile problem, the city produces almost double that volume every 24 hours.

The overflow is almost everywhere you look. Much of it is burned, sometimes in small pyres on street corners, sometimes in huge bonfires of cotton and plastic, and whatever else besides, which blacken the skies for days at a time.

One such fire burned for 11 months, though it was not deliberately lit. The Kpone landfill was a $9.5 million World Bank-funded project, which was carefully designed to solve Accra's mounting waste crisis. It opened in 2013, with the capacity to operate for 15 years.

It filled within five, then caught alight.

"We were all afraid. The fire started in the night ... things are exploding," said Jerry Johnson Doe, a waste picker who once worked retrieving recyclables from the Kpone landfill.

"Everybody around is running because we understand how the place is designed, we are afraid it can explode."

As the textiles could not be properly compacted, unbeknownst to all, they had trapped a rising bubble of methane.

"Less than two, three hours' time, you see the fire has escalated to all corners of the landfill."

The site is now closed and capped. But there has been no let-up in demand.

Informal dumps now dot the city, including the towering Korle Lagoon tip. It rises on the edge of the city's Old Fadama slums, where some 100,000 people live and work and raise their children.

Most are migrants from Ghana's north, displaced by conflict and unemployment. They've had little choice but to bow to the dump site at their door, even as it steadily grows.

Synthetic textiles can take hundreds of years to decompose. This mountain of waste may cast its fetid shadow over their neighbourhood for generations.

But only a portion of the 160 tonnes of daily textile waste ends up in landfill. During the monsoon season, tropical storms wash an untold volume of clothing into the city's medieval network of open sewers. The fabrics choke the city's drainage system and promote flooding. Mosquitos breed, diseases prosper.

The textiles that wash back onto the beach become so tangled in the sand they are almost impossible to dig out.

Foreign Correspondent: Andrew Greaves

"We have become the dumping ground for textile waste that is produced from Europe, from the Americas and elsewhere."

The textiles which do make it all the way out to sea wreak yet more damage. Lighter materials float, become entangled with floes of plastic waste and wash back onshore. But heavier materials sink to the ocean floor, only to rise again and roil about in ocean currents, forming long arms of writhing fabric.

"We call them tentacles," Ricketts said. "When you see them wash up from the sea they're very long, you know they can be eight feet to 30 feet (2.4m to 9.1m), and sometimes three feet wide," she said. "When we've done clean-ups here, we've been digging 15 feet and still find tangles of clothing."

Behind Accra's waste crisis lies a startling piece of arithmetic. Thirty million people live in Ghana and yet 30 million garments arrive every fortnight. The man who is trying to do what he can to rescue Accra from its waste catastrophe, Solomon Noi, has a simple message to the second-hand clothes industry - and to individual donors.

"I'm not sure they've ever been conscious to ask, where is the final destination of that thing they are discarding," he said. "But if they come here, like you've come, and you see the practicality for yourself, then they will know that, no, we better take care of these things within our country and not ship that problem ... to other people.
Watch Foreign Correspondent's 'Dead White Man's Clothes' on iview or YouTube.
Credits

Story: Linton Besser

Photography and cinematography: Andrew Greaves

Graphic design: Emma Machan

Digital production: Matt Henry

Drone footage of the burning Kpone landfill site courtesy of the OR Foundation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Dead white man's clothes': The dirty secret behind the world's fashion addiction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For decades, the West's unwanted fashion has made its way to used-clothing markets in Africa. Now it's fuelling an environmental catastrophe.

# data[].attributes.headline
Daily Orange - Fashion companies use greenwashing to lie to consumers

# data[].attributes.subject
Daily Orange - Fashion companies use greenwashing to lie to consumers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The environmentally conscious consumer searches for "green" products. It's a sentiment growing within the clothing industry after being a niche market for decades. At the same time, for college students, it can be hard to choose an environmentally friendly piece of clothing while on a budget.

The constant conflict between quality, trendiness and environmental impact has led to a new business trend in the fashion industry. "Greenwashing" refers to fashion companies claiming that their products are environmentally friendly, when often they are not.

Examples of greenwashing from companies today include the fast-fashion brands Uniqlo, H&M, and Lululemon - which are popular with college students.

According to Investopedia, H&M alone "has almost 4,000 stores worldwide and has plans for 7,000-8,000 more stores in the future." This scale of growth is not unique for fast-fashion brands as Uniqlo reports similar types of growth. This growth shows how profitable and easy it is to make inexpensive pieces of clothing.

At the same time, the growth comes at great expense that negatively affects the environment. According to the fashion nonprofit ReMake, 80% of discarded textiles globally are incinerated or landfill-bound, with just 20% being reused or recycled.

The production of the clothing that much of the Syracuse University community and the rest of the nation wears is hidden from the eye behind the marketing of a company.

Why do companies market themselves as 'green'? Companies do better when they make the consumer feel better about their purchase. Companies that have a real positive impact on the environment are more than happy to share their progress in their marketing. It helps build their character in the consumer's eyes.

Patagonia, which has a history of activism and executing sustainable environmental initiatives, has become a staple in many college students' wardrobe. Patagonia gained consumer trust through environmental activism. Their website demonstrates that their claims of environmentalism are backed up by action.

Fast-fashion brands notice the competitive edge sustainable companies have over others. Yet a lot of people are not into the type of outdoors based clothing from Patagonia and similar brands. Robert Wilson, an associate professor of geography at SU, describes these brands as focusing on niche markets.

In 2019, H&M launched its own line of "green" clothing titled " Conscious." The company claims to use "organic" cotton and recycled polyester. However, at quick glance, the line is nothing but a shelled marketing tactic used to make themselves appear more environmentally friendly. When looking at H&M's "Conscious" line, its mission states: "Shop our selection of sustainable fashion pieces that make you both look and feel good."

Despite this, there is not a single legal definition for marketing-friendly words such as "sustainable," "green," or "environmentally-friendly."

A men's "green" long sleeve shirt from H&M is made of "100% organic cotton." How can something that, on average, takes about 20,000 liters of water to produce be sustainable? The simple answer is because companies are legally able to get away with blatant misrepresentation.

The Federal Trade Commission provides loose guidelines for greenwashing. Companies cannot be misleading in their claims. Other industries have consumer protection laws instead of guidelines. How can a guideline be concrete and clear to determine whether a company's marketing tactics are misleading or not?

The very fact that much of the "green" marketing is based on loose definitions allows for an interpretation of what the company actually means. Thus, consumers are left to determine on their own what company stands for their values. This is where it gets dirty.

In a college setting, students on a budget must choose clothing that has the least impact on their wallet, not the environment. When it comes to choosing a stylish $549 jacket from Patagonia, or a cheap $59.99 Puffer Jacket from H&M, the choice is simple.

Consumers shop because it feels good, and when the dirty truth is kept secret and even deliberately hidden in the cases of greenwashing, there is little an environmentalist can do to change consumer spending habits other than expose the truth.

As consumers, the voice each individual has can impact the very companies committing the pollution. In response to this, consumers must be more aware of the ethics of what they buy for fashion as the sustainability of society depends on it.
Harrison Vogt is a freshman environment sustainability policy and communication and rhetorical studies dual major. His column appears bi-weekly. He can be reached at . He can be followed on Twitter at @VogtHarrison

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Fashion companies use greenwashing to lie to consumers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The environmentally conscious consumer searches for "green" products. It's a sentiment growing within the clothing industry after being a niche market for decades. At the same time, for college students, it can be hard to choose an environmentally friendly piece of clothing while on a budget.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bhp.com/sustainability

# data[].attributes.body
https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/environment/sustainable-operations/carbon-footprint

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Driving Carbon Out of Our Business

Our carbon footprint includes emissions from Amazon-operated and third-party freight, electricity use, Amazon branded products, capital goods, business travel, packaging, customer trips to Amazon's stores, and other purchased goods and services. The system boundary of our carbon footprint meets widely adopted international standards, including the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and ISO 14064. Our carbon footprint is externally assured by Apex.

Through our commitment to The Climate Pledge, Amazon is investing in a range of large-scale solutions to decarbonize our business, some with immediate carbon savings and others with longer-term payoffs. We have already seen an improvement in the carbon intensity of our business in 2019 as a result of operational efficiencies such as energy efficiency technologies in fulfillment centers and alternative vehicle pilots.

Carbon intensity is the metric we use to benchmark our performance year over year, as it provides a relative comparison between annual performance metrics regardless of other changes to our business. While Amazon's net sales increased 22% in 2019 (excluding changes in foreign exchange rates), our total carbon footprint increased 15% during the same period. While still early days, our 2019 carbon intensity metric is 122.8 grams of CO ₂e per GMS, down 5% year over year from 128.9 grams of CO ₂ e per dollar in 2018. Read our .

Like many companies in high growth mode, we look at the absolute tons of carbon in our footprint, but also at how we are improving our carbon intensity. Our first year-over-year comparison shows progress as we continue to make investments in innovation, technologies, and products that will decarbonize our operations over future years.

These investments include renewable energy projects like our new solar farm in Virginia, and our order of 100,000 electric delivery vehicles, which will be on the road delivering packages to customers starting in 2021. It will take several years for the carbon reduction benefits of these investments to be fully reflected in our carbon footprint. Over time, both our carbon intensity and our absolute carbon footprint will drop as we continue to make progress toward net zero carbon. With the launch of the Amazon Climate Pledge Fund, we look forward to making additional major investments in the coming years that will result in long-term payoffs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amazon's corporate carbon footprint quantifies the total greenhouse gas emissions attributed to our direct and indirect operational activities. We measure our total impact on the climate, map the largest activities contributing to this impact, and use this information to develop meaningful carbon...

# data[].attributes.body
https://purpose.nike.com/climate-and-sport/#

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If there is no planet there is no sport. Nike and Climate Impact Lab explore the connection between climate change and the future of sport.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook43p/emissioncontrol

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Leslie Nielson, Economics Section

Australia's greenhouse gas emissions

Australia's greenhouse gas emissions have risen steadily between 1991 and 2008. This graph, drawn from Australia's Greenhouse Gas Inventory, illustrates this trend.

Australian greenhouse gas emissions, megatonnes, CO2e - Text version

Targets and emissions pricing

Both major political parties have agreed that Australia should aim to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 5 per cent, compared to the level of such emissions in 2000, by 2020. The Australian Greens are seeking a reduction in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions of 40 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020. As the above graph shows, Australia's emissions levels were slightly higher in 1990, than in 2000.

In recognition of the difficulties in legislating a price on emissions, such an approach was deferred until at least 2012 by the previous Government. The Australian Greens support placing an interim price on greenhouse emissions via an emissions tax, until an emissions trading scheme is established (see separate brief).

Current policy trends

The recent trend in Commonwealth emissions control policy has emphasised:

the mandated expansion of the amount of electricity generated by renewable means (see separate brief)

the development of emissions offsets, where various methods of absorbing carbon dioxide are encouraged (such as forestry and soil carbon). A further feature of this approach is the development of internationally tradable emissions offset credits based on these efforts

energy efficiency measures, such as the encouragement of lower energy consumption in the building sector

the imposition of fuel emissions standards in the transport sector and emissions standards applying to significant emitters, such as proposed coal fired power stations

the provision of financial incentives to the private sector to reduce its emissions. These reductions would be 'purchased' by the public sector

continued funding of research and development activities on the prevention of greenhouse gas emissions (such as carbon capture and storage), and

continued participation in international climate change negotiations (see separate brief).

Effectiveness

As helpful as these approaches to emissions control may seem, they have been widely criticised as being inadequate to meet the current targets. Further, they represent perhaps the most costly way of reducing, or preventing, such emissions. It may be far less expensive for the overall economy if a price was placed on these emissions via either an emissions trading scheme or an emissions tax, with the private sector being left to find the best way to reduce emissions.

What's happening overseas?

Australia's emissions control policies should be assessed against the broad policy approaches of major trading partners or other developed countries or regions. Some key developments are:

while the United States has not enacted comprehensive emissions control legislation at the federal level, various groups of US and Canadian states/provinces are either operating their own emissions trading schemes, or are preparing to do so. Further, the US Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it will directly regulate greenhouse gas emissions from major emitters

the European Union (with some additional countries) has implemented an emissions trading scheme. Plans are underway to expand that scheme. The EU has also made substantial progress to sourcing at least 20 percent of its overall energy needs (including liquid fuels) from renewable sources. Individual EU countries already impose a wide range of environmental taxes

both China and India are dramatically expanding their renewable energy capacity (mainly wind and solar) and implementing various energy efficiency measures (such as building, fuel and appliance energy efficiency standards). In particular, China is retiring older, less efficient industrial and power generation plants. Both are implementing emissions trading schemes on a regional basis, as is Japan. and

New Zealand has just expanded its emissions trading scheme, though it will not include all economic sectors until 2015. New Zealand's emissions reduction target is between 10 and 20 per cent compared to 1990 levels, if there is a comprehensive global emissions control agreement.

Library publications and key documents

L Nielson, Emissions control: your policy choices, Background note, Parliamentary Library, 10 May 2010,
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/BN/eco/EmisisonsControl.pdf

The Climate Institute, ALP pips Coalition on policy but pollution up and credibility down for both, media release, 19 August 2010, http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=721:alp-pips-coalition-on-policy-but-pollution-up-and-credibility-down-for-both-as-power-price-paranoia-paralyses-policy-progress&catid=39:media-releases&Itemid=36

Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: accounting for the KYOTO target, Australian National Greenhouse Accounts, Commonwealth of Australia, May 2010, http://www.climatechange.gov.au/~/media/publications/greenhouse-acctg/national-greenhouse-gas-inventory-2008.ashx

ClimateWorks Australia, Low Carbon Growth Plan for Australia, ClimateWorks Australia, March 2010,
http://www.climateworksaustralia.com/Low%20Carbon%20Growth%20Plan.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Australia's greenhouse gas emissions have risen steadily between 1991 and 2008. This graph, drawn from Australia's Greenhouse Gas Inventory, illustrates this trend. Australian greenhouse gas emissions, megatonnes, CO2e - Text version Both major political parties have agreed that Australia should aim to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 5 per cent, compared to the level of such emissions in 2000, by 2020.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Being environmentally responsible is a key part of our business.

We have always strived to be an environmentally responsible business. As one of the world's largest restaurant companies, we have the responsibility and opportunity to use our Scale for Good and take action on some of the most pressing social and environmental challenges in the world today.

We embrace this opportunity to drive meaningful progress, and do so by collaborating with millions of customers, employees, franchisees, suppliers and other partners.

While we're committed to taking on many challenges facing society today, we're elevating a few global priorities where we believe we can make the greatest difference and drive industry-wide change. You can read more about our global commitments on our global Scale for Goodwebsite.

As we work towards achieving these goals, we are proud that McDonald's Australia has already made good progress against a number of these targets, which create shared value for our business and our communities.

You can read more about the progress we're making in the McDonald's Australia 2019 Scale for Good report.

But we know there's lots more to do.

Managing Food Waste

McDonald's first became a partner of Foodbank Australia in 2011. Since then, we have donated over 550,000kgs of edible goods from our distribution centres across Australia. In 2018 alone, we contributed over 100,000kgs of food, which equates to around 235,600 meals for Australians in need.

In 2019, we began trialling the conversion of our used coffee grounds into compost, which is being applied by one of our lettuce farmers.

Making recycling easier

Recycling shouldn't be a chore. That's why we have made a commitment to recycle guest packaging in 100% of our restaurants by 2025.

Since 2018, we have installed recycling units in 35 restaurants, making it easier to separate your paper cups for recycling. Our paper cups are sent to specialist recycling centres in Australia, which make products from the fibre and plastic lining, including egg trays that go back in to our Supply Chain or car park wheel stops that are being trialled in our Spring Farm (NSW) restaurant.

Being smarter with deliveries

We're trying to drive fewer kilometres and deliver to our restaurants in the most efficient way possible. We're consolidating deliveries and implementing trials to use the trucks that deliver our food for reverse logistics initiatives, such as recycling. By better utilising these trucks, our overall impact is reduced.

All of our Distribution Centres have been converted to be more energy efficient, with new builds also containing large scale solar installations.

Ditching plastic straws

We know plastic is a topic our customers are passionate about. So we have committed to removing our current plastic straws from our restaurants by the end of 2020. We're currently trialling fibre straws in select restaurants around the country and this year, we will be implementing a 'straw behind the counter' policy nationwide to minimise plastic waste.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Macca's and The Environment | McDonald's Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Being environmentally responsible is a key part of our business. We have always strived to be an environmentally responsible business. As one of the world's largest restaurant companies, we have the responsibility and opportunity to use our Scale for Good and take action on some of the most pressing social and environmental challenges in the world today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Affordable, reliable and sustainable energy

At AGL, sustainability means thinking about our long-term responsibilities towards our customers, our people, our investors and to our community, and to the environment in which we all work and live.

We're focused on delivering affordable, reliable, lower-carbon and innovative energy solutions for all of our customers, including those experiencing financial hardship.

To accomplish this, we need to support our people and the communities in which we live and work. We do this by reinvesting in the communities we operate in, and by celebrating and developing our safe, diverse and inclusive workforce. As an essential service provider in a highly regulated industry, we have a responsibility to engage with governments at all levels on energy and related policies.

We are also committed to taking a conscientious approach to the environment by actively working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and manage our environmental footprint.

These complex issues - and the actions we are taking - shape our sustainability strategy.

We're always listening, learning and reviewing our approach, and measure our performance through our transparent sustainability reporting.

Learn more by exploring the pages below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At AGL, sustainability means thinking about our long-term responsibilities towards our customers, our people, our investors and to our community, and to the environment in which we all work and live. We're focused on delivering affordable, reliable, lower-carbon and innovative energy solutions for all of our customers, including those experiencing financial hardship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Net zero

aspiration by 2050

A sustainable future will require emissions reductions to be achieved whilst providing the safe, clean, affordable and reliable energy the world needs.

Woodside is well placed to be a part of the global energy transition. Our gas can help reduce emissions, displacing more intensive energy sources such as coal and biomass, while enabling customers to deliver affordable energy and climate action.

We build and maintain a carbon- resilient portfolio by conducting comprehensive financial forecasting that considers the risks and opportunities presented by a transition to a lower-carbon economy.

These include political risk, policy and regulatory developments, economic growth in our key markets, exchange rates, price shocks due to industry or producer behaviour, and specific technology developments that might impact demand for our products.

This forecasting process results in a range of oil and gas price assumptions, which inform our investment decisions. As a result, we are confident our growth projects align with a Paris-compliant world.

For more information on our how we are maintaining and building a carbon-resilient portfolio refer to our Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures aligned disclosures in our 2020 Annual Report.

We're aiming to be net zero in our direct emissions by 2050 or sooner for our equity share of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Scope 1 emissions are those that arise directly from our operations, such as from the use of fuel, flaring, or from the production of naturally occurring CO₂ from our petroleum reservoirs. Scope 2 emissions are those associated with the generation of any power that we purchase.

Woodside has set clear targets to reduce net emissions below the gross 2016-2020 annual average, on the pathway to our aspiration of net zero by 2050:

We will meet these targets by:

Avoiding emissions through the way we design our facilities

Reducing emissions through the way we operate our facilities

Offsetting emissions, by both acquiring and originating quality offsets.

Offsets
In 2018, we established a carbon business focused exclusively on generating and acquiring offsets. We have invested more than A$100 million across Australia through native tree planting over the past 10 years. At the end of 2019, our partnership with CO2 Australia had offset more than 700,000 tonnes of CO²-e from Pluto LNG Train 1. The Woodside Native Reforestation Project, in partnership with Greening Australia, has planted 2,400 hectares in WA during 2020 which is estimated to sequester about 700,000 tonnes of CO²-e over 25 years.

New energy
We are committed to playing a role in the world's energy transformation by developing new energy and low carbon solutions. We're continuing to invest in improving our understanding of the role hydrogen can play in global decarbonisation, including:

Jointly investing more than A$40M with Monash University in the Woodside-Monash Energy Partnership to explore new energy technologies, including hydrogen

Progressing the proposed H2TAS Green Hydrogen project which has been shortlisted for the next stage of funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA)

Developing markets for LNG as a new and cleaner fuel for land-based use (e.g. remote power generation) and shipping. We have already successfully piloted these projects at small-scale

Looking for opportunities to use carbon capture and storage (CCS) at scale.

For more information on how we are limiting our emissions, refer to our Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures aligned disclosures in our 2020 Annual Report and 2020 Sustainable Development Report.

Rising mean air temperatures and the increased severity of tropical cyclones have been identified as the main physical risks to Woodside's operating assets. These changes to the climate, among others, could impact the health and safety of our employees and our ability to meet production targets, as well as impact our operational infrastructure or disrupt supply chains.

We are continually working to improve our resilience to physical risks, including by enhancing our forecasting and risk assessment processes. Our people have been trained to monitor extreme weather events and have experience mitigating their impacts. For instance, we have already taken steps to ensure our assets are resilient to the impacts of rising air and sea temperatures, as well as rising sea levels, by factoring these risks into asset design, which is reviewed every five years.

We have engaged with industry partners and researchers in the field of climate science to enhance our ability to manage climate-related physical risks. For example, our metocean specialists are contributing to the development of industry guidelines for the assessment of physical climate risks through engagement with the IOGP Climate Change Task Force. We have also partnered with Chevron, INPEX, Shell and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to improve tropical forecasting systems. Our partnership in this area contributed to ensuring the resilience of our assets when Tropical Cyclone Damien directly impacted our facilities in February 2020.

As the world's population and living standards increase, more energy is required. This will present a challenge to meeting the Paris Agreement goals.

Our Climate Change Policy outlines our commitment to promoting natural gas in the global energy mix as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support renewable energy and improve local air quality.

Woodside regularly engages with governments of countries where we are active in support of our business strategy to exchange information and to inform policy development and decision making. This engagement is undertaken both directly with governments and by working with industry associations.

When these engagements are on climate-related topics, we are committed to ensuring our own advocacy, and the advocacy of our industry associations is aligned with:

Support for Paris Agreement goals and commitments and global net zero emissions by 2050.

Support for appropriate protection to manage the social and economic costs of the transition.

Support for lower-emissions technologies and other pathways to reducing/offsetting emissions

Climate-related advocacy undertaken by Woodside, 2020-21

Low Emissions Technology Roadmap
Woodside made a submission to the Australian Government's process for developing a Low Emissions Technology Investment Roadmap. It highlighted the need for government support to be aggregated in order to deliver deployment at commercial scale rather than studies and pilots, and advocated for increasing R&D spending to the OECD average and setting ambitious targets for low emissions capacity. Our submission can be viewed here.

Corporate Emissions Reduction Target
The Australian Government has proposed to establish a voluntary Corporate Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) Report. Woodside has set clear near- and medium-term targets for corporate emissions reductions and supports the opportunity to be able to report them. Woodside made a submission, advocating for simplicity in reporting, and that reporting should be on an "equity" basis reflecting a share of a company's emissions from a particular asset.
Woodside's submission is not publicly available due to the inclusion of commercial-in-confidence information. Woodside has subsequently agreed to participate in a pilot program to commence in 2021.

The Emissions Reduction Fund and the Safeguard Mechanism
The Climate Change Authority reviewed the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) in 2020. Woodside made a submission addressing various technical and operational aspects of the ERF and encouraging high levels of integrity in carbon accounting, and a deep, liquid and transparent carbon market. Our submission can be viewed here.

The Safeguard Mechanism is a technically complex and evolving regulatory instrument that complements the ERF by ensuring that emissions reductions secured by the ERF are not reversed by increases elsewhere in the economy. Woodside routinely engages with the Commonwealth regulator in connection with technical matters such as the setting of benchmark intensities, production variables and measurement methodologies.

Woodside also contributed to APPEA's submission on the Emissions Reduction Fund consultation paper which can be viewed here.

Carbon Capture and Storage ACCU Method
The Australian Government has proposed to enable CCS projects to earn Australian Carbon Credit Units. Woodside supports the proposal and made a submission advocating various legislative and regulatory changes that would reflect the long term and large scale nature of such projects. Woodside's submission is not publicly available due to the inclusion of commercial-in-confidence information.

Environmental regulation
The Commonwealth's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act and the Western Australian Environment Protection (EP) Act have both been recently reviewed by the respective Parliaments. Both of these review processes primarily addressed the efficacy of the legislation and regulation. In so far as climate-related content was addressed, Woodside advocated for clarity of regulatory responsibility for emissions regulation across jurisdictions.

Our submission to the EPBC Act Review can be viewed here.

Our submission to the Government of Western Australia Modernising the Environmental Protection Act Discussion Paper and Exposure Draft Bill can be viewed here.

In addition to these direct government engagements, Woodside also participates in a number of industry associations. Its approach to this is explained in our Industry Association Climate Alignment Review. In particular in recent times Woodside staff have:

Co-chaired the steering committee of the Natural Climate Solutions Initiative sponsored by the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA).

Chaired the Net Zero Taskforce of the International Petroleum Industry Environment and Conservation Association (IPIECA).

Participated in the steering committee of the Australian Energy Transition Initiative which researches the pathways to net zero for Australia's "hard to abate" industrial sectors.

Further information on Woodside government submissions and reports can be viewed here.

Net zero at Pluto LNG

We've set clear targets at Pluto, our world-class natural gas facility to put us on track to net zero emissions by 2050. This path to net zero includes the proposed development of Scarborough offshore gas to be processed through an expanded Pluto facility, delivering affordable energy that's better for the world. Find out more

To remain competitive as a cleaner fuel in the long term, the LNG industry needs to continue its journey to reduce methane and carbon dioxide emissions across the entire value chain.

Tom Ridsdill-Smith, Senior Vice President Climate

Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)

For more information on our approach to climate change governance, strategy, risk management and targets, refer to our 2020 Annual Report.

Sustainability news & media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Net zero aspiration by 2050 A sustainable future will require emissions reductions to be achieved whilst providing the safe, clean, affordable and reliable energy the world needs. Woodside is well placed to be a part of the global energy transition.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Responsible Business | Coca-Cola Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For Coca-Cola Australia people matter, our planet matters, that is why we do business the right way. Read more about our initiatives to generate a positive impact.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At Fonterra, sustainability is core to our strategy. We're committed to producing dairy nutrition in a way that cares for people, animals and the land, and brings value to our communities. Read more.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bhp.com/sustainability/climate-change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We have set targets* and a goal for reducing operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Scope 1 and Scope 2 from our operated assets):

By 2022

Our target is to continue to grow our business while maintaining our operational emissions at or below the level they were in 2017**.

By 2030

Our target is to reduce our operational emissions by at least 30 per cent from the level they were in 2020**.

By 2050

Our goal is to achieve net zero operational emissions.

* All target dates refer to Financial Years, e.g. 2022 refers to FY2022. Our goal is for the 2050 calendar year.

** Reference baselines will be adjusted for any material acquisitions and divestments based on GHG emissions at the time of the transaction. Carbon offsets will be used as required.

Our Purpose and Our Strategy provide a clear direction for our climate change strategy. The materials we provide are central to modern life and we constantly evolve our approach so we can continue to deliver them sustainably into the future. Our iron ore and metallurgical coal create the steel that builds cities and makes renewable energy infrastructure possible; our copper is needed for electrical appliances and wind turbines; our oil powers mobility; our natural gas and energy coal provide energy and heat; and our nickel enables the development of storage solutions for intermittent wind and solar power. And looking to the future, potash has the potential to support more efficient and sustainable agriculture by making crops more productive.

In 2020, BHP published our Climate Change Report 2020, a special publication designed for a more detailed discussion of our approach to identifying and managing climate-related risks and opportunities, which aligns with the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations. It outlines our story - our successes, our learnings and our plans for future initiatives.

c

Our commitments provide a pathway for action

The BHP Climate Change Report 2020 is a foundation for action. We have laid out a comprehensive series of metrics, targets and goals. We have committed to holding management to account through a direct linkage of climate-related targets and goals to executive remuneration. And we have affirmed our commitment to advocate for public policy in pursuit of global decarbonisation. We will remain alert to technological, political and societal developments that may indicate changes to our signposts and the development of new uncertainties for our portfolio analysis. We will continue to monitor developments and review our approach as necessary, to respond to evolving approaches to climate change and climate-related disclosures.

A shared global challenge

We also recognise our role in collaborating with others to achieve progress in managing the challenges of climate change. Without collaboration, the world will not be able to achieve the goals of growth, equity and decarbonisation for the long-term. The challenges inherent in the 1.5°C scenario described in the BHP Climate Change Report 2020 illustrate the scale of the task ahead. We will seek opportunities to work with partners to commercialise, at scale and acceptable cost, low emissions and negative emissions technologies that are critical for the transition to a 1.5°C world. These technologies include carbon capture, utilisation and storage, direct air capture and the natural climate solutions of reforestation and afforestation. Consideration of the 1.5°C scenario in our portfolio analysis highlights that the world needs these technologies without delay and at scale. We will continue to seek opportunities to collaborate with value chain partners, investors, researchers and governments to work towards net-zero emissions globally by 2050.

Building a better world

Ultimately, BHP's business is founded on providing the resources that communities and nations need to build better lives for their citizens today, and to create a brighter future for the decades to come. Building that future around a stable climate would mean that the potential of the resources we produce is maximised, their value should be higher, and the quality of life of hundreds of millions of people around the world would be better.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our Purpose and Our Strategy provide a clear direction for our climate change strategy. The materials we provide are central to modern life and we constantly evolve our approach so we can continue to deliver them sustainably into the future.

# data[].attributes.body
https://sustainability.google/commitments/#

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Leading at Google

We always start with how we can operate our business more sustainably. It's our responsibility - and it's also the best way to innovate, iterate, and share best practices with others.

Supporting Partners

Deleting emissions from our own operations is vital, but our impact is far greater when we enable others to do the same. We're committed to sharing technology, methods, and funding to help organizations everywhere transition to resilient, carbon-free systems.

Remove more carbon from the atmosphere with reforestation and better tree data

Breakthrough AI research to dramatically increase building efficiency

Enabling Everyone

Google helps people around the world take action to live more sustainably every day. People searched for "How to live a more sustainable lifestyle" more than ever in 2020. And some of our products are already helping people around the world take steps to do just that. They turn to Google Maps to find sustainable transit options like walking, biking, and public transportation. And Nest Thermostats have helped customers save 50 billion kWh of energy over the years. But we know there's more we can do to help everyone live more sustainably.

For a deeper look, dive into our whitepaper: Google's Third Decade of Climate Action.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We always start with how we can operate our business more sustainably. It's our responsibility - and it's also the best way to innovate, iterate, and share best practices with others. Deleting emissions from our own operations is vital, but our impact is far greater when we enable others to do the same.

# data[].attributes.body
https://purpose.nike.com/planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To protect the planet, we don't wait for solutions, we create them.

# data[].attributes.body
https://hmgroup.com/sustainability/circular-and-climate-positive/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate change remains one of the greatest challenges of our time. Its consequences will affect our entire planet and everyone living on it - making it a key challenge to all industries, including fashion. For us, this also means new possibilities and raising our sustainability ambitions even more.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.apple.com/au/environment/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As our first carbon-neutral product, Apple Watch marks a milestone in our plan to make all our products carbon neutral by 2030. We're cutting the majority of emissions through innovations in materials, clean electricity and low-carbon shipping. And we're investing in nature-based projects to offset the small amount that remains. Because the earth won't wait. Neither will we.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By 2030 we aim to make all our products carbon neutral through recycled and renewable materials, clean energy and low-carbon shipping.

# data[].attributes.body
https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bold thinking and relentless innovation. That’s what we do at Amazon, and how we approach sustainability is no exception. We’re delivering progress every day.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.loreal.com/en/commitments-and-responsibilities/for-the-planet/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For The Planet

L'Oréal for the Future, our sustainability commitments for 2030

Global warming is accompanied by environmental changes that threaten potentially permanent degradation of human and natural habitats. Sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean warming and acidification as well as extreme weather events are on the rise. With higher stakes must come stronger commitments.

This is the reason why L'Oréal has decided to take its efforts even further through a program called "L'Oréal for the Future". Our commitments towards 2030 mark the beginning of a more radical transformation and embody our view as to what a company's vision, purpose and responsibilities should be to meet the challenges facing the world.

Download L'Oréal For The Future Booklet

Transforming our activities to respect the planet's limits

It is no longer enough for companies to reduce their environmental impact with objectives that are "self-set". At L'Oréal, our commitment is to ensure that our activities are respectful of the so-called "Planetary Boundaries", meaning what the planet can withstand, as defined by environmental science.
In order to reconcile our needs with the preservation of a resource-limited planet, we are raising the bar and implementing a new internal transformation program. Unlike the first program, our new commitments will not just focus on our direct impact. They will also tackle our indirect, extended impact, related, for example, to the activity of our suppliers and the use of our products by consumers.

Contributing to solving the challenges of the world

Over the past years, expectations as to what the role of companies should be have changed dramatically. At L'Oréal, we want to take on greater responsibility, go beyond the mere transformation of our business model. With our new sustainability program, we want to demonstrate that companies can be part of the solution to some of today's most pressing environmental and social challenges.

For this reason, we are allocating 100 million euros to impact investing dedicated to the regeneration of ecosystems and the development of the circular economy, and 50 million euros to a charitable endowment fund to support highly vulnerable women.
Investing For Nature

About L'Oréal's sustainability commitments: we are not starting from scratch

Very early on, L'Oréal became aware of the need to respond to environmental challenges. As an industrial company, it decided that tackling the environmental impact of its factories and distribution centers was the most obvious first step, and a necessary one, to begin its transformation process.

Since 2005, the Group has reduced the CO₂ emissions of its plants and distribution centers by 91% in absolute terms, exceeding its initial target of 65% by 2020, while production volume increased by 45% over the same period.

At the end of 2022, L'Oréal had 110 carbon neutral sites (meaning they use 100% renewable energy), including 22 factories.

In 2013, L'Oréal decided to address the core of its activity: the development of beauty products, its global sustainability program " Sharing Beauty With All ', announcing tangible sustainability goals towards 2020. At its core laid an innovative tool known as SPOT (for Sustainable Product Optimization Tool), made to assess and improve the environmental and social performance of products across all brands. Sustainability is fully integrated into the design process of the Group's new products, from the earliest stages.

In 2022, 97% of L'Oréal's new or renovated products had an improved environmental and social profile.

By the end of 2020, L'Oréal had helped 100,905 people from disadvantaged communities find employment through its solidarity purchasing and inclusion programs.

In 2022, L'Oréal achieved an " A " score in all three CDP rankings - fighting climate change, managing water sustainably, preserving forests. This makes us the only company in the world to receive this distinction 7 years in a row.

Publications & Resources

Back on Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Global warming is accompanied by environmental changes that threaten potentially permanent degradation of human and natural habitats. Sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean warming and acidification as well as extreme weather events are on the rise. With higher stakes must come stronger commitments.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is a greenhouse gas?

A greenhouse gas (GHG) is any gaseous compound that is capable of absorbing and emitting infrared radiation, thereby allowing less heat to escape back to space, and 'trapping' it in the lower atmosphere.

The major greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3).

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions by Country
See full table

CO2 Emissions by Sector

CO2 emissions from burning fossel fuel for the following uses:

Power Industry - Electricity production comes mostly from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas. Greenhouse gas emissions from industry primarily come from burning fossil fuels for energy.

Other Industrial Processes

Transportation - from burning fossil fuel for cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes.

Non-combustion -certain chemical reactions necessary to produce goods from raw materials, such as cement production, carbonate use of limestone and dolomite, non-energy use of fuels and other combustion, chemical and metal processes, solvents, agricultural liming and urea, waste and fossil fuel fires.

Buildings - Commercial and residential. Greenhouse gas emissions from businesses and homes arise primarily from fossil fuels burned for heat, the use of certain products that contain greenhouse gases, and the handling of waste.

Excluded are: short-cycle biomass burning (such as agricultural waste burning), large-scale biomass burning (such as forest fires) and carbon emissions/removals of land-use, land-use change and forestry.

C02 Emission Trends

Global Fossil CO2 emissions were 35,753,305,000 tons in 2016.

CO2 emissions increased by 0.34% over the previous year, representing an increase by 122,227,000 tons over 2015, when CO2 emissions were 35,631,078,000 tons.

CO2 emissions per capita worldwide are equivalent to 4.79 tons per person (based on a world population of 7,464,022,049 in 2016), a dicrease by -0.04 over the figure of 4.83 CO2 tons per person registered in 2015; this represents a change of -0.8% in CO2 emissions per capita.

Global Fossil CO2 emissions by Year

Sources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A greenhouse gas (GHG) is any gaseous compound that is capable of absorbing and emitting infrared radiation, thereby allowing less heat to escape back to space, and 'trapping' it in the lower atmosphere. The major greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3).

# data[].attributes.headline
Guardian Australia - The 2021 federal budget was light on climate and environment measures. But here’s what you should know

# data[].attributes.subject
Guardian Australia - The 2021 federal budget was light on climate and environment measures. But here’s what you should know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There was little talk of the climate crisis or the environment in Tuesday's budget, perhaps because the Morrison government has succeeded in framing them as side issues.

But once you dig into the detail there is plenty to know. Here are some key points.

Will there be a green recovery?

Not based on this. There has been a global push for a climate-focused move to kickstart economic growth from the pandemic, pushed by the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations and several national leaders.

The response has been mixed, but countries that Australia likes to compare itself with have embraced the idea. The US president, Joe Biden, has proposed a US$2tn infrastructure plan to drive "transformational progress" in tackling climate change, including US$174bn for electric vehicles and support to make the electricity grid emissions-free by 2035. Germany has dedicated US$47bn to green recovery measures, including $9bn to "green hydrogen". Even fossil fuel-rich Canada has committed more than US$36bn to clean energy.

In contrast, the UN environment program found Australia had done the least among the world's 50 largest economies to drive a green recovery. There is nothing to change that in the budget.

The government remains averse to even using the word "climate". It appears in just two items in the 197 pages of budget paper number two, which lays out proposed spending measures for the next four years.

Elsewhere, a table dedicated to "climate spending" confirms just 0.3% - 30c in every $100 - of budget spending is dedicated to addressing the climate crisis. The government expects that to fall to 0.2% in 2022-23.

Does the budget support a gas-fired recovery, as the government has promised?

Yes, to some extent. It includes $58.6m in new funding for the industry over four years, including for expanding pipelines, a new gas import terminal, gas storage facilities and a gas supply hub at Wallumbilla in Queensland.

There is also $30m for a company owned by the iron ore magnate Andrew Forrest to help its early works on a new gas-fired power station. Why Forrest, a billionaire, needs public money has not been explained.

There is a further $24.9m for new gas-fired power plants to become "hydrogen-ready" - a contentious approach given experts say hydrogen is more likely to be used to reduce emissions in other sectors, such as steel production, than to compete with existing cheap and clean alternatives in electricity generation.

But there is no money for a new $600m publicly owned gas plant in the Hunter Valley, which the government threatened to build if the private sector did not commit to building new gas generators to replace the Liddell coal plant when it closes in 2023.

It is unclear if the government has been satisfied by commitments by EnergyAustralia and Forrest, or if that decision is yet to be made. The head of the government's Energy Security Board, Kerry Schott, has said the economic case for new gas power in New South Wales when Liddell closes "doesn't stack up".

A reminder: Gas is sometimes described as emitting about half as much as coal when burned, but studies have suggested its impact is much higher once methane leaks during extraction and piping are counted.

What about renewable energy?

Not much to see here. The government has made clear it thinks solar and wind no longer need public funding to be competitive, and it does not see its role as hastening their expansion as part of a clean transition.

Instead, the budget includes previously announced support for "low emissions" technology development - $263.7m for long-promised but little-delivered fossil fuel carbon capture projects and $275.5m for four "clean hydrogen" export hubs that could run on renewable energy or fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage. The former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has described producing hydrogen with coal or gas as a "delaying tactic" pushed by the fossil fuel industry.

There is also $30m for a big battery and microgrids in Northern Territory Indigenous communities and $19.3m for a renewable energy microgrid in the Daintree.

The single biggest bit of spending on emissions reduction was announced in April before Biden's climate summit - $639m for "low emissions international technology partnerships", which the government now says include developing a carbon offset scheme in the Indo-Pacific.

Any more funding for fossil fuel operations?

Yes. One of the most significant climate announcements in the budget is $279.9m over a decade to establish a "below baseline crediting mechanism" to help big emitters reduce energy consumption and emissions.

This refers to what is known as the "safeguard mechanism", which was supposed to prevent national industrial emissions increasing above historical levels. In practice, as Guardian Australia has reported, industrial businesses have been allowed to lift their emissions limits - known as baselines - without penalty.

A program to award carbon credits to polluters that reduce their emissions below their baseline level could be a significant step - but only if baselines are reduced over time to help cut national CO2 emissions, and companies that emit above their baselines are required to buy credits. Under this design, the errant polluters would buy credits from the companies that cut emissions, creating a form of carbon market, and there would be an incentive for everyone to clean up their act.

If the amount industrial polluters were allowed to emit was meaningfully reduced year-on-year it would eventually effectively make it uneconomic to emit CO2 in many cases.

But the government has said it will not introduce anything that looks like carbon pricing. It suggests it may commit hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to just help profitable industrial facilities cut emissions. The design of this mechanism will be key.

What about other technologies - clean cars, for example?

There is nothing in the budget for electric vehicles, continuing the government's position of resisting a global push to offer incentives to rapidly expand the use of clean cars. But the government will pay an undisclosed sum to attempt to shore up petrol production in Australia, and has kicked in another $50.7m to build oil stocks after the announcement that two of the country's remaining four refineries would close.

There is also some money to improve understanding of how much carbon is stored in soil, including more than $100m over the next two years to help farmers improve measurement. This is in line with the government last year announcing soil carbon as one of five priorities in its low-emissions technology statement.

What about nature?

It loses out, again. The Coalition has significantly cut funding for environment programs since coming to power and there is little change here.

An analysis by the Australian Conservation Foundation this week calculated funding for biodiversity protection - threatened species and ecosystems - had fallen 28% since the Coalition was elected in 2013. This budget includes another $29.1m to protect native species from feral and invasive pests, but spending on biodiversity is then forecast to fall over the next three years until it is less than half what it was in 2013.

There is $29.3m dedicated to changes to the national environment laws, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, but the bulk will go to increasing the speed at which development proposals are assessed and approved.

Reminder: Graeme Samuel, the former competition watchdog head, found in an official review that the EPBC Act was failing, and the government would be accepting the decline of environmental landmarks and the extinction of threatened animals, plants and ecosystems unless it embraced fundamental reform.

The government has a better story to tell on ocean protection, where it has confirmed a previous announcement of $100.1m to restore "blue carbon" ecosystems.

It includes $40m for marine parks, including plans to expand protection into the Indian Ocean off northern Western Australia. This has been applauded by scientists and local fishers.

Anything else?

The government has increased support for its promise to improve recycling, including $67m to divert organic food waste away from landfill.

There is also $209.7m over four years for a previously announced Australian Climate Service that will "transform the Commonwealth's capacity to anticipate and prepare for more extreme weather events".

This has been welcomed by the science community and some in industry, which is increasingly aware it will need this information as extreme weather is exacerbated by global heating. To some extent, the new climate service replaces funding that was cut under Tony Abbott. Much more will be needed on this.

Where to from here?

Big decisions on climate lie ahead. The government is due to release a long-term emissions reduction strategy before the climate summit in Glasgow in November and before then will come under renewed pressure to do more when Scott Morrison is a guest at the G7 leaders' summit in England next month.

All G7 member countries have shifted their focus to climate commitments over the next decade, announcing more ambitious goals for 2030. The British hosts have invited four democracies who are yet to take that step - Australia, India, South Korea and South Africa - for a reason.

On nature protection, the government is still trying to change the EPBC Act to shed some of its responsibilities and hand greater approval powers for development to the states.

It is yet to formally respond to the Samuel review, but has effectively rejected a recommendation that it introduce stronger national environmental standards to improve wildlife protection. Despite warnings the country faces an extinction crisis, there is no suggestion that will change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 2021 federal budget was light on climate and environment measures. But here's what you should know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There was little talk of the climate crisis or the environment in Tuesday's budget, perhaps because the Morrison government has succeeded in framing them as side issues. But once you dig into the detail there is plenty to know. Here are some key points. Not based on this.

# data[].attributes.body
https://theconversation.com/bhps-offloading-of-oil-and-gas-assets-shows-the-global-market-has-turned-on-fossil-fuels-166336

Does offloading existing oil and gas mining actually equal change for our planet? Or is it just a smart business move....can we have both?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The announcement by BHP, the world's second-largest mining company, that it will shift its oil and gas assets into a joint venture with Australian outfit Woodside is a clear indication the "Big Australian" is getting out of the carbon-based fuel industry.

BHP has also been offloading thermal coal assets. It sold its share in the Cerrejon coal mine in Columbia to Glencore (the world's biggest mining company) in June. It has written down the value of its Mt Arthur mine in Australia's Hunter Valley while it looks for a buyer.

But if the oil wells, gas fields and coal mines are still there, what difference do these asset sales make? To answer this question, it is necessary to understand the broader logic of divestment, as championed by the divestment movement.

The divestment agenda

The immediate aim of the divestment movement is to end new investment in oil, gas and coal, with the ultimate aim of decarbonising the economy.

Over the past few years, with much prodding, financial institutions around the world have adopted divestment policies aiming to end or reduce their involvement in the carbon economy.

The initial focus has been on thermal coal, used in electricity generation. Coal mines and coal-fired power stations have been excluded almost entirely from global financial market. New developments now rely almost exclusively on finance from China, largely through the Belt and Road Initiative (and even this source is drying up).

Dan Himbrechts/AAP

In Australia, all the major banks and insurers, along with many superannuation funds, having now adopted policies to end their involvement with thermal coal. Now attention is turning to oil and gas.

Read more: BlackRock is the canary in the coalmine. Its decision to dump coal signals what's next

Divestment policies, like those of Westpac and the Commonwealth Bank, now commonly exclude new oil and gas projects (though there are often escape clauses for companies with policies "aligned with the Paris climate goals").

The recognition that oil and gas has a limited future is reflected in the massive drop in "upstream" capital expenditure on exploration and development. Capital expenditure in 2020 fell below half the peak level of 2014, and only a modest recovery is expected after the pandemic.

BHP's choice

BHP and others therefore face a choice.

They can join the divestment movement, by selling carbon assets and focusing on other mining activities or on renewable energy.

Alternatively, they can become "pure play" coal, oil and gas businesses, profitable in the short run but increasingly excluded from investment portfolios and, ultimately, from normal financial transactions like banking and insurance.

This is the likely fate of the Woodside-BHP joint venture. The effect is similar to the " bad bank " structures created in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis to acquire non-performing loans and other dubious financial assets built up during the pre-2008 boom.

By offloading these assets, taking some losses in the process, the major global banks were able to recapitalise and resume their customary place at the centre of the financial universe.

Keeping institutions happy

The result will leave BHP shareholders with two separate holdings - one in BHP and one in the joint venture. The institutional shareholders who pushed for the divestment will now be able to dump these joint-venture shares and retain their holdings in BHP, which will (once the remaining coal assets are sold) now be safe from pressure for divestment.

Pressure didn't come only from shareholders. Banks and other key institutional players were also key. Reports indicate the "all-stock" deal with Woodside was chosen precisely because it would have been impossible to arrange bank financing for the new venture.

Read more: How Bill McKibben's radical idea of fossil-fuel divestment transformed the climate debate

Banks will now be free to continue dealing with BHP, one of their biggest customers, while leaving the oil and gas venture to lower-tier lenders willing to take the financial and reputational risk.

A justifiable exit strategy

It may be argued that, rather than disposing of its oil and gas assets, BHP should have taken action to shut them down.

This argument has been put forward both by environmentalists and Ivan Glasenberg, the chief executive of Glencore, the only major global miner to have chosen to stay in the coal business. Glasenberg has argued divestment is pointless because it simply makes fossil fuel assets "someone else's issue". Better to retain ownership of coal mines and phase them out gradually, he says.

Read more: Combating climate change - why investors should keep their shares in fossil fuel companies

Whether Glencore ever delivers on this strategy remains to be seen. But in light of the whole divestment agenda, BHP's move is clearly more than a portfolio rearrangement.

For now, "pure play" oil, gas and coal companies can continue to generate profits. As global corporations, banks and insurers withdraw from the sector, however, the capacity of the remaining firms to resist regulatory and legal pressures to shut down will diminish.

Sooner or later, for example, it's likely courts will find those responsible for carbon emissions liable for the damage caused by fires, sea level rise and other effects of climate change.

Without backing from banks and insurers, the costs of this litigation will fall directly on carbon-based corporations and their shareholders.

BHP, which was founded in 1885 and plans to be around for the long term, has seen the writing on the wall. It is getting out while it can.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BHP's offloading of oil and gas assets shows the global market has turned on fossil fuels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The announcement by BHP, the world's second-largest mining company, that it will shift its oil and gas assets into a joint venture with Australian outfit Woodside is a clear indication the "Big Australian" is getting out of the carbon-based fuel industry. BHP has also been offloading thermal coal assets.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1516/Climate2015

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated 5 May 2016

Anita Talberg, Simeon Hui and Kate Loynes
Science, Technology, Environment and Resources Section

Climate change is a long-term, global problem. Long-term problems generally require stable but flexible policy implementation over time. However, Australia's commitment to climate action over the past three decades could be seen as inconsistent and lacking in direction. At times Australia has been an early adopter, establishing the world's first government agency dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions; signing on to global climate treaties the same day they are created; establishing the world's first emissions trading scheme (ETS) (albeit at a state level); and pioneering an innovative land-based carbon offset scheme. But at other times, and for many reasons, Australia has erratically altered course: disbanding the climate change government agency, creating a new one then disbanding that; refusing to ratify global treaties until the dying minute; and being the first nation in the world to undo legislated action on climate change, with the repeal of the Carbon Price Mechanism.

The climate policies of the two major Australian political parties (the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia) have varied considerably over the years. These policies have included some strong and tangible actions as well as what appear to be mere political statements. Since 2007 Australia's response to climate change has featured prominently in federal elections with close scrutiny given to party policies. It has been suggested that two federal political leaders have lost their position in part because of their policies on climate change (Malcolm Turnbull as Leader of the Opposition in 2009 and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2010).[1]

The inconsistent nature of Australian climate policy cannot be fully explained by looking at which political party was in government at the time. Both Labor and Liberal Governments have advanced (and sometimes regressed) on climate change. For example, in 1990 Labor was in government. It resisted adopting an emissions reduction target canvassed by its own Minister for Environment, only doing so with a 'no regrets' proviso, which rendered the target ineffectual.[2] Yet a Labor Government was also responsible for Australia's 2020 emissions reduction targets.[3]

Likewise, a Liberal Government insisted in 1997 that adopting targets would have a 'devastating impact' on jobs and industry.[4] Yet a Liberal Government elected to keep Australia's 2020 targets when they came to power in September 2013.[5]

It was a Liberal Government that brought commendation to Australia in 1998 by creating the Australian Greenhouse Office, the world's first government agency dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.[6] Just six years later the same government dismantled the agency and merged it into the Department of the Environment.[7] In the same way, a Labor Government reinstated a stand-alone Department of Climate Change in 2007 and then disbanded it in 2013, merging it into a larger department.[8]

A Labor Government represented Australia at the Rio 'Earth Summit' in 1992, brokering and immediately signing Australia onto the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).[9] A Liberal Government then continued the momentum, negotiating on Australia's behalf, in deliberations over the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC and signing the treaty shortly after.[10] However, the same Liberal Government later refused to ratify the Protocol, claiming that doing so was counter to the nation's interest.[11]

The newly installed Labor Government ratified the Protocol less than two months after Turnbull's failed petition.[12] Nevertheless, the succeeding Labor Government, which helped negotiate in 2011 an agreement to continue the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012, would not initially join a second deal. It was not until a year later it did so, and Australia agreed to join a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

In December 2015 a Liberal Government announced that Australia would ratify the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. This occurred only after the Government had announced that the country would meet, and surpass, its 2020 emission reduction target.[13] At the same time, along with 195 other nations, Australia joined the Paris Agreement, a protocol designed to keep global warming "well below" 2°C, using a ratchet system of increasing emission reduction targets over time.

In real terms, however, Australia's emissions in 2015 rose for the first time in three years.[14]

The table overleaf is a record of Australian climate change policies. Key international developments are also included to provide global context.

Whitlam Government takes Office - December 1972

Fraser Government takes Office - November 1975

Feb 1979

First international conference on climate change: At the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) World Climate Conference in Geneva international experts discuss, for the first time, the link between human activities and climate.

UNFCCC, 'Meeting The First World Climate Conference, 12-23 February 1979, Geneva, Switzerland', UNFCC archive.

Hawke-Keating Government takes office - March 1983

1989

First Australian greenhouse gas emissions reduction proposal submitted to Cabinet: Senator Graham Richardson (Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) submits to Cabinet a proposal for a 20% reduction in 1988 Australian greenhouse gas emissions levels by 2005.

V Burgmann and HA Baer, Climate politics and the climate movement in Australia, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Vic., 2012, p. 61.

Jun-Aug 1990

IPCC releases its First Assessment Report (FAR): The IPCC FAR notes with certainty that:

a natural greenhouse effect warms the Earth

human activities contribute to atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Several predictions are made about the effect of an enhanced greenhouse effect on the climate.
J Houghton, GJ Jenkins and JJ Ephraums (eds.), Climate change: the IPCC scientific assessment (First report), IPCC, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Keating Government takes office - 20 December 1991

Dec 1992

The National Greenhouse Response Strategy (NGRS) released: The NGRS is endorsed by the Commonwealth, state and territory Governments at a COAG meeting. The NGRS is a mechanism to audit and facilitate national approaches to limit greenhouse gas emissions so that Australia can meet its commitments to the UNFCCC. The strategy relies on action with no negative impacts on the national economy or on Australia's trade competitiveness ('no regrets' strategy). The strategy includes the formation of the National Greenhouse Advisory Panel.

Australian Government, National Greenhouse Response Strategy, Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS), Canberra, December 1992. Council of Australian Governments (COAG), Communique, ' Environment - ESD and greenhouse ', COAG Meeting, Perth, 7 December 1992, COAG website.

30 Dec 1992

Australia ratifies UNFCCC: Australia is the ninth country to ratify the UNFCCC.

UNFCCC, ' Status of ratification of the Convention', UNFCCC website. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), ' Treaty making process ', DFAT website.

21 Mar 1994

UNFCCC comes into force: A minimum of 50 ratifications is reached in December 1993. This allows the UNFCCC to come into force ninety days later.

UNFCCC, ' Status of ratification of the Convention', UN website. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, opened for signature 9 May 1992, ATS [1994] No. 2 (entered into force 21 March 1994).

19 Sep 1994

Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Climate change: Australia's national report under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, September 1994. Department of the Environment, National greenhouse gas inventory - Kyoto Protocol classifications, Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System website. UNFCCC, Report on the in-depth review of the national communication of Australia, FCCC/IDR.1/AUS, 14 December 1995.

29 Mar 1995

Department of Primary Industries and Energy, ' Greenhouse Challenge' webpage. J Faulkner (Minister for the Environment, Sport and Territories), Press conference for the release of Greenhouse 21C, speech, 29 March 1995.

Mar/Apr 1995

UNFCCC, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its first session, held at Berlin from 28 March to 7 April 1995, Addendum, Part 2: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its first session, FCCC/CP/1995/7/Add.1, 6 June 1995. UNFCCC, Report on the Conference of the Parties on its first session, held at Berlin from 28 March to 7 April 1995, FCCC/CP/1995/7, 24 May 1995.

Howard Government takes office - March 1996

Late 1996

The National Greenhouse Advisory Panel releases the results of a major review of the NGRS: The report indicates that the "NGRS had little if any effect in achieving the necessary policy coordination and integration within and between jurisdictions; with few exceptions, greenhouse issues have not been considered".

National Greenhouse Advisory Panel (NGAP), Report on the national greenhouse response strategy, Environment Australia, Environment Protection Group, for the NGAP, AGPS, Canberra, 1996.

15 Nov 1997

Department of the Environment, Climate change. Australia's second national report under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, November 1997. UNFCCC, Report on the in-depth review of the second national communication of Australia, FCCC/IDR.2/AUS, 18 October 1999.

Dec 1997

Third UNFCCC COP held in Kyoto, Japan - Kyoto Protocol adopted: The Kyoto Protocol is adopted after two years of negotiations. Australia secures a controversial concession to include land-use change and forestry as part of the net emissions in the 1990 baseline (later known as the 'Australia clause'). To come into effect the Protocol must be ratified by:

at least 55 Parties to the Convention and

countries responsible for a combined total of 55% of carbon dioxide emissions (at 1990 levels) from developed countries.

UNFCCC, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its third session, held at Kyoto, from 1 to 11 December 1997, FCCC/CP/1997/7, 24 March 1998. R Hill (Minister for the Environment),Kyoto agreement a win for the environment, media release, 11 December 1997.

Apr 1998

J Howard, ' Safeguarding the future: Australia's response to climate change', ministerial statement, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 November 1997, p. 10921. R Hill (Minister for the Environment),Hill announces new Greenhouse chief [Gwen Andrews], media release, 4 March 1998.

Nov 1998

R Hill (Minister for the Environment), Launch of national greenhouse strategy, speech, 26 November 1998. The Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO), ' Greenhouse Policy ', AGO website.

Mar 1999

The AGO releases the first of four discussion papers on emissions trading: The first discussion paper, 'Establishing the Boundaries' of the National Emissions Tradingseries, details the principles and framework for how an emissions trading system (ETS) might operate.

AGO, National emissions trading: discussing the boundaries, Discussion paper 1, AGO, Canberra, 1999. [Link to internal APH network]

May 1999

'Measures for a Better Environment' package is announced: New funding is announced in the 2000-01 Budget for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and to encourage the uptake of renewable energy. More than half of this funding is dedicated to the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Programme to 'support activities that are likely to result in substantial reductions in greenhouse emissions or substantial enhancement of carbon sinks, and are consistent with ecologically sustainable development'.

Australian Government, The Commonwealth's environmental expenditure, Budget 2000-2001, 'Chapter 2: strategic directions and budget overview', Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2000, p. 12.

1 Apr 2001

Mandatory Renewable Energy Target scheme (MRET) starts: The MRET commences under theRenewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. It mandates, as initially proposed in the Prime Minister's Package, that by 2010 electricity retailers and other large electricity buyers source an additional 2% (above 2001 levels of about 8%) of their electricity from renewable or specified waste-product energy sources. Annual targets are defined.

R Hill (Minister for the Environment and Heritage), $2 billion investment boom set to cut Australia's greenhouse emissions, media release, 4 April 2001.

1 Jan 2003

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme (GGAS), Introduction to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme (GGAS), GGAS website, 30 June 2011.

Jul 2003

L Minchin, ' Howard blows hot and cold on emissions', The Age, 15 November 2006, p. 4. M Bachelard, ' PM cans carbon trading scheme', Weekend Australian, 30 August 2008, p. 4.

Nov 2004

UN Secretary-General, UN Secretary-General receives Russia's Kyoto Protocol ratification, media release, 18 November 2004.Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, opened for signature 11 December 1997, [2008] ATS 2, (entered into force for Australia 11 March 2008).

Feb-May 2007

IPCC releases its fourth assessment report (AR4): The IPCC AR4 affirms with 90% certainty that increases in global temperatures since the mid-20 th century are driven by anthropogenic greenhouse gasses.

RK Pachauri and A Reisinger (eds.), Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007.

21 Oct 2007

J Howard (Prime Minister), Transcript of the Prime Minister the Hon John Howard MP address to the Liberal Party Federal Council, the Westin Hotel, Sydney, transcript, 21 October 2007.

Rudd Government takes Office - November 2007

12 Dec 2007

K Rudd (Prime Minister), Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, media release, 3 December 2007.

11 Mar 2008

P Wong (Minister for Climate Change and Water), Australia is now a part of the Kyoto Protocol, media release, 11 March 2008.

15 Dec 2008

'Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: Australia's Low Pollution Future' released: The White paper outlines the final design of an Australian ETS. It also outlines new 2020 emissions reduction targets:

5% below 2000 levels without any conditions, but

15% below 2000 levels if there is a 'global agreement where all major economies commit to substantially restrain emissions and all developed countries take on comparable reductions to that of Australia.'

Australian Government, Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: Australia's low pollution future, White paper, 15 December 2008.

May 2009

2009-10 Budget includes major changes to climate change policies:

A new target to reduce emissions by 25% by 2020 on 2000 levels if 'the world agrees to an ambitious global deal to stabilise levels of CO₂ equivalent at 450 parts per million or lower by mid-century'.

The CPRS will be delayed by one year to 2011-12 when it will begin with a 12-month $10 fixed price.

The establishment of an Australian Carbon Trust to help household improve energy efficiency

The launch of a Clean Energy Initiative to support the development of low carbon energy.

K Rudd (Prime Minister), A new target for reducing Australia's carbon pollution and New measures for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, media releases, 4 May 2009. M Ferguson (Minister for Resources and Energy),$4.5 billion Clean Energy Initiative, media release, 12 May 2009.

14 May 2009

First Australian ETS legislation introduced into Parliament: The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 is introduced into the House of Representatives.

Parliament of Australia, ' Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 homepage ', Australian Parliament website.

7 Sept 2009

Renewable energy target increased to 20%: The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009received royal assent. It amends existing legislation, replacing the MRET with the Renewable Energy Target (RET). The RET has a more ambitious renewable energy target of 20% (45,000 GWh) by 2020. The Solar Credits scheme is also introduced it provides multiple credits for the installation of household rooftop solar.

Parliament of Australia, ' Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009', Australian Parliament website.

22 Oct 2009

Australian ETS legislation introduced a second time: The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 is re-introduced into the House of Representatives.

Parliament of Australia, ' Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] homepage ', Australian Parliament website.

1 Dec 2009

Change of Opposition leadership voids ETS deal: Malcolm Turnbull is defeated by Tony Abbott in a Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill. Media reports suggest that Turnbull had reached a deal with the government on CPRS amendments to secure Senate support from the Liberal Party. The change of leadership rescinds any such negotiations and agreements.

S Stone, Sharman Stone welcomes new leader, media release, 1 December 2009. M Cormann, Resignation from the Shadow Ministry over ETS media release, 1 December 2009. L Knight, The ETS deal's done, The Land, 26 November 2009, p. 5.

Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard becomes Prime Minister after internal party challenge - 24 June 2010

27 Sep 2010

J Gillard (Prime Minister),Prime Minister establishes Climate Change Committee [and] Terms of Reference, media release, 27 September 2010.

Nov/ Dec 2010

UNFCCC, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. Part one: proceedings, FCCC/CP/2010/7, 15 March 2011.

1 Jan 2011

The RET scheme is split into two parts: The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Act 2010 comes into force. It separates the RET scheme into the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target and the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme.

Parliament of Australia, ' Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2010 homepage ', Australian Parliament website.

8 Nov 2011

ETS legislation is passed by Parliament: The Clean Energy Act 2011 is a package of 18 Bills that provides the framework for an ETS starting with a three-year fixed-price phase.

Parliament of Australia, ' Clean Energy Bill 2011 homepage ', Australian Parliament website.

1 Jul 2012

J Gillard (Prime Minister),Australia's clean energy future, media release, 1 July 2012.

26 Nov - 8 Dec 2012

UNFCCC, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its eighteenth session, held in Doha from 26 November to 8 December 2012. Part one: proceedings, FCCC/CP/2012/8, 28 February 2013. G Combet (Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency), Australia joins Kyoto Protocol Second Commitment as world on track to 2015 climate change agreement, joint media release, 9 December 2012.

Labor Member Kevin Rudd becomes Prime Minister after internal party challenge - 26 June 2013

Abbott Government takes office - September 2013

18 Sep 2013

Dismantling of four climate change programs begins and climate change functions moved into Department of Environment:

The government begins drafting legislation to repeal the Clean Energy Act 2011

The government abolishes the Climate Commission

Treasurer orders the CEFC to cease investments

Environment Minister announces plans to abolish the CCA

A new Department of the Environment deals with matters that include renewable energy target policy, regulation and co-ordination; greenhouse emissions and energy consumption reporting; climate change adaptation strategy and co-ordination; co-ordination of climate change science activities; renewable energy; greenhouse gas abatement programmes; and community and household climate action.

S Maher and D Crowe, ' Abbott takes charge, axes mandarins', The Australian, 19 September 2013, p. 1. 'Hunt gives orders to close the Climate Change Authority', Australian Financial Review, (online edition), 19 September 2013, subscriber access only. T Arup, ' Abbott shuts down Climate Commission', Sydney Morning Herald (online edition), 19 September 2013. Administrative Arrangements Order, Commonwealth of Australia, 18 September 2013.

23 May 2014

Review of Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989 starts: The review aims to identify areas where the legislation can be streamlined or compliance costs reduced, as well as opportunities to reduce emissions. The report is yet to be released.

Department of the Environment, ' Ozone Acts Review ', Department of Environment website.

10 Jul 2014

M Kenny and J Massola, ' About-turn by Palmer sends repeal bill back to House', Sydney Morning Herald, 11 July 2014.

14 Jul 2014

'Carbon tax repeal' bills introduced a third time: A package of all eight bills voted down in the Senate on the 10 th of July is introduced by the House of Representatives for a third time.

Parliament of Australia, ' Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014 ', Australian Parliament website.

23 Sep

I Macfarlane (Minister for Industry and Science), Energy Green Paper setting policy direction for an energy superpower, media release, 23 September 2014.

1 - 14 Dec 2014

Twentieth UNFCCC COP held in Lima, Peru: Negotiations towards the 2015 agreement stall as developed and developing nations argue over who should bear the brunt of emission reduction, and over contributions to the Green Climate Fund.

UNFCCC, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twentieth session, held in Lima from 1 to 14 December 2014. Part one: Proceedings, FCCC/CP/2014/10, 2 February 2015. F Green, ' Lima climate conference: Slow movement on Planet UNFCC', The Interpreter, 16 December 2014.

Minister Malcolm Turnbull becomes Prime Minister after internal party challenge - 14 September 2015

8 October 2015

The Office of Climate Change of Renewables Innovation is established: The Office brings together the Clean Energy Regulator, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, ARENA, the Climate Change Authority and the climate change and renewable energy functions of the Department of the Environment.

G Hunt (Minister for the Environment), Government invests in maps of electricity grid to drive renewables investment, media release, media release, 8 October 2015.

For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.

© Commonwealth of Australia

Creative Commons

In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.

To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.

This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.

Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library's Central Entry Point for referral.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australian climate change policy to 2015: a chronology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated 5 May 2016 Anita Talberg, Simeon Hui and Kate Loynes Science, Technology, Environment and Resources Section Climate change is a long-term, global problem. Long-term problems generally require stable but flexible policy implementation over time. However, Australia's commitment to climate action over the past three decades could be seen as inconsistent and lacking in direction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Greenwashing is the term used when sales claims about a 'green product' are simply false (as opposed to throwing Kermit the Frog in the washing machine).

Greenwashing is the act of lying to people about the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product. Many so-called 'green' products are not green at all! They're not even a shade of green. Dishonest companies try to cash in on our concerns about the destruction of our environment by passing off their products as green.

These people think that they are being clever, tricking us into buying something, but in reality they are kidding themselves and letting themselves and their companies down. These companies will do anything to trick us.

We must all keep our lie detectors on high alert!

Greenwashing Tactics

It is suggested that a product is green based on only one or a narrow set of criteria without paying any attention to the overall negative impact of the product. This is the most common form of greenwashing and makes up 57% of all false claims.

2. NO PROOF
Any claim that cannot be backed with proof (in the form of easily accessed information or by a third party) is a rubbish claim. This comes in at number two, making up 26% of all greenwashing claims. If a company makes a claim, check for proof. Get on the company website or ring them and ask for evidence.
3. VAGUENESS
Claims that are so poorly defined or broad that they are intended to confuse the customer or mean nothing at all. An example of this is 'chemical free'. This is rubbish - nothing is chemical free! Water is a chemical and all plants and animals are made up of chemicals. 'Non-toxic' is another a classic! Everything is toxic if you have too much of it - water, oxygen and salt are all potentially dangerous.

The words 'green' and 'eco-friendly' are also pretty meaningless. So is 'all natural' - arsenic and mercury are natural and can kill you! The brown coal we are choking the atmosphere with is 'all natural' and when crude oil is taken from the ground it is 'all natural'. 'All natural' doesn't mean 'good'. It might just be an all-natural killer. These types of vague claims come in at number three, with 11%.
4. IRRELEVANCE
Some companies make environmental claims that may be true, but they are largely unhelpful and unimportant. A favorite one is the claim of 'containing no CFCs' - a major contributor to ozone depletion. CFC's have been banned for 30 years and are not used to manufacture anything any more! Nice try.

Maybe they should write 'beryllium free' - it sounds good, but actually means there are no metal plates in your muesli bar. These totally irrelevant claims of 'free' products account for 4% of all greenwashing. The remaining 2% are outright lies.

Eco labels to look for and avoid

Eco labels are the things to look for. These internationally recognised symbols have been created in response to rampant greenwashing. These products have been certified by independent third parties, such as Green Seal and EcoLogo, who continue to monitor products and their claims. Australian logos and standards are listed below - look out for them.

LABELS TO LOOK FOR

LABELS TO AVOID

Things that companies need to think about:

- If they make a claim, can they prove it to be true 100% of the time?
- If the claim is true, does it really matter?
- Is the problem being avoided really important?
- Are there any other negative issues being overlooked?
- Are claims backed up by solid evidence?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Greenwashing is the term used when sales claims about a 'green product' are simply false (as opposed to throwing Kermit the Frog in the washing machine). Greenwashing is the act of lying to people about the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product.

# data[].attributes.headline
Earth Island sues Coca-Cola over greenwashing claims and false advertisement

# data[].attributes.subject
Earth Island sues Coca-Cola over greenwashing claims and false advertisement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Environmental organization Earth Island Institute has filed a lawsuit against beverage giant Coca-Cola for falsely advertising that it is sustainable and environmental-friendly despite it being the largest plastic polluter in the world.

Earth Island Institute has sued the Coca-Cola Company on World Oceans Day demanding answers from the American multinational on why it is misleading audiences to believe that it follows sustainable practices when it is far from the truth and instead is causing irreversible damage to marine life, oceans, and coastal communities.

On the beverage firm's website and in its advertising campaigns, it claims that "our planet matters" with another one saying "scaling sustainable solutions....and investing in sustainable packaging platforms to reduce our carbon footprint," with another marketing campaign carrying the headline - a "World Without Waste".

However, according to Break Free From Plastic Global Cleanup and Brand Audit report, despite these claims, Coca-Cola was named the top plastic polluter in the world three years in a row with 13,834 of its discarded plastic bottles found lying in beaches, rivers and parks in 51 out of 55 countries that were surveyed as part of the study in 2020, a number much higher than its previous number of 37 countries recorded in the audit back in 2019 and higher than the next top two plastic polluters combined.
Read: 'Green' Claims Are Fake, Potentially Illegal: New EU Study Says E-Stores Rife With Greenwashing
In a press release seen by Green Queen, general counsel of the Institute, Sumona Majumdar said that Coca-Cola has always displayed its 'supposed' care for the environment and has blamed consumers for continuing to plastic pollution. "But it is Coca-Cola, not consumers, that chooses to use chart-topping amounts of plastic for its products. It is time this company is held accountable for deceiving the public. The more consumers become aware of plastic pollution, the more the company doubles down on its purported commitment to the environment to appease those concerns, but the actual results of their efforts tell a very different story. The company needs to come clean and be honest with consumers."
Read: Coca-Cola Insists People Still Want Plastic Bottles. Is This True?

It is Coca-Cola, not consumers, that chooses to use chart-topping amounts of plastic for its products. It is time this company is held accountable for deceiving the public. The company needs to come clean and be honest with consumers
Sumona Majumdar, general counsel of the Institute

The Institute has filed the lawsuit in the District of Columbia Superior Court and is represented by Richman Law & Policy, which specializes in consumer protection law. The lawsuit states that the company is in direct violation of the District of Columbia's Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) that safeguards the interest of the consumers against deceptive business practices. On behalf of the consumers, a public-interest organization, like Earth Island, can file action and if they win, Coca-Cola will no longer be able to greenwash the public by stating itself sustainable in its advertising.

We want the Coca-Cola company to stop greenwashing, be transparent about the plastic they use, and be a leader in investing in deposit and refill programs for the health of humans and our environment
Julia Cohen, co-founder and managing director at Plastic Pollution Coalition

Co-founder and managing director at Plastic Pollution Coalition, a project of Earth Island Institute and a global alliance of over 1,200 organizations and people in 75 countries, Julia Cohen, MPH said: "For 12 years we have advocated for a more just, equitable world free of plastic pollution and its toxic impacts, driving corporate responsibility to stop plastic pollution at the source. We want the Coca-Cola company to stop the greenwashing and false claims, be transparent about the plastic they use, and be a leader in investing in deposit and refill programs for the health of humans, animals, waterways, the ocean, and our environment."

The Plastic Pollution Coalition aims to raise awareness about plastic pollution and advocates for the impact that plastic has on the environment as well as human health.

In hopes to make amends, Coca-Cola announced that it would be trialing its new 100% recyclable paper-based bottles in Hungary which will have a paper shell made with a bio-based water-resistant barrier lining. Apart from this, it is working with Dutch biochemical company Avantium to ditch fossil fuels and develop all-plant bottles that are biodegradable and recyclable, derived out of plant sugars.

Still, the damage the beverage giant causes far outweighs the scope of the projects it proposes, with another report highlighting that the company alone produces 200,000 tonnes of plastic waste in countries like China, India, the Philippines, Brazil, Mexico and Nigeria which is equivalent to 8 billion plastic bottles that can be used to cover 33 football pitches each day.

From being dumped into our coastlines to disintegrating into microplastics and then entering into our food chain by consumption of seafood, neither its new projects nor its recycling initiatives can compensate for the disposable culture Coca-Cola has created and the devastating impact it has left on our planet.
Lead image courtesy of Will Rose / Greenpeace.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Earth Island Sues Coca-Cola Over Greenwashing Claims & False Advertisement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Environmental organization Earth Island Institute has filed a lawsuit against beverage giant Coca-Cola for falsely advertising that it is sustainable and environmental-friendly despite it being the largest plastic polluter in the world.

# data[].attributes.headline
Earth.org - 10 Companies and Corporations Called Out For Greenwashing

# data[].attributes.subject
Earth.org - 10 Companies and Corporations Called Out For Greenwashing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Greenwashing can be as subtle as a misleading packaging choice all the way to fossil fuel companies touting themselves as being eco-champions. Either way, greenwashing is a harmful and deceitful way of advertising that a company is more sustainable than it actually is. Companies that make false claims should be held accountable. Here are 10 companies that have been caught greenwashing in various ways.
-

1. Volkswagen

2. BP

3. ExxonMobil

Recently, ExxonMobil came under fire for advertising that suggested that its experimental algae biofuels could one day reduce transport emissions, while it has no company-wide net zero target and its 2025 emission reduction targets do not include the vast majority of emissions resulting from its products.

4. Nestlé

In 2018, Nestlé released a statement saying that it had "ambitions" for its packaging to be 100% recyclable or reusable by 2025. However, environmental groups and other critics pointed out that the company hadn't released clear targets, a timeline to accompany its ambitions or additional efforts to help facilitate recycling by consumers. Greenpeace reacted to this by releasing its own statement , in which it said, "Nestlé's statement on plastic packaging includes more of the same greenwashing baby steps to tackle a crisis it helped to create. It will not actually move the needle toward the reduction of single-use plastics in a meaningful way, and sets an incredibly low standard as the largest food and beverage company in the world." In Break Free From Plastic's 2020 annual report , Nestlé, along with Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, were named the world's top plastic polluters for the third year in a row.

5. Coca-Cola

Despite this, the company is adamant that it is making progress in tackling packaging waste. At the time, a spokesperson said, "Globally, we have a commitment to get every bottle back by 2030, so that none of it ends up as litter or in the oceans, and the plastic can be recycled into new bottles. Bottles with 100% recycled plastic are now available in 18 markets around the world, and this is continually growing."
You might also like: Greenwashing: What is it, Why is it a Problem, and How to Avoid It
6. Starbucks

In 2018, Starbucks released a "straw-less lid," as part of its sustainability drive, however this lid contained more plastic than the old lid and straw combination. The company didn't dispute this, but claimed that it is made from polypropylene, a commonly-accepted recyclable plastic that "can be captured in recycling infrastructure." Critics were quick to point out that only 9% of the world's plastic is recycled , so the company shouldn't assume all the lids would be recycled. Further, the US exports about one-third of its recycling to developing countries, so it is simply passing its responsibility to poorer countries.

7. IKEA

IKEA was considered a beacon of a major corporation being sustainable before when the furniture retailer was linked with illegal logging in Ukraine. In a report by NGO Earthsight , the wood certification scheme IKEA uses, Forest Stewardship Council, was described as an organisation that greenwashes the timber industry. It was accused of failing to catch IKEA's sourcing of conflict wood, and act on it.

8. Plastic Bottle Water Companies

A more subtle form of greenwashing can be seen in plastic water bottle companies like Poland Spring, Evian and Deer Park, that all have nature on their labels. This is laughably ironic considering that plastic water bottles are designed to be single-use and are contributing to the massive plastic waste crisis around the world.
You might also like: Top Sustainable Food Packaging Companies to Support
H&M, Zara and Uniqlo are among the companies that were caught greenwashing over the years. These fashion brands contribute to the massive amounts of textile waste caused by the clothing industry. According to the fashion nonprofit , 80% of discarded textiles globally are incinerated or landfill-bound, with just 20% being reused or recycled.

Fast fashion brands also have a habit of advertising its green initiatives widely, despite it being a tiny part of its operations. For example, in 2019, H&M launched its own line of "green" clothing titled " ." The company claims to use "organic" cotton and recycled polyester. However, the line is nothing but a marketing tactic used to make themselves appear more environmentally friendly. When looking at H&M's "Conscious" line, its mission states: "Shop our selection of sustainable fashion pieces that make you both look and feel good." However, there is no single legal definition for marketing-friendly words such as "sustainable," "green," or "environmentally-friendly." H&M was then criticised by the Norwegian Customer Authority for "misleading" marketing of their Conscious Collection because "the information given regarding sustainability was not sufficient, especially given that the Conscious Collection is advertised as a collection with environmental benefits."
You might also like: 16 Most Sustainable Fashion Brands to Support in 2022
What Can I Do?

1. On A Personal Level

Ways to approach climate action within our personal lives (hint - it evolves personal action but is not focused on small behavioural changes, which whilst worthwhile will not get us there):

Joining a community can be one of the best ways to increase your impact.

First, it can enable you to make hundreds of connections in one go.

Second, a group of people working together can have more impact than individuals. If you are not already, take action by becoming an to support our mission to encourage a billion climate activists.

If you're a younger read ask your parents to take action by bringing your whole family on board as a Family Member.

Reflect on the concept of Effective Altruism , a project that aims to find the best ways to help others, and put them into practice.

Ways to approach climate action within the workplace:

Maintain your career path but consider donating a portion of your income to organisations that are focused on achieving meaningful & impactful goals and call out your boss if the company or organisation you work for does not have clear policies that will result in reduced harm to the environment and a pathway to Net Zero.

Ask your boss to support EO by bringing the whole team onboard with EO company membership - and take action together.

Reconsider your career path, with excellent advice .

3. On A Political Level

Ways to approach climate action as a voter or political actor (even if you can't vote):

Protest - make your feelings known - become a vocal and passionate advocate with friends and family (without being over pushy) of the need for climate action. We need a billion activists to turn this ship around.

Join organisations that are organising climate actions and protests locally, whether in your city, district, or even at school.

Vote (if you can) for politicians who will champion effective climate action by governments.

Vote for parties or organisations that espouse self-reform and the adoption of ' Ministers of the Future ' into government.

Featured image by: Flickr

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Companies Called Out For Greenwashing | Earth.Org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many companies practice greenwashing, often making consumers believe they are environmentally friendly when in fact, they are not.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This website saves small pieces of information (cookies) on your device to provide you with an improved user experience, and to allow us to analyse our website's traffic. You can disable the usage of cookies in your browser settings. If you continue to browse this website without changing your settings, you consent to the use of cookies and other similar technologies. Please visit our Privacy Policy page for further details.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This website saves small pieces of information (cookies) on your device to provide you with an improved user experience, and to allow us to analyse our website's traffic. You can disable the usage of cookies in your browser settings. If you continue to browse this website without changing your settings, you consent to the use of cookies and other similar technologies.

# data[].attributes.headline
BBC - Climate change: why action still ignites debate in Australia

# data[].attributes.subject
BBC - Climate change: why action still ignites debate in Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change: Why action still ignites debate in Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate change has ended political careers in Australia and action over it remains widely debated.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Guardian - Revealed: the 20 firms behind a third of all carbon emissions

# data[].attributes.subject
The Guardian - Revealed: the 20 firms behind a third of all carbon emissions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
he Guardian today reveals the 20 fossil fuel companies whose relentless exploitation of the world's oil, gas and coal reserves can be directly linked to more than one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions in the modern era.

New data from world-renowned researchers reveals how this cohort of state-owned and multinational firms are driving the climate emergency that threatens the future of humanity, and details how they have continued to expand their operations despite being aware of the industry's devastating impact on the planet.

The analysis, by Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute in the US, the world's leading authority on big oil's role in the escalating climate emergency, evaluates what the global corporations have extracted from the ground, and the subsequent emissions these fossil fuels are responsible for since 1965 - the point at which experts say the environmental impact of fossil fuels was known by both industry leaders and politicians.

The top 20 companies on the list have contributed to 35% of all energy-related carbon dioxide and methane worldwide, totalling 480bn tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO ₂ e) since 1965.

The Guardian has collaborated with leading scientists and NGOs to expose, with exclusive data, investigations and analysis, the fossil fuel companies that are perpetuating the climate crisis - some of which have accelerated their extraction of coal, oil and gas even as the devastating impact on the planet and humanity was becoming clear.

The investigation has involved more than 20 Guardian journalists working across the world for the past six months.

The project focuses on what the companies have extracted from the ground, and the subsequent emissions they are responsible for, since 1965. The analysis, undertaken by Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute, calculates how much carbon is emitted throughout the supply chain, from extraction to use by consumers. Heede said: "The fact that consumers combust the fuels to carbon dioxide, water, heat and pollutants does not absolve the fossil fuel companies from responsibility for knowingly perpetuating the carbon era and accelerating the climate crisis toward the existential threat it has now become."

One aim of the project is to move the focus of debate from individual responsibilities to power structures - so our reporters also examined the financial and lobbying structures that let fossil fuel firms keep growing, and discovered which elected politicians were voting for change.

Another aim of the project is to press governments and corporations to close the gap between ambitious long-term promises and lacklustre short-term action. The UN says the coming decade is crucial if the world is to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of global heating. Reining in our dependence on fossil fuels and dramatically accelerating the transition to renewable energy has never been more urgent.

Thank you for your feedback.

Those identified range from investor-owned firms - household names such as Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell - to state-owned companies including Saudi Aramco and Gazprom.

Chevron topped the list of the eight investor-owned corporations, followed closely by Exxon, BP and Shell. Together these four global businesses are behind more than 10% of the world's carbon emissions since 1965.

Twelve of the top 20 companies are state-owned and together their extractions are responsible for 20% of total emissions in the same period. The leading state-owned polluter is Saudi Aramco, which has produced 4.38% of the global total on its own.

Michael Mann, one of the world's leading climate scientists, said the findings shone a light on the role of fossil fuel companies and called on politicians at the forthcoming climate talks in Chile in December to take urgent measures to rein in their activities.

The top 20 companies have contributed 480bn tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent since 1965

"The great tragedy of the climate crisis is that seven and a half billion people must pay the price - in the form of a degraded planet - so that a couple of dozen polluting interests can continue to make record profits. It is a great moral failing of our political system that we have allowed this to happen."

The global polluters list uses company-reported annual production of oil, natural gas, and coal and then calculates how much of the carbon and methane in the produced fuels is emitted to the atmosphere throughout the supply chain, from extraction to end use.

It found that 90% of the emissions attributed to the top 20 climate culprits was from use of their products, such as petrol, jet fuel, natural gas, and thermal coal. One-tenth came from extracting, refining, and delivering the finished fuels.

The Guardian approached the 20 companies named in the polluters list. Eight of them have replied. Some argued that they were not directly responsible for how the oil, gas or coal they extracted were used by consumers. Several disputed claims that the environmental impact of fossil fuels was known as far back as the late 1950s or that the industry collectively had worked to delay action.

Most explicitly said they accepted the climate science and some claimed to support the targets set out in the Paris agreement to reduce emissions and keep global temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

All pointed out efforts they were making to invest in renewable or low carbon energy sources and said fossil fuel companies had an important role to play in addressing the climate crisis. PetroChina said it was a separate company from its predecessor, China National Petroleum, so had no influence over, or responsibility for, its historical emissions. The companies' replies can be read in full here.

The top 20 companies have contributed to 35% of all carbon dioxide and methane since 1965

The latest study builds on previous work by Heede and his team that has looked at the historical role of fossil fuel companies in the escalating climate crisis.

The impact of emissions from coal, oil and gas produced by fossil fuel companies has been huge. According to research published in 2017 by Peter Frumhoff at the Union of Concerned Scientists in the US and colleagues, CO ₂ and methane emissions from the 90 biggest industrial carbon producers were responsible for almost half the rise in global temperature and close to a third of the sea level rise between 1880 and 2010. The scientists said such work furthered the "consideration of [companies'] historical responsibilities for climate change".

Heede said: "These companies and their products are substantially responsible for the climate emergency, have collectively delayed national and global action for decades, and can no longer hide behind the smokescreen that consumers are the responsible parties.

"Oil, gas, and coal executives derail progress and offer platitudes when their vast capital, technical expertise, and moral obligation should enable rather than thwart the shift to a low-carbon future."

Heede said 1965 was chosen as the start point for this new data because recent research had revealed that by that stage the environmental impact of fossil fuels was known by industry leaders and politicians, particularly in the US.

In November 1965, the president, Lyndon Johnson, released a report authored by the Environmental Pollution Panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee, which set out the likely impact of continued fossil fuel production on global heating.

In the same year, the president of the American Petroleum Institute told its annual gathering: "One of the most important predictions of the [president's report] is that carbon dioxide is being added to the Earth's atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil and natural gas at such a rate by the year 2000 the heat balance will be so modified as possibly to cause marked changes in climate beyond local or even national efforts."

The leading state-owned polluter, Saudi Aramco, has produced 4.38% of all carbon dioxide and methane since 1965

Heede added: "Leading companies and industry associations were aware of, or wilfully ignored, the threat of climate change from continued use of their products since the late 1950s."

The research aims to hold to account those companies most responsible for carbon emissions, and shift public and political debate away from a focus just on individual responsibility. It follows a warning from the UN in 2018 that the world has just 12 years to avoid the worst consequences of runaway global heating and restrict temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

An activist outside the Houses of Parliament in London, 2015. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty

The study shows that many of the worst offenders are investor-owned companies that are household names around the world and spend billions of pounds on lobbying governments and portraying themselves as environmentally responsible.

A study earlier this year found that the largest five stock-market-listed oil and gas companies spend nearly $200m each year lobbying to delay, control or block policies to tackle climate change.

Heede said the companies had a "significant moral, financial, and legal responsibility for the climate crisis, and a commensurate burden to help address the problem".

He added: "Even though global consumers from individuals to corporations are the ultimate emitters of carbon dioxide, the Climate Accountability Institute focuses its work on the fossil fuel companies that, in our view, have their collective hand on the throttle and the tiller determining the rate of carbon emissions and the shift to non-carbon fuels."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Revealed: the 20 firms behind a third of all carbon emissions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
he Guardian today reveals the 20 fossil fuel companies whose relentless exploitation of the world's oil, gas and coal reserves can be directly linked to more than one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions in the modern era.

# data[].attributes.body
https://coastadapt.com.au/climate-change-and-sea-level-rise-australian-region

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change and sea-level rise in the Australian region | CoastAdapt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Even if we suddenly stopped emitting greenhouse gases, warming and in particular sea-level rise would continue for many decades if not centuries. This is because of the 'climate commitment', due primarily to the role of the oceans in climate change.

# data[].attributes.headline
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Yes, the IPCC report was bad. But we can still salvage a livable planet.

# data[].attributes.subject
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Yes, the IPCC report was bad. But we can still salvage a livable planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lake Charles may be hit again.

The National Hurricane Center's forecast track for soon-to-be Hurricane Ida includes the possibility of a direct hit to southwest Louisiana. Lake Charles was struck by hurricanes Laura and Delta in 2020, with devastating consequences. Then this spring, a 15-inch deluge led to more flooding destruction and the displacement of several hundred families. The region has yet to recover. The resiliency and endurance of residents and institutions in Lake Charles is being pushed to the limit.

What's happening in Louisiana is a symptom of the fast-changing climate. A warmer atmosphere leads to rain falling at unprecedented rates. Warmer seawater leads to the rapid intensification of hurricanes. And when they hit, the storm surge is deeper and penetrates further inland because of sea level rise. The planetary warming that includes warming in the air and ocean leads to melting ice in the Arctic, Greenland, and Antarctica, and increasing amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere. Increasing global average temperatures mean rising sea levels, more intense precipitation, and more severe droughts. The global average temperature is already 1.26 degrees Celsius (2.27 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than 1850, and nearly half of this increase (0.6 degrees Celsius or 1 degree Fahrenheit) has happened since the year 2000.

Climate-fueled extreme weather events are trending stronger, with shorter return-periods- meaning that what was once considered a one-in-50-year event can happen two or three times in a generation. This summer's unprecedented heat in the Pacific Northwest, deepening drought and fires in the West, and extreme rain in the Midwest are all consistent with the predictions of what was to be expected in a warmer world. Such frequent disasters can lead to economic problems and societal challenges that can set a community on a path to ruin and an eventual exodus. While many fail to acknowledge it, there is a limit to resiliency.

Examples of places where it's becoming difficult or impossible to adapt to the changing climate are now common. Central American subsistence farmers are struggling to feed their families due to a hyperactive cycle of drought and floods, forcing them to become climate refugees. Californians live in increasing fear of facing a raging wildfire and can no longer find or afford home insurance. Puerto Ricans cannot fathom facing another major hurricane like María in the next few years, instead of the 200-year return-period for such a catastrophic borderline-Category-5 event that the 20th-century climate would have dictated.

It's bad already-the changing climate is a crisis. And it can get worse. Unless we stop it from getting worse.

Admittedly, this may look like an increasingly difficult process, given the latest news from the front lines of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the first of three installments of the Sixth Assessment Report earlier this month. This first part of the new report updated the current scientific understanding of climate change; the big story is the growing confidence in the link between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, rising global temperatures, and accelerating climate impacts. This is supported by updated climate models that provide more detailed projections about possible future conditions which-and this is crucial-depend on the choices humans make about carbon emissions.

The new report states confidently that the trend toward more weather extremes is caused by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that these trends are highly likely to continue until carbon dioxide emissions are reduced to zero.

The warming will continue until carbon dioxide pollution stops. The more additional carbon dioxide we add to the atmosphere, the more warming we will get in the future. So the IPCC report spends a lot of time looking at what cuts in our global carbon dioxide emissions would be needed to keep temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. In the Paris Climate Agreement, countries around the world agreed to take primary steps to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), but also take additional steps to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Limiting warming to 1.5 degrees would decrease the risks of food and water insecurity and potentially save global coral reefs from complete devastation.

Meeting the 1.5-degree target is not impossible, but it is becoming increasingly difficult. Changes that were predicted in prior reports have come to pass and scientists have very high confidence that warming trends will continue. The report also emphasizes the risks of compound extremes, joint occurrences of potentially damaging events that become more likely at higher levels of warming-like what is happening in Louisiana.

There is a lot of bad news in the report. On the other hand, we know what is coming and can prepare for it. We also have an increasing number of countries-significantly, that now includes the United States-as well as states, cities, businesses and institutions that have made commitments to reduce net carbon emissions to zero by 2050. Achieving these goals is possible, especially as wind turbines, solar cells, and electric batteries get better and less expensive. (Achieving these goals will also have an economic boost by creating more clean-energy jobs, reducing health care costs, and avoiding the cost of recovering from even worse climate-related disasters.)

Most important, we must remember that the world doesn't end if we go past 1.5 degrees. Simply hitting 1.6 degrees Celsius for the first time will not trigger the beginning of the end of days. However, every additional tenth of a degree makes extreme weather, sea level rise, and climate impacts on nature and people worse.

That is why it is so critical that we all look holistically at the climate crisis and realize that if we act, we can still salvage a livable planet. Crisis management depends on remaining calm and working the problem.

Don't panic!

Don't succumb to doomists that tell you that there is no way out of this. Yes, additional global warming is baked into the system. Earth will still be a difficult place to live even at 1.3 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels-just ask folks in Guatemala, California, or Louisiana. But a one-degree warmer planet is a heckuva lot better than a two-, three-, or four-degree hotter planet.

First things first-we need to slow down the warming. Beyond reducing you and your community's carbon footprint, this will require a systemic change that can only be achieved at institutional levels and across borders. Government action and collaboration is unequivocally needed, and you must advocate for and demand it with more zeal than your passion to be vegan or to compost. Collective and systemic actions on climate are orders of magnitude more powerful than individual actions.

Also, recognize when pragmatism is called for. Think hard before criticizing it, because we all need to pull in the same direction right now. Aim for smaller wins in the third quarter instead of a Hail Mary in the last seconds of the fourth. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Beyond all, don't let fear of the future paralyze you in the present. To borrow from climate scientist Michael Mann's shrewd use of the famous Franklin Delano Roosevelt quote in The New Climate War -"The only thing we have to fear is ... fear itself-nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." There are forces, many shadowy or nameless, that want nothing more than for you to feel paralyzed in the face of carbon pollution's siege on the planet. They are trying everything-deflection, diversion, division, and doomism-to get you to stop reasoning.

Keep your eye on the goal to halt and reverse the warming. We will get there. But for now, we need to turn our retreat into an advance by slowing down the present rate of warming. The hill is there to be taken.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Yes, the IPCC report was bad. But we can still salvage a livable planet. - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We must remember that the world doesn't end if the planet heats up past 1.5 degrees Celsius, as the latest IPCC strongly implies. Simply hitting 1.6 degrees for the first time will not trigger the beginning of the end of days.

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate Council - 140-year heat map shows clear trend in global temperature change

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate Council - 140-year heat map shows clear trend in global temperature change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sometimes it's hard to get a clear grasp on just how much the climate has changed and where we sit now, compared to the climate of the past.
With the United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) announcement that 2019 was the second hottest year on record, we've decided to try to put the last 140 years into context.

The heat map below compares every month to the average temperature of that same month throughout the 20th Century, since 1880. So, for example, the temperature of each individual June is compared to the average of all 100 Junes between 1901 and 2000, each July is compared to 100-years of Julys, and so on.

For Australia, data from the Bureau of Meteorology shows that 2019 was not just the hottest year, but also the driest year on record.

Fast Facts

- 2019 was the second hottest year on record for the planet.

- The last six years are the six hottest years on record (in order: 2016, 2019, 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2014).

- There have been nineteen years in the 21st Century, and all of them are in the top twenty hottest years on record. The other year in the top twenty is 1998, which sits at tenth.
Data source: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, Climate at a Glance: Global Time Series, published January 2020, retrieved on January 18, 2020 from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
140-year heat map shows clear trend in global temperature change | Infographic | Climate Council

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The heat map below compares every month to the average temperature of that same month throughout the 20th Century, since 1880. So, for example, the temperature of each individual June is compared to the average of all 100 Junes between 1901 and 2000, each July is compared to 100-years of Julys, and so on.

# data[].attributes.headline
ABC News - BOM and CSIRO State of the Climate 2020 shows Australia is experiencing climate change now

# data[].attributes.subject
ABC News - BOM and CSIRO State of the Climate 2020 shows Australia is experiencing climate change now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We might think this decade has been hot, but the CSIRO says it’ll end up being one of the coolest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The latest biannual report card from the BOM and the CSIRO shows we are now up to 1.44 degrees of warming, and the 2020 COVID slowdown has been barely a blip on global CO2 concentrations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Humans are unequivocally warming the planet, and that's triggering rapid changes in the atmosphere, oceans and polar regions, and increasing extreme weather around the world, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns in a new report. The IPCC released the first part of its much anticipated Sixth Assessment Report on Aug. 9, 2021. In it, 234 scientists from around the globe summarized the current climate research on how the Earth is changing as temperatures rise and what those changes will mean for the future. We asked climate scientist Robert Kopp, a lead author of the chapter on Earth's oceans, ice and sea level rise, about the profound changes underway.
What are the IPCC report's most important overall messages in your view?

At the most basic level, the facts about climate change have been clear for a long time, with the evidence just continuing to grow.

As a result of human activities, the planet is changing at a rate unprecedented for at least thousands of years. These changes are affecting every area of the planet.

IPCC Sixth Assessment Report

While some of the changes will be irreversible for millennia, some can be slowed and others reversed through strong, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

But time is running out to meet the ambitious goal laid out in the 2015 international Paris Agreement to limit warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels (2 C equals 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Doing so requires getting global carbon dioxide emissions on a downward course that reaches net zero around or before 2050.

What are scientists most concerned about right now when it comes to the oceans and polar regions?

Global sea level has been rising at an accelerating rate since about 1970, and over the last century, it has risen more than in any century in at least 3,000 years.

In the years since the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report in 2013 and the Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate in 2019, the evidence for accelerating ice sheet loss has become clearer.

Over the last decade, global average sea level has risen at a rate of about 4 millimeters per year (1.5 inches per decade). This increase is due to two main factors: the melting of ice in mountain glaciers and at the poles, and the expansion of water in the ocean as it takes up heat.

Ice sheets in particular are primarily responsible for the increase in the rate of sea level rise since the 1990s. There is clear evidence tying the melting of glaciers and the Greenland Ice Sheet, as well as ocean warming, to human influence. Sea level rise is leading to substantial impacts on coastal communities, including a near-doubling in the frequency of coastal flooding since the 1960s in many sites around the world.

Since the previous reports, scientists have made substantial advances in modeling the behavior of ice sheets. At the same time, we've been learning more about ice sheet physics, including recognizing the potential ways ice sheets can become destabilized. We don't well understand the potential speed of these changes, but they have the potential to lead to much more rapid ice sheet loss if greenhouse gas emissions grow unchecked.

These advances confirm that sea level is going to continue to rise for many centuries to come, creating an escalating threat for coastal communities.

Sea level change through 2050 is largely locked in: Regardless of how quickly nations are able to lower emissions, the world is likely looking at about 15 to 30 centimeters (6 to 12 inches) of global average sea level rise through the middle of the century.

But beyond 2050, sea level projections become increasingly sensitive to the world's emissions choices. If countries continue on their current paths, with greenhouse gas emissions likely to bring 3-4 C of warming (5.4-7.2 F) by 2100, the planet will be looking at a most likely sea level rise of about 0.7 meters (a bit over 2 feet). A 2 C (3.6 F) warmer world, consistent with the Paris Agreement, would see lower sea level rise, most likely about half a meter (about 1.6 feet) by 2100.

IPCC Sixth Assessment Report

What's more, the more the world limits its greenhouse gas emissions, the lower the chance of triggering instabilities in the polar ice sheets that are challenging to model but could substantially increase sea level rise.

Under the most extreme emissions scenario we considered, we could not rule out rapid ice sheet loss leading to sea level rise approaching 2 meters (7 feet) by the end of this century.

Fortunately, if the world limits warming to well below 2 C, it should take many centuries for sea level rise to exceed 2 meters - a far more manageable situation.

Are the oceans or ice nearing any tipping points?

"Tipping point" is a vague term used in many different ways by different people. The IPCC defines tipping points as "critical thresholds beyond which a system reorganizes, in a way that is very fast or irreversible" - for example, a temperature rise beyond which climate dynamics commit an ice sheet to massive loss.

Because the term is so vague, the IPCC generally focuses on characteristics of changes in a system - for example, whether a system might change abruptly or irreversibly - rather than whether it fits the strict dynamic definition of a "tipping point."

One example of a system that might undergo abrupt changes is the large-scale pattern of ocean circulation known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, of which the Gulf Stream is part. Paleoclimate evidence tells us that AMOC has changed rapidly in the past, and we expect that AMOC will weaken over this century. If AMOC were to collapse, it would make Europe warm more slowly, increase sea level rise along the U.S. Atlantic coast, and shift storm tracks and monsoons. However, most evidence indicates that such a collapse will not happen in this century.

IPCC Sixth Assessment Report

There is mixed evidence for abrupt changes in the polar ice sheets, but clear evidence that changes in the ice sheets can be locked in for centuries and millennia.

If the world succeeds in limiting warming to 1.5 C (2.7 F), we expect to see about 2-3 meters (7-10 feet) of sea level rise over the next 2,000 years; if the planet continues to warm and reaches a 5 C (9 F) increase, we expect to see about 20 meters (70 feet) over the next 2,000 years.

Some people also discuss summer Arctic sea ice - which has undergone substantial declines over the last 40 years and is now smaller than at any time in the past millennium - as a system with a "tipping point." However, the science is pretty clear that there is no critical threshold in this system. Rather, summer Arctic sea ice area decreases roughly in proportion to the increase in global temperature, and if temperature were stabilized, we would expect sea ice area to stabilize also.

What do scientists know now about hurricanes that they didn't realize when the last report was written?

Since the last IPCC assessment report in 2013, there has been increasing evidence that hurricanes have grown more intense, and intensified more rapidly, than they did 40 years ago. There's also evidence that hurricanes in the U.S. are moving more slowly, leading to increased rainfall.

However, it's not clear that this is due to the effects of greenhouse gases - reductions in particulate pollution have also had important effects.

[ Over 100,000 readers rely on The Conversation's newsletter to understand the world. Sign up today.]

The clearest effect of global warming is that a warmer atmosphere holds more water, leading to more extreme rainfall, like that seen during Hurricane Harvey in 2017. Looking forward, we expect to see hurricane winds and hurricane rains continue to increase. It's still unclear how the overall number of hurricanes will change.

The report involved 234 scientists, and then 195 governments had to agree on the summary for policymakers. Does that broad range of views affect the outcome?

When you're writing a report like this, a key goal for the scientists is to accurately capture points of both scientific agreement and scientific disagreement.

For example, with respect to ice sheet changes, there are certain processes on which there is broad agreement and other processes where the science is still emerging and there are strong, discordant views. Yet knowing about these processes may be crucially important for decision-makers trying to manage risk.

That's why, for example, we talk not only about most likely outcomes, but also about outcomes where the likelihood is low or as-yet unknown, but the potential impacts are large.

AP Photo/Felipe Dana

The IPCC uses a transparent process to produce its report - the authors have had to respond to over 50,000 review comments over the three years we've spent writing it. The governments also weigh in, having to approve every line of a concise Summary for Policy Makers that accurately reflects the underlying assessment - oftentimes making it clearer in the process.

I'm very pleased that, as with past reports, every participating government has signed off on a summary that accurately reports the current state of climate science.

Read more: The water cycle is intensifying as the climate warms, IPCC report warns - that means more intense storms and flooding

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
IPCC climate report: Profound changes are underway in Earth's oceans and ice - a lead author explains what the warnings mean

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Humans are unequivocally warming the planet, and that's triggering rapid changes in the atmosphere, oceans and polar regions, and increasing extreme weather around the world, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns in a new report. The IPCC released the first part of its much anticipated Sixth Assessment Report on Aug.

# data[].attributes.body
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/bhp-selling-its-dirty-oil-and-gas-assets-hold-applause

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When BHP announced it would sell its stake in its oil and gas business to Woodside Petroleum to form a merged oil and gas business, it appeared welcome news. A big miner finally takes climate change seriously.

But decisions to sell fossil fuel assets are not good news at all. BHP did not do the right thing by selling its oil and gas operations for the simple reason that the climate is still no better off. BHP's new oil and gas assets will continue to produce oil and gas - just with new shareholders.

Decisions to sell mines or set up "dirty" parallel companies are coming thick and fast as the big polluters scramble to cut their losses. One of Australia's biggest polluters, AGL, announced in March it will create a separate company for its emissions intensive assets.

What BHP and other companies are doing is banking profits from their failing assets, while washing their hands of the responsibility to do something about their past and ongoing contribution to climate change. Instead of selling these assets, companies should retire the assets and wear the costs.

Passing the buck

BHP is one of Australia's biggest-emitting companies. In 2019, the emissions produced by BHP's products globally were 567 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent - more than Australia's total domestic emissions in 2019.

Even chief executive of mining company Glencore, Ivan Glasenberg, said in June this year:

Disposing of fossil fuel assets and making them someone else's issue is not the solution and it won't reduce absolute emissions.

So what should fossil fuel producers do if they are truly serious about their climate responsibilities? If they really want to depart from fossil fuels to help the climate, four things need to happen:

1. Ensure assets can no longer produce emissions

Fossil fuel producers should retire their mines or wells instead of selling them. This will inevitably involve foregoing any remaining value in their assets (if it has not already returned to them via past profits).

A report commissioned by the oil industry peak body, the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA), found the cost of decommissioning Australia's 65 offshore oil platforms could reach A$60 billion over the next 30 years. This doesn't include onshore gas, Australia's huge coal mines and export terminals.
The cost of decommissioning Australia's 65 offshore oil platforms could reach A$60 billion over the next 30 years. Photo: Shutterstock
2. Fund any remediation costs out of general revenue

Fossil fuel companies should pay for the cost of restoring mined land, such as back filling voids, replacing vegetation, repairing water sources or ensuring mines do not leak gas.

In the case of BHP, this would mean its super profits from iron ore could be diverted to meet their climate and environmental debts. BHP made a profit of over US$11 billion in the last year. Most of that is not going towards fixing climate harms such as bushfire and flood damage.

3. Establish a national inventory of liabilities

State and federal authorities should establish a central register of environmental damage and climate harms caused by fossil fuel companies. This would mean damage to waterways or soil contamination, as well as damage caused by climate change itself, could be accurately calculated.

Such an inventory is crucial to establishing which costs ought to be born by fossil fuel companies, and will help establish the costs involved in retiring mines.
Read more: When it comes to climate change, Australia's mining giants are an accessory to the crime
4. Establish an independent body to monitor safety of former mine and well sites

Mine remediation is too important to be left to the companies themselves, who may sell up or go broke, leaving taxpayers to fix the problem. In cases where remediation is complex and dangerous, governments could consider taking over mines or wells to ensure remediation was done properly.

For example, in 2019 the federal government took ownership of the Northern Endeavour production vessel, which is an oil production ship moored off the coast of Darwin. The vessel was used by gas company Woodside, who then sold it to Northern Oil and Gas Australia, who then went out of business. In this case, the government imposed a levy on the industry to pay for the costs.

Risking financial disruption

Environmental concerns aside, there are economic reasons for governments to take tighter control of fossil fuel assets.

The Bank for International Settlements released a report last year arguing that central banks like the Reserve Bank of Australia ought to be prepared to buy the stranded assets of fossil fuel companies.
Duties to shareholders don't trump duties to the rest of society not to severely damage the climate. Photo: Shutterstock
Failure to do so will, the report notes, pose a real risk of triggering severe financial disruption. It warns of "extremely financially disruptive events that could be behind the next systemic financial crisis".

The Bank for International Settlements draws on the analogy of the Global Financial Crisis. Just as a failure in mortgage lending led to a generalised financial crisis with impacts across the whole economy, the collapse in asset prices of fossil fuel industries could trigger a similar effect.

Companies forced to sell their assets to governments for a cheap price will no doubt complain they have other duties, such as getting a good return for shareholders. They will likely argue that not selling to another company for a premium price will reduce dividends paid to investors.

Yes, companies might have a duty to make a profit. But duties to shareholders don't automatically trump duties to the rest of society not to severely damage the climate.

Just as we don't condone companies selling unsafe medicines or faulty appliances to benefit shareholders, nor should we allow them to harm the climate on those grounds.

Until governments step in to regulate the phase out of Australia's fossil fuel assets, the environment and economy will be at risk.
BHP did not respond to The Conversation's request for comment. Jeremy Moss, Professor of Political Philosophy, UNSW This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BHP is selling its dirty oil and gas assets, but hold the applause

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When BHP announced it would sell its stake in its oil and gas business to Woodside Petroleum to form a merged oil and gas business, it appeared welcome news. A big miner finally takes climate change seriously. But decisions to sell fossil fuel assets are not good news at all.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-recent-history-of-australia-s-climate-change-wars/9b9f9fda-bd56-4c6c-96c1-bf0bf2c7c605

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It was in this context that Mr Morrison opened the door to "evolving" the government's climate change policies last week.

"The cabinet and the government will continue to evolve our policies to meet our targets and to beat them," he told the ABC.

It's the latest development in the years-long political conflict around Australia's climate change policies, which has claimed the scalps of several leaders and shows no sign of being resolved soon.

But how did we get here?

Kyoto opposition

At the turn of the millennium, then-prime minister John Howard made it clear Australia would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty in which countries committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

But as parts of the nation were gripped by drought in the early 2000s, climate change became a front-and-centre issue for many Australians.

So much so that the conservative Mr Howard went to the 2007 election with an emissions trading scheme and committed to increasing spending on measures to tackle climate change by $627 million.

"Implementing an emissions trading scheme and setting a long-term goal for reducing emissions will be the most momentous economic decision Australia will take in the next decade," Mr Howard said at the time.

Siobhan McDonnell, a lecturer in climate change and disasters the Australian National University, said Mr Howard "shifted substantially" on the issue towards the end of his prime ministership.

"He shifted in part, I think, in response to the climate science ... He was prepared to tackle these issues," Dr McDonnell told SBS News.

"Climate change hadn't become the issue so deeply entrenched in the right [side of politics] at the time, that it later was to become."

'The great moral challenge'

But after 11 years in office, Mr Howard lost the 2007 election to Kevin Rudd.

Unlike his predecessor, the Labor leader sought to be a global warrior for the climate cause, describing it as "the great moral challenge of our generation".

The first official act of Mr Rudd's government was signing the instrument of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

Labor then got down to business and tried to craft and pass an emissions trading scheme, called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS).

And that's where things got complicated.

Rudd, Turnbull out

In late 2009, Labor sought common ground with the opposition to get their emissions trading scheme through parliament.

Then-Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull endorsed the plan, but some in his party promptly turned against him.

The anti-CPRS Tony Abbott beat Mr Turnbull in a leadership contest by a single vote, and the Liberals suddenly became far less receptive to bipartisan climate action.

In a scathing opinion article days after, the defeated Mr Turnbull called Mr Abbott's new climate stance "bullshit".

Meanwhile, the Greens opposed Mr Rudd's plan for not going far enough to curb emissions.

Any hope of passing the CPRS seemed to disappear by 2010 so it was shelved by Labor until at least 2013.

But Mr Rudd's popularity consequently plummeted and within weeks, he was removed as leader by his party, with Julia Gillard becoming the prime minister.

The carbon tax

In the lead up to the 2010 election, Ms Gillard pledged a "citizens assembly" to resolve the issue of climate change, which she later conceded was "probably very naive".

And, in a statement that would come back to haunt her, she promised there would be "no carbon tax under a government I lead".

The 2010 election between Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott resulted in Australia's first hung parliament since 1940, meaning that each leader had to negotiate with crossbenchers to win power.

Ms Gillard got the support of Bob Brown's Greens along with other key crossbenchers and retained her prime ministership.

She went on to announce her plans for a carbon pricing scheme, dubbed by critics as the "carbon tax", which passed in 2011.

Ms Gillard called it "a win for Australia's children".

"It's a win for those who will seek their fortunes and make their way by having jobs in our clean energy sector. It's a win for those who want our environment to be a cleaner environment and to see less carbon pollution," she said at the time.

Ms Gillard also set up the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, two government entities to boost clean energy.

Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie told SBS News the establishment of these entities was a "high point" in how the nation tackles climate change.

"Both bodies have quietly made a huge difference to financing innovation and new technology," she said.

Axing the tax

Mr Abbott railed against Ms Gillard's climate policies and his commitment to "axing the tax" defined his time as opposition leader.

The climate debate over these years reached new levels of vitriol.

In a move that resulted in heavy criticism, Mr Abbott attended an anti-carbon tax protest at Parliament House and spoke in front of signs which read "ditch the witch" and "Ju-liar... Bob Browns bitch [sic]".

Mr Abbott won the 2013 election and the carbon tax was repealed soon after.

Then-Greens leader Christine Milne called the repeal a "tragic day".

The new PM instead opted for a scheme called Direct Action, which paid businesses and communities to reduce their emissions.

Under Mr Abbott, Australia signed up to the Paris Agreement in 2015 and agreed to reduce carbon emissions by at least 26 per cent by 2030.

The NEG and Turnbull's demise

With Mr Abbott's poll numbers stubbornly low, Mr Turnbull successfully challenged him for the leadership and became prime minister in 2015.

In a move he hoped would end the climate wars, the then-PM proposed the National Energy Guarantee (NEG), an integration of climate and energy policy.

But once again, many Liberals rebelled against Mr Turnbull and soon, both the NEG and Mr Turnbull's prime ministership were history.

Enter Mr Morrison.

ANU's Dr McDonnell said, "Turnbull attempted to fight the fight internally ... He lost the leadership as a result and the politics became entrenched at that point".

"It became the defining issue for the [Liberal] leadership, it was like, you can only hold the leadership if you're not prepared to take any meaningful steps in relation to climate change," she said.

"Australia's emissions definitely reduced substantially under the Labor government and since we've had a Coalition government they have increased substantially. That is just the factual story."

'A massive wake-up call'

As the 2010s came to a close, the climate change warnings of experts and studies became increasingly dire around the world.

In Australia, a crescendo was reached at the end of 2019.

A horror bushfire season, which was predicted by economist Ross Garnaut back in the Rudd years, swept the nation.

So far, at least 31 people have been killed and more than 2,000 homes have been damaged or destroyed.

Cities have been choked with bushfire haze and images of the more than one billion injured or killed wildlife have shaken Australians.

The Climate Council's Ms McKenzie said, "the bushfire and smoke crisis should be a massive wake-up call to the Morrison government".

"This is exactly what scientists have been warning them about for decades. The government has no credible policies to tackle fossil fuel pollution which is driving climate change," she said.

"The crisis should prompt a wholesale rethink of Australia's approach the climate change."

From Hawaii to an 'evolving' stance

In December, Mr Morrison took a Hawaiian vacation in the middle of the bushfire crisis.

He faced severe criticism and later apologised.

From there, things did not get much better.

Mr Morrison was heckled during a visit to the bushfire-hit town of Cobargo, which a fellow Liberal said he "probably deserved".

And self-proclaimed climate sceptic Liberal MP Craig Kelly went on UK television and disputed the link between climate change and Australia's fires.

In the fallout, protests against Mr Morrison have been held in capital cities and show no sign of stopping.

His approval rating plunged in a recent Newspoll and the Coalition is now trailing Labor for the first time since last year's federal election.

To ease the tensions, Mr Morrison admitted last week, "there are things I could have handled on the ground much better".

He also responded by announcing there would be a royal commission into the disaster and saying climate policies could, yet again, change.

"We want to reduce emissions and do the best job we possibly can and get better and better and better at it," he told the ABC.

ANU's Dr McDonnell said it could be a pivotal moment.

"There is a shift, but for me, the question is will it be enough? ... Australia is just so vulnerable to climate change."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The recent history of Australia's climate change wars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It was in this context that Mr Morrison opened the door to "evolving" the government's climate change policies last week. "The cabinet and the government will continue to evolve our policies to meet our targets and to beat them," he told the ABC.