@stewart_milne
Stewart Milne
48 w
BP fended off a shareholder revolt backed by the UK's largest pension funds BP's annual general meeting was peppered with protests over its decision to slow its climate goals https://qz.com/bp-general-meeting-interrupted-climate-protesters-1850381817?utm_source=email&utm_medium=Quartz_Daily_Brief_US&utm_content=1850385577 Within seconds of the start of BP’s annual general meeting (pdf) today (April 27), an angry, off-mic voice from the crowd began lobbing accusations at Helge Lund, BP’s chairman, as his face hardened into discomfort. Ben Matthews, BP’s company secretary, called for security to remove the protester, then again, and again in an increasingly curt, rising voice, nearly every five minutes during the first half hour of the meeting, as the crowd erupted in successive rounds of accusations. “Do you like wildfires?” one protester asked. “Do you like the natural world? Do you want to see it destroyed?” “What the f*** is wrong with you, you have no heart and no head,” yelled another. Snippets from other protesters included the phrases: “carbon footprint,” “chaos you have caused,” “people are dying,” and “now.” In between interruptions from the crowd, Lund asked shareholders to vote against a resolution filed by the activist group Follow This, to toughen emissions targets to align with Paris Agreement goals. A separate resolution, backed by five UK pension funds overseeing a total of £244 billion in assets, declared that they would vote against Lund’s reappointment as chairman over BP’s decision to weaken its climate goals. The five pension funds have a total of £440 million invested in BP, which represents less than 1% of the company’s total shares. During the Q&A portion following the raucous opening remarks, BP fielded often accusatory questions about greenwashing, how it invests its profits, and whether it was aligned with the Paris Agreement goals. A man dialed in from Iraq, telling BP about how his 21-year-old son died of leukemia as a result of pollution from BP oil fields in southern Iraq. On the other side, one man invited BP “to grow a pair” for what he perceived as the company conceding too much on climate change. BP responded that it believes in climate change and the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In the end, BP’s shareholders voted overwhelmingly against the resolutions. In preliminary polls, over 90% voted to retain Lund as chairman, and 83% voted against the Follow This resolution, though a large proportion—280 million—withheld their vote. Commenting on the loss, Katharina Lindmeier, senior responsible investment manager at Nest, the UK’s largest workplace pension fund, said “BP’s decision to weaken its climate targets within a year of setting them, without consulting shareholders, really concerns us. We’re used to seeing companies strengthen climate targets, not water them down.” Lindmeier says the pension fund plans to continue to steer BP toward more sustainable polices. “We want BP to manage climate change risk and invest in the transition so it can remain a profitable business for our members over the coming decades,” she said. The tension between record profits and flagging climate ambitions set BP up for the contentious meeting In February, BP, which is headquartered in London, reported record profits of $28 billion for 2022. In response, it scaled down its climate ambitions, from a goal of 35-40% reduction of emissions from its consumer fossil fuel products, down to 20-30%. And it’s extracting more oil, including from a new offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. BP is aiming to produce two million barrels a day, a 25% reduction from 2019 levels, but less than the previous plan of a 40% cut. BP, like other oil majors, significantly hiked dividends, paying out about $4 billion in 2022. But the big payback wasn’t enough for some shareholders, who noted that BP’s decision to roll back its climate ambitions was not put to a vote, and exposed the company to longterm risks. Five of the UK’s multibillion-dollar pension funds declared their intention to vote against Lund’s reappointment, and three backed the resolution by Follow This. In a statement, Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS), a £91 billion pension fund, said, “We view the paring back of BP’s 2030 targets as a significant negative development, one that we would expect to have been put to an investor vote.” “We have determined that BP has set insufficient emission reduction targets, triggering a vote against the chair of the board in line with our climate voting policy,” said Colin Baines, stewardship manager at Border to Coast Pensions Partnership, noting that shareholders had voted just last year to support BP’s previous climate targets with an “overwhelming mandate.” Among those supporting BP against the shareholder revolt, were investor advisers ISS and Glass Lewis, who recommended that shareholders oppose the Follow This resolution, and the $1.4 trillion Norweigan sovereign wealth fund. The fund, which has a record of boardroom climate activism, voted against the resolution for BP to strengthen its climate targets. While Norway did not provide a reason for taking the stance during this meeting, it is in line with the country’s recent backpedaling on climate ambitions as it seeks to maximize profits from its North Sea oil reserves. A short history of climate-based shareholder revolts The current swell of climate shareholder revolts can be traced back to 2019, when The Children’s Investment fund (TCI), a London-based hedge fund, pushed Spain’s state-owned airport owner, Aena, to hold the world’s first vote on its climate transition plan. Since then, activist shareholder campaigns have been rising. The law firm Slaughter and May, logged hundreds of shareholder resolutions on environmental and social issues, and the number of such resolutions passing is rising. According to RBC Capital Markets, climate and emissions campaigns have gone up from 3% of total shareholder campaigns in 2018, to 8% in 2021. Large oil companies have had mixed success in fending off shareholder revolts. Today’s Follow This resolution proposing that BP strengthen climate targets was the fourth it had filed in five years, and none have passed. Engine No.1, a tiny activist hedge fund, had a shocking victory in 2021, when it succeeded in electing three pro-climate candidates to ExxonMobil’s board. On the same day, the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund backed a successful resolution that required Chevron to include the emissions from its consumer fossil fuel products in their climate reduction plans. The climate-oriented resolutions backed by the UK funds lost, but if BP’s annual general meeting today is any indication, 2023 is gearing up to be a contentious season for oil majors.
BP fended off a shareholder revolt backed by the UK's largest pension funds
BP's annual general meeting was peppered with protests over its decision to slow its climate goals
https://qz.com/bp-general-meeting-interrupted-climate-protesters-1850381817?utm_source=email&utm_medium=Quartz_Daily_Brief_US&utm_content=1850385577
147 more agrees trigger scaled up advertising
Stewart Milne
49 w
https://thebulletin.org/2023/04/faster-than-forecast-climate-impacts-trigger-tipping-points-in-the-earth-system/ Could anthropogenic climate change result in worldwide societal collapse or even eventual human extinction? At present, this is a dangerously underexplored topic … yet there are ample reasons to suspect that climate change could result in a global catastrophe,” wrote the eminent Australian climate scientist Will Steffen and his colleagues in August 2022 in “Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios.” Steffen, who died earlier this year, will be remembered for some of the big, crucial ideas he contributed to the understanding of the Earth system, particularly planetary boundaries, tipping point vulnerabilities and cascades, risk and nonlinearity, and the “hothouse Earth” scenario—ideas developed with Tim Lenton, Johan Rockström, Katherine Richardson, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, and others. In their 2018 “hothouse” paper, Steffen and his colleagues explored the potential for self-reinforcing feedbacks to push the Earth System toward a planetary threshold that, if crossed, “could prevent stabilization of the climate at intermediate temperature rises and cause continued warming on a ‘Hothouse Earth’ pathway even as human emissions are reduced.” This challenged the notion that climate warming was a predictable, linear consequence of increasing levels of greenhouse gases, and instead pointed to critical thresholds, or tipping points, in which a small change causes a larger, more critical change to be initiated, taking the climate system as a whole or particular systems within it from one state to a discretely different state. The loss of polar glaciers, or the Amazon rainforest drying and being replaced by sclerophyll forest, are examples. The change may be abrupt or non-linear—characterized by sudden change rather than smooth progress—and irreversible on relevant time frames. It may also lead to cascading events in which the mutual interaction of individual climate tipping points and/or abrupt changes lead to more profound changes to the entire system. This is already happening. The loss of sea ice in the Arctic is adding to regional warming, accelerating ice melt from Greenland, such that an influx of cold, non-salty water into the North Atlantic is slowing the Gulf Stream, which in turn is changing the Amazon climate. Recent research has confirmed that tipping points and cascades are already occurring, not at 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius of warming, but right now. In one of his last published pieces, a 2022 book chapter, Steffen said, “it is clear from observations of climate change-related impacts in Australia alone—the massive bushfires of the 2019-2020 Black Summer, the third mass bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef in only five years, and long-term cool-season drying of the country’s southeast agricultural zone—that even a 1.1°C temperature rise has put us into a dangerous level of climate change.” While observed warming has been close to climate model projections, the impacts have in many instances been faster and even more extreme than the models forecasted. William Ripple and his co-researchers show that many positive feedbacks are not fully accounted for in climate models. And prominent climate scientist Michael Mann says that when it comes to certain important consequences of warming, including ice sheet collapse, sea level rise, and the rise in extreme weather events, “the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] reports in my view have been overly conservative, in substantial part because of processes that are imperfectly represented in the models.” In September 2022, Stockholm University’s David Armstrong McKay and his colleagues concluded that even global warming of 1-degree Celsius risks triggering some tipping points, just one data point in an alarming mountain of research on tipping points presented in the last year and a half. Denman Glacier, in East Antarctic, was identified as susceptible to collapse of its ice shelf and inundation of the glacier itself, which sits on a retrograde base below sea level. Scientists announced that the Thwaites Glacier ice shelf in West Antarctica was fracturing and likely to result in a speeding up of the glacier’s flow and ice discharge, possibly heralding the collapse of the glacier itself and triggering similar increases across the Amundsen Sea glaciers. “The final collapse of Thwaites Glacier’s last remaining ice shelf may be initiated … within as little as five years,” they said. In November 2022, the State of the Cryosphere report concluded that more than four meters of additional sea level rise was locked in “with sections of the West Antarctic ice sheet potentially collapsing even without any further emissions over the coming centuries.” An ingenious look at the genetic history of Turquet’s octopus and its population movement across Antarctica in past warm periods led to the conclusion that “even under global heating of 1.5°C—the most ambitious goal under the global Paris climate agreement—the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could be consigned to collapse.” In August, researchers showed that the Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979 and concluded it is likely climate models systematically tend to underestimate this amplification. A few months later, scientists reported that Greenland Ice Sheet glaciers are melting 100 times faster than previously calculated. At the end of 2021, Professor Jason Box said that the Greenland Ice Sheet has passed a tipping point: “Technically, now [at 1.2°C] Greenland is beyond its viability threshold… 1.5°C would mean the ‘beyond the threshold’ state is enhanced and the loss [of ice mass] becomes a complex, non-linear, amplified response guaranteeing the ice sheet remains beyond its viability threshold.” Permafrost carbon emissions and the feedback loops they will initiate are not accounted for in most Earth system models or Integrated Assessment Models, including those which informed the IPCC’s special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, nor are they fully accounted for in global emissions budgets. If carbon-cycle feedbacks such as tipping points in forest ecosystems and abrupt permafrost thaw are accounted for, the estimated remaining budget for carbon emissions could disappear altogether. In a ground-breaking 2021 paper, Northern Arizona University’s Katharyn Duffy and colleagues mapped the relationship between increasing temperatures and carbon uptake in Amazon forests by analyzing more than 20 years of data on the transfer of carbon dioxide between plants, land, and the atmosphere; their analysis showed that in recent hot periods the thermal maximum for photosynthesis had been exceeded. At higher temperatures, the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by plants (photosynthesis) will decline sharply, whilst carbon dioxide released by plants (respiration) will continue to rise. In addition, recent evidence shows human fossil fuel emissions are still rising and will not likely plateau until the end of this decade, a far cry from the “carbon law,” which requires halving emissions by 2030 to keep warming to under a 2-degree Celsius trajectory. Current analysis suggests the world is heading to around 3 degrees Celsius of warming, or perhaps 3.5 degrees Celsius in a plausible high-end trajectory. There are fair and reasonable concerns that focusing on worst-case scenarios will cause public despair and paralysis. But when risks are existential, it is precisely those high-end possibilities of system collapse, rather than the middle-of-the-road linear probabilities, that must be the focus of concern and should spur the world to action. Speaking in 2018, Steffen said that the dominant linear, deterministic framework for assessing climate change is flawed, especially at higher levels of temperature rise. Model projections that don’t include these feedback and cascading processes “become less useful at higher temperature levels… or, as my co-author John Schellnhuber says, we are making a big mistake when we think we can ‘park’ the Earth System at any given temperature rise – say 2°C – and expect it to stay there.”
29 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
Stewart Milne
49 w
Researchers discover gene variants in wheat and barley that improve nitrogen utilization Nitrogen as a fertilizer can increase yields. However, too much nitrogen can also have negative effects, such as groundwater pollution, high energy consumption in fertilizer production and the generation of climate-relevant gases. Science is therefore looking for ways to help crops thrive with less nitrogen. Researchers at the University of Bonn have discovered gene variants of the nitrate sensor NPF2.12 that trigger a signal cascade chain at low soil nitrogen levels. This induces stronger root growth, resulting in improved nitrogen utilization. The study has been published in New Phytologist. "We studied a large number of wheat and barley genotypes under different nitrogen supply conditions and analyzed their root architecture and nitrogen accumulation in the plants," says lead author Md. Nurealam Sidiqqui of the Plant Breeding group at the University of Bonn's Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation (INRES). The researchers studied a total of more than 220 different wheat and barley varieties from the last half century of plant breeding. "The wheat varieties studied were selected to cover the breeding history over the last 60 years," explains Prof. Dr. Jens Léon of INRES Plant Breeding. At the University of Bonn's agricultural research campus Klein-Altendorf, the researchers studied these different varieties on trial plots with high nitrogen levels and, for comparison, on plots with low nitrogen application. The team then analyzed, among other aspects root traits characteristics and the nitrogen content of leaves and grains of each variety, and performed genome-wide genetic analyses to find correlations between DNA sequences and the corresponding traits, Prof. Léon further explains. More roots take up more nitrogen from the soil During the evaluation, the researchers came across NPF2.12. Certain variants of this gene caused plants to develop larger root systems when soil nitrogen supply was poor. "It is likely that the gene, or rather the protein it encodes, acts as a sensor that needs to be switched off when nitrogen levels in the soil are low in order to indirectly increase the messenger nitric oxide as part of a signaling cascade, which in turn induces root growth, thereby improving nitrogen utilization," says Dr. Agim Ballvora from the INRES Plant Breeding, who is the paper's corresponding author. "Under low nitrogen conditions and in the presence of certain variants of the NPF2.12 gene, increased nitrogen content in leaves and grains is detectable compared to high nitrogen availability," says Ballvora, who also collaborates with the PhenoRob Cluster of Excellence at the University of Bonn. Consequently, under adverse conditions these varieties give higher yield than those containing the alternative allele, emphasizes Siddiqui. Variants of the NPF2.12 nitrate sensor help with nitrogen utilization The researchers could demonstrate both in the laboratory and in the greenhouse that NPF2.12 is indeed responsible for this improved performance. Wheat plants with a defect in the NPF2.12 gene were analyzed. When nitrogen supply was poor, the corresponding lines having the defect npf2.12 allele behaved like cultivars that inherently have the helpful gene variant. "These results show that NPF2.12 is a negative regulator, whose reduced expression in corresponding cultivars results in more root growth and higher nitrogen content in the shoot through a sophisticated mechanism," explains Prof. Dr. Gabriel Schaaf, member of the PhenoRob Cluster of Excellence from INRES Plant Nutrition. The study falls within the scope of basic research, but also opens important possibilities for plant breeding. "Improved understanding of the genetic and molecular function of nitrogen sensing will accelerate the breeding of varieties with improved nitrogen use efficiency," Ballvora says, looking to the future. However, this would require a better understanding of the individual steps in the signal cascade of the NPF2.12 sensor that result in stronger root growth under nitrogen deficiency. https://phys.org/news/2023-03-gene-variants-wheat-barley-nitrogen.html
23 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
49 w
This is great
•
•
49 w
This is a great invention, congratulations to @BonnUniversity
•
49 w
Amazing! Congratulations @BonnUniversity
Shared by Stewart Milne
RegenIOWA
97 w
We are on a mission to convert 1 million acres of conventional (agrochemical) farmland in Iowa into regenerative agriculture by 2025. Give us a hand - visit us at www.Regen1MilAcres.com Our kickstarter campaign for fundraising hasn't kicked off yet https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/regen1milacres/regenag-in-action-from-conventional-to-regenerative-farms?ref=18j1xh&token=f5daf4e6 Or you can donate directly to the nonprofit.
•
•
97 w
Keep up the good work!
Stewart Milne
52 w
Renewable energy for the first time comprised more electricity generated in the U.S. last year than coal or nuclear power, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The federal agency found the growth was largely driven by increased proliferation of wind and solar energy, which collectively made up 14 percent of U.S. electricity in 2022, up from 12 percent in 2021. Coal power, meanwhile, fell from 23 percent in 2021 to 20 percent in 2022, which the EIA attributed to a combination of retired plants and lower use for the remaining plants. Hydropower generation remained unchanged, at 6%, in 2022. The shares for biomass and geothermal sources remained unchanged, at less than 1%. For a renewable total of 21% Despite the increase in renewable generation, natural gas remained the top source of U.S. electricity, increasing from 37 percent in 2021 to 39 percent in 2022. In a statement to The Hill, Gregory Wetstone, president and CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy, said the surge was largely the result of economic factors, with wind energy and solar energy costs falling by 70 percent and 90 percent, respectively, in the last decade. The Inflation Reduction Act, which passed through Congress with only Democratic votes, included $369 billion in climate and clean energy investments, with the vast majority comprised of tax incentives. “[W]hile much remains to be done to achieve our nation’s climate targets, with the enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act, we now have a clear pathway toward the clean energy future that Americans want and climate scientists say we desperately need,” Wetstone said. “The legislation’s landmark clean energy tax platform is expected to further accelerate U.S. renewable energy development, create hundreds of thousands of good-paying American jobs, and drive a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.” https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3921784-us-electricity-from-renewables-surpasses-coal-for-first-time/ https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55960
145 more agrees trigger scaled up advertising
•
•
•
50 w
Dear Stewart Milne Thank you for getting your climate love to level 2! We have reached out to USAGov and requested a response. I will keep you updated on any progress! /Adam We Don't Have Time
•
•
52 w
Sounds good for the global sustainability
•
52 w
Still a long way to go and a lot of work to do but it's great to see some progress!
Stewart Milne
52 w
Cover crops can help mitigate farmer losses A North Carolina State University study suggests that cover crops—or crops grown in between cash-crop seasons—can help keep Midwestern soil drier and healthier, thereby preventing losses incurred when farmers can't plant cash crops because of flooding or excessive soil moisture. In a study published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics that examined county-level cover-crop planting, crop insurance data and weather measures in 12 states in the U.S. corn belt from 2005 to 2016, researchers found that higher cover-crop adoption led to lower levels of crop insurance losses due to prevented planting, possibly because cover crops helped the soil handle excessive moisture in the spring. "Our study suggests that counties with higher cover-crop adoption rates tend to have smaller prevented-planting losses," said Roderick M. Rejesus, professor and extension specialist in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at NC State and corresponding author of a paper describing the study. "Our results are consistent with the notion that planting cover crops can help control excess water in the soil through improved transpiration and better water infiltration. In turn, improved soil conditions help reduce the likelihood of farmers being prevented from planting their cash crops. "We also find evidence that longer term use of cover crops allows for more accumulation of soil health benefits over time and results in larger reductions in prevented-planting risk in the long term." The effect was not trivial. "A 1% increase in cover-crop adoption translated to nearly $40 million in reduced prevented-planting-related indemnities," he said. In the United States, insured farmers can be compensated if they are prevented from planting due to naturally occurring, insurable causes of loss—like excessive moisture. In response to major Midwestern flooding events, the Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 expanded the scope of the U.S. crop insurance program to cover prevented-planting losses as a basic component of crop insurance policies. Prevented-planting coverage is now widely available for most crops under the federal crop insurance program. This coverage compensates farmers for the pre-planting costs incurred up to the point of not being able to plant the crop. Some farmers use winter cereals like wheat or rye to establish plants that will use water and will dry surface soils while providing an adequate seedbed for the desired cash crop, such as corn or soybeans. About 4% of farmers utilize cover crops nationally, Rejesus said. "Farmers may not see all the benefits of using cover crops because of the initial focus on the costs of planting and then removing them, but this study may provide some more evidence of their overall benefits to their farming operations," Rejesus said. https://phys.org/news/2023-03-crops-mitigate-farmer-losses.html
28 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
•
52 w
This North Carolina State University study highlights the importance of cover crops in helping farmers become more resilient to climate change and protect their livelihoods.
•
52 w
They lead to better water infiltration and water holding capacity in the soil and make the soil less susceptible to erosion from wind and water.
Shared by Stewart Milne
Erlijn van Genuchten
52 w
•
Sustainable development is an important and life-saving principle that helps us solve environmental challenges, such as overuse of resources, environmental degradation, and climate change. To turn the current fossil-based economy into a bio-based economy, it is essential to start relying on renewable resources. An example of a renewable resource is seaweed. It can be used for many applications, including food, animal feed, energy, pharmaceuticals, and bio-based materials. In this article, I explain how seaweed can contribute to sustainable development: https://medium.com/@ErlijnG/dont-underestimate-seaweed-4-ways-seaweed-contributes-to-a-more-sustainable-future-4a5a4ba078f
Don’t Underestimate Seaweed! 4 Ways Seaweed Contributes To A More Sustainable Future
Advantages of seaweed as a crop for sustainable agriculture
https://medium.com/@ErlijnG/dont-underestimate-seaweed-4-ways-seaweed-contributes-to-a-more-sustainable-future-4a5a4ba078f
13 more agrees trigger social media ads
•
•
•
51 w
Dear Erlijn van Genuchten Thank you for getting your climate idea to level 2! We have reached out to Australian Seaweed Institute and asked what they think. I will keep you updated on any progress! /Adam We Don't Have Time
•
•
52 w
Seaweed is one of the best solutions in the climate change restoration.
•
•
52 w
Seaweed has a lot of uses and can come in handy
Shared by Stewart Milne
NCX
52 w
•
The way carbon buyers have traditionally approached carbon markets needs to change. The notion that “every carbon project is automatically good for biodiversity” simply isn’t true. In reality, each carbon project and species has a unique impact and there are a lot of nuances involved. To claim biodiversity benefits, carbon project developers need to provide the relevant quantitative data that carbon buyers can refer to. Without quantitative data to substantiate claims of biodiversity in the carbon market, how can we ever understand the real impact? The carbon credit market has been expanding quickly in recent years, offering financial incentives for individuals, organizations, and governments to participate in reducing carbon emissions and combating the climate crisis. We have a biodiversity crisis and carbon projects offer an opportunity to address some of that, but without clear, accurate measurements on biodiversity, we’ll never know whether it’s working. As the Senior Lead of Natural Capital Development for NCX, Dr. Sophie Gilbert works to expand ecosystem service credits that go beyond carbon credits — and she knows the carbon market needs to do a better job of incorporating biodiversity. In her article, Why Measuring Biodiversity Co-Benefits in Carbon Credits Matters, she paints a transparent picture of the need for biodiversity measurement in carbon credit issuance, what’s at stake if biodiversity isn’t included, and how NCX is doing its part to develop biodiversity in the carbon market. Where is biodiversity in carbon projects? Nature-based carbon projects may tout biodiversity, and biodiversity may play a part in those projects, but existing quantitative data isn't available to back up the claims because only a few rigorous quantitative studies have been conducted. Dr. Gilbert is quick to point out that the lack of quantitative data represents an issue for biodiversity within carbon projects as well as for the effectiveness of the carbon market as a whole. The inability to provide quantitative data on biodiversity in carbon projects leaves carbon buyers in the dark about how effective carbon projects are at delivering benefits to any particular species and it leaves them unable to support projects benefiting biodiversity they may have preferences for. The transparency over biodiversity data through quantitative measurements (both good and bad) will help the carbon market and our planet. Why is biodiversity important and what does it mean for carbon markets? Ecosystems are enormously complex and interconnected. Without a wide range of animals, plants and microorganisms, ecosystems grow unstable and may collapse. Yet, under the current voluntary carbon market, almost no carbon projects deliver credits with the quantified biodiversity impacts reported. For carbon markets to incorporate biodiversity, carbon developers would need to hire biodiversity experts, acquire data, and generally invest in these metrics as a component of their credits. Without the appetite from developers to self-fund these endeavors, and until buyers are willing to pay a premium for credits with biodiversity quantification, it will simply be a checkbox. This “check-box” mentality may seem harmless, but it actually leads to negative long-term effects. For example, when carbon projects are trying to maximize carbon sequestration but ignoring biodiversity, it can lead to negative outcomes like planting non-native species in ecosystems and planting the same species of plants through monocultures. Ecosystems that lack biodiversity are at risk of being overwhelmed by diseases, fires, and other disturbances, which could harm their ability to store carbon in the long term. The carbon market needs to do more due diligence to prove the impact on biodiversity from carbon credits. Dr. Gilbert says we live in a golden age for measuring and modeling biodiversity. She says, “Rapid progress is happening in field-based data collection tools, remote sensing of habitat attributes, and computing power and modeling approaches. This means we can move toward quantitative models of biodiversity additionality for carbon credits.” What we’re doing to develop the biodiverse carbon market At NCX, we are evaluating how our forest carbon program affects biodiversity. Currently, we are developing multi-species models that assess the habitat quality of bird communities across the Southern United States. We can improve our forest carbon programs and learn how forest carbon programs affect biodiversity through these models. By mapping and addressing how one species creates its habitats in forests, we can better understand the interconnectedness of nature-based carbon capture and the species that facilitate these carbon sinks. In taking this action, we are also making sure that our carbon sinks are a part of healthy ecosystems. While we are developing a habitat quality model for birds, we know that birds aren’t the only creature to make up the forest. These models will help us develop expertise in modeling other indispensable forest species like bats, and terrestrial mammals, among many others. But we need your help to create the multi-species model. If you're interested in contributing to data sharing, method development, certification approaches, or investing in biodiversity, please email science@ncx.com. Want to learn more? We recently hosted our own webinar on Why Biodiversity Matters in the Carbon Credit Market, which you can view here. It explains in-depth the long-term value of biodiversity for landowners, communities, and projects like ours. You’ll also learn about the systems we’re putting in place to track, measure, and reward a more biodiverse carbon credit market.
•
•
40 w
I agree with NCX, Biodiversity should be at the forefront of carbon credits.
•
52 w
It's great to read that NCX is developing multi-species models that assess the habitat quality of bird communities across the Southern United States! I recently read in a Pachama We Don't Have Time article that nearly 60% of all North American birds call Louisiana their home at some point.
•
52 w
I really support it because carbon contains some harmful particles which are responsible for global warming hence should be used in small quantities and eventually abandoned
Stewart Milne
52 w
Ford said Friday(24March2023) that its $5.6 billion BlueOval City complex outside of Memphis, Tennessee will include a truck plant capable of producing 500,000 electric vehicles a year. The first vehicle to come off the line will be a next-gen electric truck, code named Project T3, in 2025. Construction at BlueOval City, the epicenter for its future EV and battery cell manufacturing and a key component toward its goal to sell 2 million EVs annually by late 2026, began last fall. “BlueOval City is the blueprint for Ford’s electric future around the world,” Bill Ford, Ford’s executive chair, said in a statement. “We will build revolutionary electric vehicles at an advanced manufacturing site that works in harmony with the planet, aligning business growth and innovation with environmental progress.” The T3, which Ford says stands for Trust the Truck, will be a clean sheet design, unlike its current EV truck, the F-150 Lightning. The T3 will be a “software-defined” vehicle capable of over-the-air updates, the company said. The automaker is developing its second-generation EV truck alongside the all-new assembly plant in an effort to increase operating efficiencies, an area where Ford has struggled. The general assembly footprint will be 30% smaller than traditional plants while delivering higher production capacity, the company said. The plant will also use carbon-free electricity from the day it opens. Ford will use recovered energy from the site’s utility infrastructure and geothermal system to provide carbon-free heat for the assembly plant, a decision that the company said will save about 300 million cubic feet of natural gas typically needed each year to heat similarly sized vehicle assembly plants. Other energy and water saving technologies will be used on the 3,600-acre campus, such as a zero-waste-to-landfill site designed to use no fresh water for its assembly processes. https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/24/ford-to-build-next-gen-ev-truck-at-5-6b-factory-in-2025/?_hsmi=251824857&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9ewYNfDDWHhAF7tqIfOrs2_2ORJTXrajY9N0lsdmqntjJy8tVNSjS-Xh9a8PDWuRZNUaxmNnG0RzrZ338KMWU63NwueA
Ford to build next-gen EV truck at $5.6B factory in 2025
Ford said it will build its next-gen electric truck at its $5.6 billion vehicle assembly and battery cell manufacturing factory in Tennessee.
https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/24/ford-to-build-next-gen-ev-truck-at-5-6b-factory-in-2025/?_hsmi=251824857&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9ewYNfDDWHhAF7tqIfOrs2_2ORJTXrajY9N0lsdmqntjJy8tVNSjS-Xh9a8PDWuRZNUaxmNnG0RzrZ338KMWU63NwueA
23 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
•
52 w
Great step!Looking forward to its implementation.
•
•
52 w
Clean energy all the way
•
•
52 w
Great investments for transition to clean energy.
Stewart Milne
52 w
A list of investments since 2016 is topped by several US-based banks Since the Paris Agreement in 2016, the biggest banks that fund the fossil fuel industry seem to have minimally decreased their support, and in some cases are actually increasing their funding. That’s according to the 2022 Fossil Fuel Finance report (pdf), which is published by a conglomerate of organizations including Banktrack, Reclaim Finance, Oil Change International, the Sierra Club, and the Rainforest Action Network. The methodology of the report states that the authors totaled financing (lending, and underwriting of debt and equity issuances) from the world’s 60 biggest banks for the fossil fuel sector as a whole, as well as for top expanders of the fossil fuel industry and top companies in specific sectors. According to the report, the worst offenders are JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi, and Bank of America. Other top bank financiers are RBC, MUFG, Barclays, Mizuho, Scotiabank, BNP Paribas, TD, and Morgan Stanley. Funding more climate chaos Perhaps the most troubling trend is the financing by JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, which increased their fossil fuel funding since 2020 by $9.98 billion and $19.57 billion respectively. The Paris Agreement’s guidelines for banks included setting and publicly disclosing long-term and intermediate targets, among other goals to reduce global emissions. Wells Fargo last May announced interim greenhouse gas reduction targets for oil and gas in an effort to claim net-zero emissions by 2050. JPMorgan Chase stated that it committed in October 2020 to align key sectors of its financing portfolio with what it considers to be the primary goals of the Paris Agreement. But the 2022 report shows that while these banks have made net-zero pledges and may be decreasing their own company carbon footprints, they are still heavily investing in fossil fuels. JPMorgan Chase leads investments with 34% more than the next bank since 2016, having provided fossil fuel companies with $382.4 billion in funding since that year. Top investments from banks went to QatarEnergy, Gazprom, Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, along with a long list of other oil and gas companies. Citi has funded a total of $285.3 billion since 2016, Bank of America has funded $232 billion, and Wells Fargo has funded $271.8 billion. In total, the report found big banks around the world have put $4.58 trillion dollars toward fossil fuel companies since the Paris Agreement. These banks are the biggest funders of the fossil fuel industry A list of investments since 2016 is topped by several US-based banks https://qz.com/banks-biggest-funders-of-fossil-fuel-industry-1850252987?utm_source=email&utm_medium=daily-brief&utm_content=
These banks are the biggest funders of the fossil fuel industry
A list of investments since 2016 is topped by several US-based banks
https://qz.com/banks-biggest-funders-of-fossil-fuel-industry-1850252987?utm_source=email&utm_medium=daily-brief&utm_content=
150 more agrees trigger scaled up advertising
•
52 w
I wish this financial institutions could divert this resources to sustainable green projects....
•
•
52 w
The banks should be held accountable for funding a crisis.
•
52 w
these banks should channel their aid to organizations fighting climate change
Stewart Milne
52 w
A list of investments since 2016 is topped by several US-based banks Since the Paris Agreement in 2016, the biggest banks that fund the fossil fuel industry seem to have minimally decreased their support, and in some cases are actually increasing their funding. That’s according to the 2022 Fossil Fuel Finance report (pdf), which is published by a conglomerate of organizations including Banktrack, Reclaim Finance, Oil Change International, the Sierra Club, and the Rainforest Action Network. The methodology of the report states that the authors totaled financing (lending, and underwriting of debt and equity issuances) from the world’s 60 biggest banks for the fossil fuel sector as a whole, as well as for top expanders of the fossil fuel industry and top companies in specific sectors. According to the report, the worst offenders are JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi, and Bank of America. Other top bank financiers are RBC, MUFG, Barclays, Mizuho, Scotiabank, BNP Paribas, TD, and Morgan Stanley. Funding more climate chaos Perhaps the most troubling trend is the financing by JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, which increased their fossil fuel funding since 2020 by $9.98 billion and $19.57 billion respectively. The Paris Agreement’s guidelines for banks included setting and publicly disclosing long-term and intermediate targets, among other goals to reduce global emissions. Wells Fargo last May announced interim greenhouse gas reduction targets for oil and gas in an effort to claim net-zero emissions by 2050. JPMorgan Chase stated that it committed in October 2020 to align key sectors of its financing portfolio with what it considers to be the primary goals of the Paris Agreement. But the 2022 report shows that while these banks have made net-zero pledges and may be decreasing their own company carbon footprints, they are still heavily investing in fossil fuels. JPMorgan Chase leads investments with 34% more than the next bank since 2016, having provided fossil fuel companies with $382.4 billion in funding since that year. Top investments from banks went to QatarEnergy, Gazprom, Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, along with a long list of other oil and gas companies. Citi has funded a total of $285.3 billion since 2016, Bank of America has funded $232 billion, and Wells Fargo has funded $271.8 billion. In total, the report found big banks around the world have put $4.58 trillion dollars toward fossil fuel companies since the Paris Agreement. These banks are the biggest funders of the fossil fuel industry A list of investments since 2016 is topped by several US-based banks https://qz.com/banks-biggest-funders-of-fossil-fuel-industry-1850252987?utm_source=email&utm_medium=daily-brief&utm_content=
These banks are the biggest funders of the fossil fuel industry
A list of investments since 2016 is topped by several US-based banks
https://qz.com/banks-biggest-funders-of-fossil-fuel-industry-1850252987?utm_source=email&utm_medium=daily-brief&utm_content=
149 more agrees trigger scaled up advertising
•
52 w
so unfortunate
•
52 w
We need banks to factor ESG issues in lending.
•
•
52 w
There should be a way to hold this funders accountable because they are fueling a crisis.
Stewart Milne
52 w
A list of investments since 2016 is topped by several US-based banks Since the Paris Agreement in 2016, the biggest banks that fund the fossil fuel industry seem to have minimally decreased their support, and in some cases are actually increasing their funding. That’s according to the 2022 Fossil Fuel Finance report (pdf), which is published by a conglomerate of organizations including Banktrack, Reclaim Finance, Oil Change International, the Sierra Club, and the Rainforest Action Network. The methodology of the report states that the authors totaled financing (lending, and underwriting of debt and equity issuances) from the world’s 60 biggest banks for the fossil fuel sector as a whole, as well as for top expanders of the fossil fuel industry and top companies in specific sectors. According to the report, the worst offenders are JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi, and Bank of America. Other top bank financiers are RBC, MUFG, Barclays, Mizuho, Scotiabank, BNP Paribas, TD, and Morgan Stanley. Funding more climate chaos Perhaps the most troubling trend is the financing by JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, which increased their fossil fuel funding since 2020 by $9.98 billion and $19.57 billion respectively. The Paris Agreement’s guidelines for banks included setting and publicly disclosing long-term and intermediate targets, among other goals to reduce global emissions. Wells Fargo last May announced interim greenhouse gas reduction targets for oil and gas in an effort to claim net-zero emissions by 2050. JPMorgan Chase stated that it committed in October 2020 to align key sectors of its financing portfolio with what it considers to be the primary goals of the Paris Agreement. But the 2022 report shows that while these banks have made net-zero pledges and may be decreasing their own company carbon footprints, they are still heavily investing in fossil fuels. JPMorgan Chase leads investments with 34% more than the next bank since 2016, having provided fossil fuel companies with $382.4 billion in funding since that year. Top investments from banks went to QatarEnergy, Gazprom, Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, along with a long list of other oil and gas companies. Citi has funded a total of $285.3 billion since 2016, Bank of America has funded $232 billion, and Wells Fargo has funded $271.8 billion. In total, the report found big banks around the world have put $4.58 trillion dollars toward fossil fuel companies since the Paris Agreement. These banks are the biggest funders of the fossil fuel industry A list of investments since 2016 is topped by several US-based banks https://qz.com/banks-biggest-funders-of-fossil-fuel-industry-1850252987?utm_source=email&utm_medium=daily-brief&utm_content=
These banks are the biggest funders of the fossil fuel industry
A list of investments since 2016 is topped by several US-based banks
https://qz.com/banks-biggest-funders-of-fossil-fuel-industry-1850252987?utm_source=email&utm_medium=daily-brief&utm_content=
112 more agrees trigger scaled up advertising
•
52 w
Very bad
•
•
52 w
Shame on them... They should redirect these resources to more eco-friendly projects such as clean energy, electric transportation and tree planting
•
•
52 w
Banks!Banks! Is it just me or are they being called out left right and centre.
Stewart Milne
52 w
A list of investments since 2016 is topped by several US-based banks Since the Paris Agreement in 2016, the biggest banks that fund the fossil fuel industry seem to have minimally decreased their support, and in some cases are actually increasing their funding. That’s according to the 2022 Fossil Fuel Finance report (pdf), which is published by a conglomerate of organizations including Banktrack, Reclaim Finance, Oil Change International, the Sierra Club, and the Rainforest Action Network. The methodology of the report states that the authors totaled financing (lending, and underwriting of debt and equity issuances) from the world’s 60 biggest banks for the fossil fuel sector as a whole, as well as for top expanders of the fossil fuel industry and top companies in specific sectors. According to the report, the worst offenders are JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi, and Bank of America. Other top bank financiers are RBC, MUFG, Barclays, Mizuho, Scotiabank, BNP Paribas, TD, and Morgan Stanley. Funding more climate chaos Perhaps the most troubling trend is the financing by JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, which increased their fossil fuel funding since 2020 by $9.98 billion and $19.57 billion respectively. The Paris Agreement’s guidelines for banks included setting and publicly disclosing long-term and intermediate targets, among other goals to reduce global emissions. Wells Fargo last May announced interim greenhouse gas reduction targets for oil and gas in an effort to claim net-zero emissions by 2050. JPMorgan Chase stated that it committed in October 2020 to align key sectors of its financing portfolio with what it considers to be the primary goals of the Paris Agreement. But the 2022 report shows that while these banks have made net-zero pledges and may be decreasing their own company carbon footprints, they are still heavily investing in fossil fuels. JPMorgan Chase leads investments with 34% more than the next bank since 2016, having provided fossil fuel companies with $382.4 billion in funding since that year. Top investments from banks went to QatarEnergy, Gazprom, Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, along with a long list of other oil and gas companies. Citi has funded a total of $285.3 billion since 2016, Bank of America has funded $232 billion, and Wells Fargo has funded $271.8 billion. In total, the report found big banks around the world have put $4.58 trillion dollars toward fossil fuel companies since the Paris Agreement. https://qz.com/banks-biggest-funders-of-fossil-fuel-industry-1850252987?utm_source=email&utm_medium=daily-brief&utm_content=
These banks are the biggest funders of the fossil fuel industry
A list of investments since 2016 is topped by several US-based banks
https://qz.com/banks-biggest-funders-of-fossil-fuel-industry-1850252987?utm_source=email&utm_medium=daily-brief&utm_content=
150 more agrees trigger scaled up advertising
•
•
21 w
We have to stop fueling the climate crisis by investing in the fossil fuel industry which soon will be a so called “stranded asset”
•
•
52 w
These banks should act responsibly.
•
•
52 w
They should be held accountable for the huge damage these fossil fuel has caused our mother nature
Stewart Milne
52 w
A leaked draft revealed how the meat industry is obstructing efforts to curb climate change It’s no secret that climate change discourse is shrouded in obfuscation, disinformation, greenwashing and lies, both outright and of omission. But a recent leak of a draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released on March 20 has been particularly enlightening when it comes to just how much how delegations negotiate, watered down, and delete scientists’ findings. Micheal Thomas, who writes the climate newsletter Distilled, outlined the shift in wording driven by Brazil and Argentina, countries with large and influential beef industries. As Thomas points out, the IPCC report’s authors initially recommended a shift to plant-based diets, stating that “plant-based diets can reduce GHG emissions by up to 50% compared to the average emission-intensive Western diet,” according to a draft leaked by Scientist Rebellion. In the published report, the line was changed to “balanced, sustainable healthy diets acknowledging nutritional needs,” skirting a direct mention of beef and dairy, what a sustainable diet actually looks like, or any reference to the Western and largely wealthy countries that should most urgently start eating less meat. While Monday’s IPCC report was the result of synthesizing years of research, Brazil and Argentina have been diligently pushing to delete references to “plant-based diets,” meat as a “high-carbon” food, and “Meatless Mondays” for years, according to a previous draft leaked in 2021 and analyzed by Unearthed, Greenpeace’s investigative outlet. The money and the future at stake Climate action within the meat and dairy industries faces substantial economic and political headwinds. The global beef industry was estimated at about $400 billion in 2022, and Brazil and Argentina both have long-standing, powerful beef lobbies who have held positions in government and influenced important climate policy. The meat and dairy industry produces 14.5% (pdf) of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization—more than half of the environmental impact of food production as a whole. Other revelations from the leak include Norway watering down wording about the urgency to reduce emissions; China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt calling for references to “subsidies” to be deleted; Saudi Arabia pushing to suggest carbon capture and storage as a suitable replacement for using renewable energy; and Switzerland and the US pushing back on a reference to developing countries’ access to climate financing.
150 more agrees trigger scaled up advertising
•
•
52 w
They don't want to lose their customers and profits
•
•
52 w
The culprits will always resist the policies to limit their actions.
Stewart Milne
52 w
A leaked draft revealed how the meat industry is obstructing efforts to curb climate change It’s no secret that climate change discourse is shrouded in obfuscation, disinformation, greenwashing and lies, both outright and of omission. But a recent leak of a draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released on March 20 has been particularly enlightening when it comes to just how much how delegations negotiate, watered down, and delete scientists’ findings. Micheal Thomas, who writes the climate newsletter Distilled, outlined the shift in wording driven by Brazil and Argentina, countries with large and influential beef industries. As Thomas points out, the IPCC report’s authors initially recommended a shift to plant-based diets, stating that “plant-based diets can reduce GHG emissions by up to 50% compared to the average emission-intensive Western diet,” according to a draft leaked by Scientist Rebellion. In the published report, the line was changed to “balanced, sustainable healthy diets acknowledging nutritional needs,” skirting a direct mention of beef and dairy, what a sustainable diet actually looks like, or any reference to the Western and largely wealthy countries that should most urgently start eating less meat. While Monday’s IPCC report was the result of synthesizing years of research, Brazil and Argentina have been diligently pushing to delete references to “plant-based diets,” meat as a “high-carbon” food, and “Meatless Mondays” for years, according to a previous draft leaked in 2021 and analyzed by Unearthed, Greenpeace’s investigative outlet. The money and the future at stake Climate action within the meat and dairy industries faces substantial economic and political headwinds. The global beef industry was estimated at about $400 billion in 2022, and Brazil and Argentina both have long-standing, powerful beef lobbies who have held positions in government and influenced important climate policy. The meat and dairy industry produces 14.5% (pdf) of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization—more than half of the environmental impact of food production as a whole. Other revelations from the leak include Norway watering down wording about the urgency to reduce emissions; China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt calling for references to “subsidies” to be deleted; Saudi Arabia pushing to suggest carbon capture and storage as a suitable replacement for using renewable energy; and Switzerland and the US pushing back on a reference to developing countries’ access to climate financing. https://qz.com/ipcc-report-on-climate-change-meat-industry-1850261179?utm_source=email&utm_medium=Quartz_Daily_Brief_US&utm_content=1850267823
The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet
A leaked draft revealed how the meat industry is obstructing efforts to curb climate change
https://qz.com/ipcc-report-on-climate-change-meat-industry-1850261179?utm_source=email&utm_medium=Quartz_Daily_Brief_US&utm_content=1850267823
1 more agrees trigger social media ads
•
•
49 w
This is quite alarming, meat industry should take an about turn to save both our climate and people's health.
•
52 w
It is extremely concerning that the meat industry has taken such drastic steps to prevent the IPCC from recommending a plant-based diet. People of all ages and backgrounds should have access to nutritional information that could potentially improve their health and help protect the planet. It should not be left to corporate interests to decide what the public should know.
•
52 w
This is too bad
Stewart Milne
52 w
Saudi Arabia, Norway, the US, and other companies will spend $214 billion on new offshore oil projects over the next two years Offshore oil is booming. According to the research firm, Rystad, spending on offshore oil investments exceeded $100 billion in 2022 for the first time in a decade, and will do so again in 2023 and 2024. Norway, the Scandinavian country that has positioned itself as a climate leader, is driving some of this boom. Norway is spending $21.4 billion on oil projects this year, an increase of 22% from the previous year. Norway’s investment in offshore oil is among the highest in the world this year, according to Rystad. It lands behind the $33 billion that will be spent on offshore projects in the Middle East, but ahead of countries like the US, which is putting $17 billion in offshore investments, and the UK with $7 billion. Offshore projects are designed to pump oil for decades; investments that begin this year could continue to churn out oil well into the 2050s. Norway’s good deeds were always funded by oil and gas Norway’s fuzzy commitments to easing climate change feel like solutions to a problem that is, in no small part, of its own making. Norway is one of the world’s top exporters of oil. Since the 1990s, the country has funneled its oil revenues into the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund—which, with $1.4 trillion in assets, is now the world’s largest. The fund is among the biggest investors in the world, and it uses its considerable financial influence to advance its values. In recent years, it has dropped or put under close observation Thai, Israeli, Polish, Chinese and Indian companies over human rights abuses, and has wielded its power to bend companies toward net-zero goals. Some of the pro-climate positions that Norway has taken includes demanding transparency from Exxon to prevent the kind of corporate lobbying that leads to bad climate policies. Norway has also pushed Chevron to commit to taking responsibility for “Scope 3" emissions—the broadest definition of the pollution that any company produces. This would include lowering customers’ emissions (as well as Chevron’s own), for example, by reducing the carbon intensity of its fossil fuel products. In 2022, Norway announced its goal to have every company in its portfolio reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and followed that up by voting against 61 directors at 18 companies for not doing enough to mitigate climate risk. This February, Norway said that it will continue to use its votes to push out directors and board members who fall short of climate goals. Norway is trying to put policy where its money is But high oil prices are also inspiring other priorities, and Norway is joining a trend among flush oil companies and countries to refocus on fossil fuel extraction, sometimes at the expense of renewables. Norway has backed its refreshed interest in fossil fuel extraction with international policy. In the IPCC’s mammoth climate report released on March 20, Norway negotiated for wiggle room for its oil and gas investments, watering down language about limiting human-caused climate change from “deep, rapid and sustained” reductions, to “strong” emissions reductions—an imprecise word that accommodates its backtracking on North Sea projects https://qz.com/the-temptation-of-high-oil-prices-is-shaking-norway-s-c-1850256659?utm_source=email&utm_medium=Quartz_Daily_Brief_US&utm_content=1850267823
High oil prices are shaking Norway’s climate commitments
Saudi Arabia, Norway, the US, and other countries will spend $214 billion on new offshore oil projects over the next two years
https://qz.com/the-temptation-of-high-oil-prices-is-shaking-norway-s-c-1850256659?utm_source=email&utm_medium=Quartz_Daily_Brief_US&utm_content=1850267823
5 more agrees trigger social media ads
•
•
•
52 w
Dear Stewart Milne Thank you for getting your climate warning to level 2! We have reached out to Norway (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and asked for a response. I will keep you updated on any progress! /Adam We Don't Have Time
•
•
52 w
We have ato chose climate over money
•
•
52 w
Norway has never been too interested in reducing its oil extraction and hence emissions but the current context is definitely not helping
Stewart Milne
53 w
PepsiCo to pump $216m into US regenerative ag: ‘We’re putting our money where our mouth is’ March 21, 2023 Elaine Watson PepsiCo has unveiled plans to pump $216 million into regenerative agriculture projects spanning 3 million acres of farmland in the US. The plan involves multi-year partnerships with Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI), Soil and Water Outcomes Fund (SWOF), and the IL Corn Growers Association (ICGA). The initiative aims to deliver three million metric tons of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions and removals by 2030. The partnerships will help PepsiCo achieve its pep+ targets to drive the adoption of regenerative ag practices across 7 million acres (roughly the size of PepsiCo’s agricultural footprint) by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2040. PepsiCo recently faced criticism about its ability to reach its net zero goals. https://agfundernews.com/pepsico-to-pump-216m-into-us-regenerative-ag-projects
8 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
43 w
Very impressive
•
53 w
This is a very impactful initiative, We appreciate the efforts
•
•
53 w
Channeling funds for the right course, incredible!
Stewart Milne
53 w
PepsiCo to pump $216m into US regenerative ag: ‘We’re putting our money where our mouth is’ March 21, 2023 Elaine Watson PepsiCo has unveiled plans to pump $216 million into regenerative agriculture projects spanning 3 million acres of farmland in the US. The plan involves multi-year partnerships with Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI), Soil and Water Outcomes Fund (SWOF), and the IL Corn Growers Association (ICGA). The initiative aims to deliver three million metric tons of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions and removals by 2030. The partnerships will help PepsiCo achieve its pep+ targets to drive the adoption of regenerative ag practices across 7 million acres (roughly the size of PepsiCo’s agricultural footprint) by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2040. PepsiCo recently faced criticism about its ability to reach its net zero goals. https://agfundernews.com/pepsico-to-pump-216m-into-us-regenerative-ag-projects Does this go far enough?
•
•
53 w
This is a huge undertaking intended to bring great results.
•
•
53 w
now that's a proper definition of putting your money where your mouth is
Write or agree to climate reviews to make businesses and world leaders act. It’s easy and it works.
Certified accounts actively looking for your opinion on their climate impact.
One tree is planted for every climate review written to an organization that is Open for Climate Dialogue™.
•
39 w
weakening the targets will slow down the needs to solve environmental crisis
•
•
47 w
Stop BP now for a better future
•
•
48 w
Do leaders of the world have another way to deal with BP.