corporations
Newsletter
Credit: Adeolu Eletu/Unsplash
Researchers propose new method to improve corporate climate accountability
New research suggests that tracking companies' influence on policies and conservation efforts could provide a more comprehensive view of their contributions to global net-zero goals.
In short:
- Existing corporate climate targets are often unreliable, with many companies lacking formal net-zero goals.
- A new proposal suggests tracking companies' influence in areas like policy advocacy and conservation efforts.
- This approach could incentivize companies to take broader actions beyond reducing their own emissions.
Key quote:
"We have been leaving a huge amount of impact on the table by failing to encourage or invite companies to be rewarded and compared for their significant efforts beyond their value chain."
— Kaya Axelsson, research fellow at Oxford University
Why this matters:
Current climate reporting standards often miss the broader impact companies could have on global emissions. Encouraging companies to engage in systemic actions may lead to more meaningful progress toward net-zero goals.
Read more: Oil and gas firms hide climate impacts in investments
Keep reading...Show less
Top Story
Credit: Glen Carrie/Unsplash
Poll shows strong voter support for suing oil companies over climate impact
A majority of US voters favor litigation against oil companies for their role in the climate crisis, with nearly half supporting criminal charges.
In short:
- A new poll reveals 62% of likely voters support legal accountability for oil companies contributing to climate change.
- Nearly half of respondents support filing criminal charges, including homicide, against oil companies.
- The survey highlights bipartisan support, with significant backing from both Democrats and Republicans.
Key quote:
“Voters strongly want to see companies held accountable for their harmful actions.”
— Grace Adcox, senior climate strategist, Data for Progress
Why this matters:
This development marks a pivotal moment in the climate change discourse, as legal actions could transform the way industries approach environmental responsibility. As the effects of climate change become increasingly visible and personal—from extreme weather events to health impacts—the public's call for justice grows louder. Parents worried about their children's future, healthcare professionals dealing with the fallout of environmental health issues, and scientists striving for meaningful change all echo this demand for corporate accountability.
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Loukiainen/Big Stock Photo
Inter-American court reviews corporate roles in climate change crises
A pivotal hearing at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights examines whether businesses can be held legally accountable for climate change impacts on human rights.
In short:
- Legal and activist communities at the Inter-American Court urge businesses to prevent climate change-related human rights violations.
- Key arguments emphasize the disproportionate impact of climate change on vulnerable populations in Latin America and the Caribbean.
- Legal experts advocate for stringent regulations on industries to uphold human rights amidst escalating climate threats.
Key quote:
“It’s not possible to guarantee human rights without combating climate change. And it’s not possible to combat climate change without regulating business conduct ... ”
— Nikki Reisch, director of climate and energy at the Center for International Environmental Law
Why this matters:
Businesses, particularly in industries like manufacturing, energy, and agriculture, have been significant contributors to carbon emissions and environmental changes that affect basic human needs—access to clean water, safe housing, and secure food sources.
If businesses can be held liable for harming the climate, then it could lead to new standards of corporate behavior, forcing companies to reconsider their environmental policies and practices.
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Ralf Vetterle/Pixabay
SEC revises climate disclosure regulation amid corporate resistance
The SEC has adjusted its climate disclosure requirements, easing mandates on emissions reporting following corporate objections.
In short:
- The SEC will not enforce the reporting of certain indirect emissions known as Scope 3, which occur in a company’s supply chain or through consumer product use.
- The modified rule also scales back on the reporting of direct emissions (Scope 1) and indirect emissions from energy production (Scope 2), leaving it to companies to decide if such information is vital for investors.
- The regulation impacts a broad range of U.S. and foreign companies, eliciting over 16,000 comments from diverse stakeholders during the proposal stage.
Key quote:
“All public companies need to digest the final rules. Based on how the rules are set up, there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach.”
— Michael Littenberg, attorney at Ropes & Gray
Why this matters:
This regulatory shift is pivotal for health outcomes as it affects how environmental risks are communicated to the public, influencing the decisions of healthcare professionals, scientists and policymakers. It underscores the tension between corporate interests and the need for transparency in environmental impact on a national scale.
As states and corporations increasingly head to court over climate change, a lawyer lays out an ethical roadmap to give the environment a louder legal voice.
Keep reading...Show less
Photo by rc.xyz NFT gallery on Unsplash
The true cost of climate pollution? 44% of corporate profits
What if companies had to pay for the problems their carbon emissions cause? Their profits would plunge, according to new estimates, possibly wiping out trillions in financial gains.
Image by Lucia Grzeskiewicz from Pixabay
CA may force companies to disclose climate impacts
Cal Matters writer Alejandro Lazo reports on groundbreaking legislation in California that would require large corporations to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and report the financial risks they face from climate change.
In a nutshell:
The first bill would mandate about 5,300 US corporations earning over $1 billion and doing business in California to annually report their global emissions. The second bill would require more than 10,000 companies with revenues exceeding $500 million to detail how climate change poses financial risks to their operations worldwide. The proposed laws aim to increase transparency and hold corporations accountable for their contributions to climate change and the impact on their finances, but they face opposition from business groups concerned about accuracy and burdensome reporting requirements.
Key quote:
“Companies have virtually no control over how their customers use their products and services. But they have a great deal of control over the emissions in the products and services they purchase," says Harvard professor Robert Kaplan.
The big picture:
As greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, they contribute to rising global temperatures, which in turn exacerbate air pollution and increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. This toxic combination leads to a host of health issues, including respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular problems, heat-related illnesses, and the spread of vector-borne diseases. In the past couple of decades, various organizations have been working towards establishing consistent guidelines for corporations to report their emissions and acknowledge the potential dangers they confront as temperatures continue to rise. This pursuit aims to create a standardized framework that enables accurate assessment of corporate environmental impact and the associated risks posed by climate change.
Read more at Cal Matters.
Be sure to read Hilary Beaumont's article that focuses on California's oil drilling setbacks - and whether these will protect people from toxic pollution.
Keep reading...Show less
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
How are corporations doing on carbon emission pledges?
Studies have suggested that corporate climate initiatives have the potential to bring about emissions cuts in addition to those set out in national goals. But few studies have evaluated how those initiatives are doing in practice.
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
