Search Results

The NGFS just published its updated long-term climate scenarios that map out how economies may be impacted by climate change. Including the latest climate data and record extreme weather, projectec physical risks from climate change on GDP has quadrupled by 2050 in some scenarios. What It Matters At 3 C warming results in 30% loss in GDP growth. Investments must increase to at least $900 billion to $2.1 trillion per year — 1% of global GDP — to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, according to UNEP Requires a carbon price of $300 per ton by 2035 to transition to net zero by 2050. Are You Listening? “The expected economic impact of unabated climate change has significantly increased,” the NGFS said. “Due to the implementation of the new damage function, the projected physical risk impact has quadrupled by 2050 in some scenarios.” The Central Banks and Supervisors Network for Greening the Financial System ( NGFS ) is a group of 141 central banks and supervisors and 21 observers, who on a voluntary basis, exchange experiences, share best practices, contribute to the development of environment and climate risk management in the financial sector, and to mobilize mainstream finance to support the transition toward a sustainable economy. NGFS purpose is to define and promote best practices to be implemented within and outside of the Membership of the NGFS and to conduct or commission analytical work on green finance.

Amongst the mayhem and noise, BNEF ’s US clean energy 2035 forecast under the new administration shows 83% of renewable energy deployments when compared to Biden’s original IRA. Under a full repeal of the IRA tax credits and over the period 2025-2035, wind, solar, and energy storage sectors could experience a 17% drop in total new capacity. This is still 927 gigawatts (GW) of cumulative build compared to 1,118GW in BNEF’s base case forecast.   Why It Matters Wind would drop 35% drop, which is a 65% increase. Energy storage would drop 15%, which is an 85% increase. Solar would drop 13%, which is an 87% increase.   The Steps Forward The US is on track to see over 25% growth in annual clean energy installations in 2024. Republican states:   Republican states  have received 80% of the IRA’s money to date. It is difficult for politicians to run against job creation. These funds have created thousands of jobs and built factories. Washington State:  Voters rejected Ballot Initiative 2117 to repeal the  Climate Commitment Act , which authorized a market-based “cap and invest” program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 95% by 2050. California:  Voters approved the $10 billion bond Proposition 4  to fund climate resilience to addressing wildfires, droughts, and heatwaves. Federal Emergency Management Agency states that for each $1 spent on climate resilience, it saves taxpayers $6 on disaster relief. Louisiana: Voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring revenue received from renewable energy production to fund Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund. Louisiana has lost almost 1,900 square miles of coastland. This is slightly smaller than the EU27 country Luxembourg. South Dakota:  Voters rejected a ballot measure  to ease construction of CCS pipelines. While the U.S. may take steps back in the near-term, it is clear that there exists momentum to mitigate climate change and become more resilient to catastrophic wildfires, flooding, and hurricanes.

As of today, 2024 will be the warmest year on record. 2024 is the first year greater than 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels. We are overacheivers. Emissions need to go down, not up, to decrease risks to our economies and our communities. Why It Matters The annual temperature for 2024 is forecast to be greater than 1.55°C above pre-industrial levels. In the U.S. in 2024, extreme weather has cost $62 billion. The costs of extreme weather in the U.S. in 2024 is greater than the GDP of more than 50% of the countries on Earth. Extreme weather in the U.S. in 2024 costs more than the GDP of the U.S. states of Wyoming or Vermont or the GDP of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Details Increasing emissions directly impacts our economy by increasingly extreme weather costs and risks to communities. In the U.S., as of November 1, 2024, year-to-date, there have been 24 confirmed weather/climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each to affect United States. These events included 17 severe storm events, 4 tropical cyclone events, 1 wildfire event, and 2 winter storm events. This comes at a price tag of at least $62 billion and 418 people dead. To put this in perspective, $62 billion in damage to the U.S. is greater than the GDP of the U.S. states of Wyoming or Vermont or the GDP of Tulsa, Oklahoma.

"Hope is definitely not the same thing as optimism. It is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." Chapter 5: The Politics of Hope President Václav Havel

Shot Having spent many years on the COP speaking circuit, I was hesitant to attend COP16 given that talking is not what we at Responsible Alpha  do, instead we partner with institutions so that they can easily act to make the necessary transition to a sustainable economy happen.   This year, I had the distinct honor to join Gwen Bridge and Flavio Affinito at COP16, both leaders at Responsible Alpha on our Board of Directors and Advisory Council. Chaser Yet as a Colombian American, having spoken at over 400 events in my 20+ year career as a sustainable research manager, I observed the following in Cali at COP16: The administration of COP16 exceeded all the other COPs at which I have spoken. The program was superb and focused on implementation. During COP, numerous informal groups of leading institutions were discussing action plans. But, in general, the private sector has taken little to any action to materially address ecosystem degradation, with wildlife populations decreasing by over 70% and natural resource extraction increasing threefold over the past 50 years. Yet, this degradation of biodiversity and ecosystem services already has destabilized financial systems and credit portfolios while the World Bank forecast this degradation will reduce global GDP by $2.5 trillion to $3.0 trillion by 2030. … And So Now What? Beware Biowashing Since the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) was adopted in 2022, countries have committed to ambitious goals, like the "30x30" pledge, to protect 30% of land and marine areas by 2030. This pledge aligns biodiversity protection with climate resilience by involving Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in preservation efforts. The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and Nature Restoration Law have further cemented these objectives, while nations like China have submitted National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) to solidify their commitments. But 85% of countries missed their COP16 NBSAP submission deadline. Major economies like Germany and the UK have not delivered updated plans, while the U.S. is not a signatory. Yet, as Target 19 of the GBF calls for $200 billion annually to meet these goals, only $250 million of the necessary $20 billion in international financial flows has been secured to date, highlighting a pressing funding shortfall. While momentum for the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) is gaining traction, with over 400 organizations reporting or preparing to report against its guidelines, equal to $6 trillion in market capitalization, enormous gaps remain. The CBD’s Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) is to “Minimize the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and build resilience” with its 23 ambitious targets aimed at halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030, with a longer-term vision of living in harmony with nature by 2050.  Yet very few countries are taking concrete action. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IBPES) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) need to actively collaborate beyond their 2021 joint report . Private sector institutions must move beyond rhetoric, as observed at COP16, to hiring seasoned ecologists and scientists into leadership roles, with corresponding budget, and authority to impact day-to-day business decisions. Be far most, if not almost all, private sector institutions lack any scientific understanding of the underlying natural capital and biodiversity risks they face as exhibited by their lack of hiring scientists into leadership positions. Just ask yourself – how many board members of corporations in the S&P 500 are trained ecologists and understand biodiversity risks? So as we fly home, grateful to our gracious hosts, companies beware as without competent executive leadership by trained scientists, you are guaranteed to face significant legal and reputational risks from biowashing,  parallel to the greenwashing risks facing your climate colleagues.

At the Oeiras Bluetech Ocean Forum  held on October 16 and 17, 2024 in Lisbon, Portugal, Responsible Alpha Director Hermen Westerbeeke addressed the danger of “Blue Economy” becoming a label that is equated with sustainable, equitable, and responsible activities and discussed the different shades of blue the Blue Economy comes in.  Why it matters   While the Green Economy is a globally accepted term to refer to low carbon, resource efficient, and socially inclusive non-anthropogenic economic activities, yet the Blue Economy is not simply the ocean part of this Green Economy.  Blue Economy is generally viewed as referring to sustainable, equitable, and responsible activities but is also used to refer to activities that clearly are not.  The Blue Economy concept needs a definition and founding principles for all blue economy-related work through the lens of conservation and sustainable use across the globe.  The overlap between Nature-based Solutions and Blue Economy should only contain solutions that make a positive contribution. Maintaining the status quo is not good enough!  Origins of the Blue Economy   The term Blue Economy has its origins in the global discussions on the environment, climate change, and sustainable development that culminated in the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development of 1992, a.k.a. The Earth Summit. At the Earth Summit, the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) concluded that it did not make sense for them to talk about the Green Economy with its terrestrial focus and moved to broaden the debate. Next, the Belgian economist Gunter Pauli is credited in coming up with the concept of a Blue Economy in 1994, the year he created Zero Emissions Research and Initiatives (ZERI). In 2009 the ZERI Report "The Blue Economy: 100 innovations - 10 years - 100 million jobs" was submitted to and accepted by the Club of Rome. By 2012, at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, the Rio+20 Summit, Blue Economy was recognised as encompassing all economic activities in the maritime sector, provided that these were consistent with sustainable development. Three years earlier, however, Pacific Island Countries declared through the IUCN Oceania Regional Office that the challenges of protecting and preserving the health of marine and coastal ecosystems and living marine resources were critical.  At the same time terms like Marine Economy, Maritime Economy, Ocean Economy, and Coastal Economy have been around for much longer than Blue Economy, so it is high time to create some clarity around the use of all these terms.  Towards a regenerative Blue Economy   In an effort to distinguish between different Blue Economy activities, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with the support of the French Development Cooperation (AFD) developed a framework of defining three types of a Blue Economy from the perspective of conservation and sustainable development.  The Brown Blue Economy refers to the anthropocentric use of Ocean resources that has been around as long as mankind itself. It is based on a conventional and neoclassical economic model that sees the Ocean as an endless resource. The Green Blue Economy is the aquatic version of the terrestrial Green Economy that is consistent with sustainable development and for us at Responsible Alpha should integrate Environmental, Social, and Governance issues.    The Regenerative Blue Economy goes one step further by being an actor in the fight against climate change and biodiversity loss and contributing positively to these issues. The term Ocean-positive Economy has already been used in this context. In economic terms, a regenerative Blue Economy seeks robust sustainability and recognises the principle of non-substitution for natural capital as the basis, implying that the priority is the conservation of blue natural capital.  The excellent report detailing this framework entitled “Mapping Flows of Blue Economy Finance - Mapping the Blue Economy” is available in French and English .  Definition and Founding Principles A regenerative Blue Economy is an economic model that combines rigorous and effective regeneration and protection of the Ocean and marine and coastal ecosystems with sustainable, low, or no carbon economic activities, and fair prosperity for people and the planet, now and in the future.  The protection, restoration, resilience, and regeneration of marine and coastal ecosystems, marine resources, and natural capital are priorities. Combating climate change and biodiversity losses are included in this list. The precautionary principle is applied when the impacts of an activity on marine and coastal ecosystems are still poorly understood. The ecosystem approach must be applied.  The economic system set up around regenerative Blue Economy must prioritise inclusion, fairness, and solidarity, guarantee the well-being and resilience of impacted populations, and reduce their vulnerability to climate change. It must be economically sustainable and supported by responsible sources of funding that subscribe to these same principles.  Regenerative Blue Economy must have an inclusive and participatory governance system, with a transparent approach for reliable, scientifically grounded assessments. The system must be flexible, with ad hoc legal and regulatory instruments, and it must be integrated into international agreements and commitments on climate change and biodiversity conservation.  Regenerative Blue Economy must have low or no carbon activities with a positive impact on the regeneration of marine and coastal ecosystems and the well-being of local populations. It must follow the principles of a sustainable circular economy by saving marine resources and minimising waste.  Regenerative Blue Economy must be implemented as a priority in island States with specific requirements. It must take into account the needs of coastal populations, Indigenous peoples in particular, and recognise their traditions.  So what?   The recent article “ Mapping flows of blue economy finance: Ambitious narratives, opaque actions, and social equity risks ” by Marleen Simone Schutter et al, an analysis of $5.9 billion blue-economy-labelled money flows disbursed between 2017 and 2021 shows $23 million going into “Oil/Gas/Seabed Mining”. It may be a mere 0.4% of the $5.9 billion total, but it nonetheless illustrates the problem of the label “Blue Economy”: it does not guarantee your investment is making a positive difference.   For Impact Investors, who want their investments to make a positive difference to the development of our society, the Ocean presents a huge opportunity. The critical ecosystem services it provides are indispensable to life on Earth. Yet at the same time the Ocean is the “Great Unknown” of our planet with three-quarters of the seafloor still unmapped and our understanding of its role in Earth System well behind that of the Land and the Atmosphere. There are no simple answers to what is a good and what is a bad investment when it comes to the Blue Economy, but being aware of the different shades a blue in the Blue Economy is a good start.

Summary The article shows how toxic chemical releases impact different areas across the U.S. Understanding these releases is key to protecting public health and the environment. The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is an important resource that sheds light on how industries manage toxic chemicals. By tracking this data, communities, government agencies, and businesses can make smarter decisions that benefit our surroundings. Our goal isn’t to create divisions between political parties ; it’s to remind everyone that we all have a shared responsibility to care for the environment.   Why It Matters The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a valuable tool for understanding toxic chemical releases  and pollution prevention  activities reported by industrial and federal facilities. It helps communities, government, companies make informed decisions to protect public health and the environment [  Source: EPA  ]. The chemicals associated with risks such as causing cancer, other long-term health issues in humans, severe short-term health effects, or significant harmful impacts on the environment. (see  TRI-Listed Chemicals  ) In 2023, 3.3 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were released in the U.S., according to the TRI. This program tracks the management of regulated toxic chemicals in the U.S. that threaten human health and the environment. （  see details  ) Play With the Maps Here Click here .

Overview From October 21 to November 1, 2024, COP16 gathers global stakeholders in Cali, Colombia, to advance the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). The event focuses on tackling biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution. It serves as a checkpoint to assess progress and intensify efforts toward meeting 2030 targets. Why It Matters Biodiversity Collapse Key Risk:  As revealed by the World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report 2023 , the rapid deterioration of biodiversity and ecosystem collapse is a top global risk with 50% of the global economy under threat from biodiversity loss . Financial Risks and the Production Paradox: According to the investment bank Kepler Cheuvreux, systems relying on biodiversity generate $44 trillion per year for the global economy. Capacity Building: Few if any private sector institutions, investors, and lenders employ trained ecologists in leadership positions. Make Peace With Nature: During the summit’s opening ceremony on Sunday, Secretary-General António Guterres  urged delegations from some 190 countries to “make peace with nature” and shore up plans to stop habitat loss, save endangered species, and preserve our planet’s precious ecosystems. Connected Research from Responsible Alpha Responsible Alpha organized this session with Bloomberg  and PRI for the Ecological Society of America Annual Conference. Click below to read previous Ressponsible Alpha articles on biodiversity Biodiversity is Trending, But is Protection? Ecologists: Time to Understand Markets to Create Influence U.S. Exports: Bees, Boundaries, and Biodiversity Biodiversity and Institutional Transitions: Navigating Planetary Boundaries Nature: An Effective Risk Manager Nature Positivity Needs Parental Guidance: JP Morgan Join Responsible Alpha's Team at COP: Reach out to schedule time with our trained ecologists. Key Facts •       75% of global food crops rely on natural pollination by birds, bees and insects (IPBES 2019). •       Pollinator loss puts between $235 and $577 billion in annual crop output at risk, equal to 9% to 22% of total agricultural production (IPBES 2019). •       Biological control function, e.g. pest-control through animals eating insects and small mammals. •       Hedgerows increase crop production by 10% and reduce pesticide costs by 10% (by providing habitat to animals that control pests and pollinate crops, and by serving as windbreaker). •       Deforestation costs $4.5 trillion each year through the loss of biodiversity and exacerbation of water and soil erosion (IPBES 2019). •       23% land areas saw a reduction in productivity due to land degradation and biodiversity loss (e.g. caused by land clearing, monocultures, overuse of fertilizer and pesticides, etc.) (IPBES 2019). •       Continuous land degradation and climate change expected to reduce global crop yields by 10% to 50% by 2050 (UNDP). •       Overuse of fertilizer and pesticides increases cost of freshwater production (EPA). •       Global food system – from farm to fork – causes 37% of global GHG emissions (IPCC). •       75% of freshwater resources devoted to crop or livestock production (IPBES 2019). Important Themes Adopted in 2022, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework sets ambitious goals to halt biodiversity loss. COP16 emphasizes "accelerated action" to ensure these targets are met. The EU’s opening statement stresses, “the urgency to act together as a global community has never been greater.” Efforts now shift to implementation, with plans to monitor progress and refine indicators. Funding from developed countries plays a key role, with the EU committing to strengthen the Global Environment Facility. The convention underscores the critical role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in biodiversity conservation. A new program under Article 8(j) aims to involve these communities actively in shaping CBD outcomes. Their traditional practices are vital to preserving biodiversity and achieving the framework's targets. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity ( CBD ) describes biodiversity as “the diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems, including plants, animals, bacteria, and fungi”. These three work together to create life on Earth, in all its complexity. National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP) Only 20% of countries have presented national action plans two years after COP15, where the global biodiversity framework was agreed. Look for action plans to be presented in Cali. NBSAPs can be found here Corporate Commitments and Gaps Ahead of COP16, corporate commitments to biodiversity remain limited, despite increasing awareness since the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework's adoption. Many companies still struggle to assess their impact on ecosystems, and nature-related targets remain rare. The S&P Global report highlights that only a small percentage of firms have set measurable biodiversity targets, underscoring the gap between awareness and action. Latin American countries, especially Colombia, lead in biodiversity and deforestation-related corporate commitments, but systemic changes and stronger policies are needed globally to drive widespread business action and align with 2030 goals. Policy Drivers and Challenges The EU's Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 aligns initiatives, such as the Nature Restoration Law, with the GBF’s objectives to reverse biodiversity loss and improve climate resilience. Corporate accountability remains a central issue, with the Business for Nature coalition advocating for stricter regulations. The group emphasizes that “voluntary action alone is not enough” and warns that harmful subsidies now reach at least USD 2.6 trillion annually, which unintentionally promotes activities that harm nature. Addressing these subsidies and requiring companies to disclose their nature-related risks are seen as crucial steps forward. Digital sequence information (DSI) also features prominently in discussions. The convention explores establishing a mechanism for fair benefit-sharing from DSI to ensure that biodiversity-rich countries receive equitable compensation. Ongoing debates address how to best protect traditional knowledge and allocate resources fairly. Key Commodities and Sectoral Focus At COP16, discussions on high-risk commodities highlight the need to address the environmental impacts associated with their supply chains. The focus is on implementing policies that ensure sustainable sourcing and promote supply chain transparency to reduce deforestation and biodiversity loss. The EU’s Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) is presented as a model for preventing products linked to deforestation from entering the market. By requiring strict traceability, the EUDR aims to protect ecosystems while pushing companies to adopt more sustainable practices. COP16 emphasizes that regulating sectoral commodities is crucial for aligning international trade with biodiversity goals, as well as mitigating financial risks for companies and investors. Emerging Opportunities and Innovations COP16 not only addresses current challenges but also explores emerging opportunities that could reshape global biodiversity efforts. A key focus is on nature-based solutions that enhance ecosystem services while benefiting communities and economies. Innovative approaches, such as integrating biodiversity metrics into financial risk assessments, show promise for aligning economic development with environmental sustainability. The convention also discusses technology's role in conservation, including remote sensing for habitat monitoring and digital platforms for sharing best practices. These innovations are set to play a crucial role in accelerating progress towards biodiversity targets. Looking Ahead As COP16 continues, scaling nature-based solutions to address climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution remains a priority. Integrating these solutions into national policies and corporate strategies is crucial. A comprehensive global review process for the GBF’s implementation will help ensure transparency and drive future commitments, playing a key role in meeting the ambitious 2030 targets. Conclusion COP16 marks a pivotal moment in global biodiversity efforts, calling for swift action, ambitious policies, and strong collaboration. As stakeholders converge in Cali, the event highlights the urgent need to accelerate progress toward a sustainable and biodiverse future. The outcomes will shape the global agenda for biodiversity preservation and climate resilience.

The European Union's new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) sets ambitious targets for plastic packaging, including full recyclability by 2030 and increased recycled content by 2040, driving stricter compliance. The upcoming INC-5 treaty will address plastic production limits and waste management, aiming for a global pact to combat plastic pollution. Together, these initiatives put pressure on industries to transition to a circular economy while reducing reliance on single-use plastics. Yet definitions matter as one can only monitor, mitigate, and monitor that which one can define. Why it matters Understanding the resin identification codes informs reducing waste. EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation is driven global change. Extended Producer Responsibility Schemes (EPRs) are defining liabilities for plastic packaging produced. But many other chemicals are components of plastics, and these too must be addressed. Legal Drivers The European Union's new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation targets are: 90% of beverage packaging (including plastic bottles and aluminum cans) collected separately by 2029. Mandatory deposit return schemes to cover all 27 EU countries from the 15 countries currently with policies in place. A standardized calculation of recycling rates across the EU. All plastic packaging to be recyclable by 2030, recycling not yet defined. 10% of packaging for both alcohol and non-alcohol beverages with exclusions to be reused as packaging by 2030. 30% of recycled content in non-food and some food-grade plastic packaging by 2030, depending on type of plastic. Ban some types of plastic packaging and single-use plastic products. Meanwhile, Extended Producer Responsibility Schemes (EPRs) requiring companies to pay for end-of-life management of the products they produce are increasing with some countries developing policies already such as Austria and Germany. This set of policies are improving addressing risks of under-reporting, insufficient costs to drive change, and the need for a legal definition for “designed for material recycling”. Watch this space as global plastics treaty negotiations (INC-5) in November may increase regulatory innovation globally. Resin Identification Codes and the Plastic Roundabout Since 1950, over 8.3 billion tons of plastic have been produced, equivalent to the weight of 2 billion African elephants. Alarmingly, 55% of plastics are discarded within 6 seconds of use, and single-use plastics may become our era's lasting symbol. Plastics currently account for 6% to 9% of oil and gas greenhouse gas emissions, and if trends continue, they could reach 13% of the global carbon budget by 2050 under the Paris Agreement 2 degree Celsius commitments. Packaging makes up 36% of plastic production, with 85% ending in landfills or as unregulated waste, costing the global economy $80 to $120 billion annually. While the most common plastics in packaging are listed below. Each of these common plastics have distinct chemical production processes and properties, with different corporations in their supply chains, plastics contain thousands of other chemicals, too. First some definitions: Plastic: The most effective definition of plastic describes it as a material primarily composed of a polymer, potentially with added substances, which serves as a key structural component of products. Natural polymers that have not been chemically modified are excluded. Polymer: A polymer is a substance made of molecules formed by repeating monomer units, with variations in molecular weight depending on the number of these units. Single-use plastic:  Single-use plastic is a product that is made wholly or partly from plastic and that is not conceived, designed or placed on the market to accomplish, within its life span, multiple trips or rotations by being returned to a producer for refill or re-used for the same purpose for which it was conceived . Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) ((C10H8O4)n and EC #101-121-858) is a plastic used for bottles, trays, clothing fiber, carpets, and strapping. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) ((CH2-CH2)n EC #919-651-5) is a plastic used for bottles, snack food trays, toys, pipes, and furniture. Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) ((CH2-CHCl)n and EC #924-145-2) is used for pipes, cable, synthetic leather, door frames, and credit cards. Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) ((CH2-CH2)n EC #929-000-7) is a plastic used for films, bubble wrap, flexible bottles, and bottle tops.   Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) ((CH2-CH2)n EC #929-000-7) is a plastic used for films, bubble wrap, flexible bottles, and bottle tops. Polypropylene (PP) ([CH2-CH(CH3)]n and EC #100-117-813) is a plastic used for food bottles, crates, straws, and carpet fibers.   Polystyrene (PS)  ([CH2-CH(C6H5)]n and EC #100-105-519) is used for single use cutlery, coat hangers, and toys. Expandable polystyrene (EPS) (C9H8, EC #935-499-2 and PubChem #24755) is a plastic used for single use cutlery, coat hangers and toys.   Round and Round the Plastic Roundabout About We Go The plastic roundabout illustrates how plastics are labeled during production. Resin identification codes (RICs) , introduced in 1988 by the Society of the Plastics Industry, categorize plastic types, but they are often misunderstood. These codes do not guarantee recyclability; they merely indicate the one of the resin types used in the packaging with the label. Furthermore, RICs are not globally standardized, contributing to confusion, as recycling processes differ by region. With the increasing complexity of plastic products, there is growing pressure to expand the RIC system to better address these variations.   A common misconception for consumers is that these symbols are an indicator for recyclability.  In fact, it just identifies the type of material.  The other misconception is that it is an international standardized identification, however, it is local – the definition can change by country. There is no known ISO equivalent to the RICs standard as shown in the plastics roundabout. Finally, there is pressure from industry to increase the number of RICs categories due to the complex nature of many different plastic products.    Missing Additives and the Plastic Roundabout Every plastic item contains additives that determine the properties of the material and influence the cost of production. Typical additives include stabilizers, fillers, plasticizers, colorants, as well as functional additives such as flame retardants and curing agents, and intentionally added substances. Nevertheless, the identities and concentrations of additives are not listed on products. There are about 7,000 plastic additives used globally. A randomly chosen plastic product generally contains around 20 additives. Additives are not listed on products. Over 400 plastic additives are used in the EU in high volumes. A study found 10,547 intentionally added substances present in plastics (Wiesinger, 2021). Many additives are hazardous. A 2018 study found that 3,377 and 906 chemicals are potentially associated with plastic packaging. Out of these, 148 have been identified as most hazardous (Groh et al. 2018). When plastic products are recycled, it is highly likely that the additives will be integrated into the new products. Absence of transparency and reporting across the value chain often results in lack of knowledge concerning the chemical profile of the final products. For example, products containing brominated flame retardants have been incorporated into new plastic products. Conclusion The European Union's new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) implementation process needs to also address the thousands of chemicals that are added to plastics, used, and then disposed of, many of which may whose harm is unknown.

https://www.enostra.it/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/progetto-senza-titolo-79.png Global Renewable Energy Growth: Key Trends from the IEA’s Renewables 2024 Report   The IEA Renewables 2024 report  shows that, for the first time, global renewable energy growth is expected to exceed government-set targets by 2030.  Why It Matters   Global renewable energy capacity is expected to grow by 2.7 times by 2030.  China will lead the global renewable energy market, accounting for 60% of new capacity by 2030.  Key challenges include delays in grid infrastructure, slow integration of renewable energy, and outdated policies.  By 2030, solar power will make up 80% of new renewable energy capacity.  Significant Global Expansion of Renewable Energy Global renewable energy capacity is expected to grow 2.7 times by 2030, reaching almost 5,500 GW. This growth will surpass current government targets but will still fall short of the goal set at COP28. Most new capacity will come from solar power and wind energy, which will make up 95% of the new installations. This increase shows how renewable energy is becoming more affordable compared to fossil fuels.  China Leading the Charge   China is forecast to dominate the global renewable energy market, providing 60% of the new capacity by 2030. China’s policies and focus on solar and wind energy are key to this growth. The United States, India, and the European Union are also expected to double their renewable energy capacity by 2030.  Challenges and Policy Gaps   There are several challenges to this forecast growth. Delays in building grid infrastructure, slow integration of renewable energy, and outdated policies could slow progress. However, these problems can be addressed with better infrastructure, energy storage systems, and faster approval processes for new projects.  Hydrogen and Renewable Fuels Lagging Behind   Hydrogen and renewable fuels are still in their early stages. By 2030, only 4% of hydrogen production is expected to come from renewable sources. The slow adoption is due to high production costs and low demand. However, policies supporting hydrogen use in transport and industry could encourage future growth. You can learn more about hydrogen fuels on our Responsible Alpha website  or in the full IEA report .  Falling Costs of Solar and Wind   The costs of solar power and wind energy continue to fall, contributing to their growth. By 2030, solar power is expected to account for 80% of new renewable energy capacity. Although wind energy has faced recent challenges, policy changes are expected to help the industry recover.  The Role of Other Renewables   Other sources of renewable energy, like bioenergy, geothermal, and ocean energy, are expected to play smaller roles in the future. These energy sources face challenges due to high costs and policy barriers, which will limit their growth.  Pathway to Net Zero   While the report is optimistic about renewable energy growth, it also warns that current trends are not enough to meet the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero by 2050 goal. More ambitious policies and investments are needed, especially in emerging economies with high potential for renewable energy.  Opportunities for Emerging Economies   Emerging and developing economies have significant potential for renewable energy but face challenges like high financing costs and weak infrastructure. Improving policies and setting long-term targets could help these regions unlock more renewable capacity. The report also suggests that renegotiating fossil fuel contracts and phasing out old power plants could speed up renewable energy growth.  Conclusion: A Call for Policy Action   The IEA’s report stresses that while renewable energy will grow significantly in the next decade, more work is needed to meet global climate goals. Governments and industries must address infrastructure delays, policy gaps, and other obstacles to realize the full potential of renewable energy. With coordinated action, the world can still achieve its renewable energy goals and progress toward a low-carbon future.

The São Paulo skyline behind Ibirapuera Park. The city’s urban trees are part of the greater Atlantic Forest ecosystem, critical to the region’s health and sustainability. Photo by Flávio Jota de Paula/Flickr As the world grapples with climate change, Brazil stands at a pivotal moment in its energy transition journey. According to BloombergNEF, achieving net zero emissions by 2050 will require Brazil to invest more than $1.3 trillion in low-carbon energy supply from 2024 to 2050. Why It Matters Net Zero Emissions Goal: Brazil aims to reach net zero emissions by 2050, necessitating a 70% reduction in energy-related emissions by 2040. Emission Reduction Strategies Electrification : Expected to account for 53% of emissions reductions through the electrification of road transport, buildings, and industries. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) : Projected to contribute 25% to emissions reductions. Clean Power Sources : Will account for 7% of the total reductions. Investment Needs: By 2040, Brazil will require $4.3 trillion in energy investments, primarily aimed at electrifying the passenger vehicle fleet. Current Investment Landscape: In 2023, Brazil attracted nearly $35 billion in energy transition investments, ranking sixth globally and first among emerging markets outside China. Investment Focus: Most investments are currently directed towards renewable energy and power grids, with significant growth potential in CCS, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), and green hydrogen. Renewable Energy Leadership: Brazil leads G-20 countries in renewable energy generation, with substantial growth in wind and solar energy, now comprising 21% and 12% of installed capacity, respectively.   Brazil's Green Financial Policy: Challenges and Opportunities Green bond issuances are gaining traction in Brazil in 2024. According to historical data from the Central Bank of Brazil (BCB) up to June, entities raised $6.55 billion through green bonds—double the amount raised in all of 2023. The full amount for 2024 is on track to exceed the 2021 record of $12.11 billion. The National Treasury's second issuance of $2 billion significantly contributed to this surge, representing 30% of all Brazilian sustainable bonds issued in the first half of the year. The remainder came from companies ($3.55 billion) and banks ($1 billion). Overall fundraising in the international debt market, including green and traditional bonds, has increased to $18.2 billion in 2024, up from $15.5 billion in 2023, driven by improved interest rates and a favorable external economic environment. Brazil has made considerable progress in sustainable governance, establishing itself as a regional leader. The country has the potential to achieve a hydrogen production cost of $1.47 per kg by 2030 through onshore wind energy and electrolysis, positioning itself as a global contender in low-cost hydrogen production. Furthermore, Brazil benefits from sugarcane ethanol production, which can be transformed into sustainable aviation fuel and plant-based plastics. Despite these advancements, decarbonizing agriculture remains a critical challenge, as this sector accounts for half of Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions. The next steps involve aligning policies, removing market barriers, and attracting the necessary investments to solidify Brazil's leadership in the green transition.   Unlocking Renewable Energy Potential: Pathways to 2030 The International Energy Agency (IEA) asserts that tripling global renewable energy capacity by 2030 is achievable. In a recent report, the IEA emphasized that the renewable energy targets set by 200 countries during COP28 in 2023 are within reach, thanks to favorable economic conditions, production potential, and robust policies. However, increasing renewable capacity alone will not diminish fossil fuel use or lower consumer costs. To fully realize the benefits of this goal, countries must collaborate to build and modernize 25 million kilometers of power grids and add 1,500 GW of energy storage capacity by 2030. The IEA’s analysis indicates that tripling renewable energy capacity and doubling energy efficiency measures could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 10 billion tons by the decade's end, bringing the world’s energy system two-thirds closer to the Paris Agreement targets by 2030.   Petrobras Chairman Faces Conflict of Interest Allegations In a developing story, the Federal Court of Auditors (TCU) has identified a potential conflict of interest involving Pietro Mendes, who serves as both the chairman of Petrobras and the National Secretary of Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Biofuels. The TCU noted that the law prohibits individuals from regulatory bodies from being appointed to the board of state-owned companies, raising concerns about Mendes's dual role. Although the TCU considered recommending Mendes's removal, it opted against this course to avoid damaging Petrobras's reputation and share value. The issue will now be reviewed by the TCU reporting minister.   Conclusion Brazil is at a crossroads in its pursuit of sustainability and energy transition. With significant investments and strategic policy alignment, the nation has the potential to lead the global green transition while addressing the challenges that lie ahead. By harnessing its renewable resources and financial tools, Brazil can solidify its position as a key player in the fight against climate change.

In October 2024, the European Union announced a one-year delay to its groundbreaking Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), pushing the compliance deadline to December 30, 2025, for large companies and June 30, 2026, for small and micro-enterprises. While some may view this delay as a setback, the EU has reaffirmed that its commitment to tackling global deforestation is as strong as ever. Despite this extended timeline, companies will still need to meet the rigorous demands of the regulation, especially around supply chain transparency and due diligence for high-risk commodities. Why It Matters Leading firms can improve while laggards can begin. Allows EU to implement a more robust process. Supply chain risks are increasing, with more time, stronger evidence. A Delayed but Unwavering Ambition The European Commission proposed the delay in response to pressures from industries and international partners. Countries like Brazil and Indonesia, as well as various industry groups, have raised concerns about the complexities of the regulation, particularly on smallholders and supply chain traceability. The delay is meant to allow companies more time to implement necessary systems, especially for tracking commodities like palm oil, cocoa, and soy. But make no mistake—the core ambition of the EUDR is still intact. Once in force, companies will still need to ensure that the products they import, sell, or export in the EU are deforestation-free. The regulation requires businesses to provide geolocation data for all commodities in scope, and simplified due diligence will only apply to imports from countries classified as “low risk.” The EU’s message is clear: the delay is about ensuring smooth implementation, not diluting the regulation’s effectiveness. Which Commodities Are Most Challenging? In the CDP Forests 2023 disclosure data, the overall best-quality disclosure on Deforestation and Conversion-Free (DCF) actions provides an indicator of the maturity companies have achieved in ensuring that their commodities are deforestation- and conversion-free. The data shows that commodities like palm oil , cocoa , and timber  lead in terms of high-quality disclosures, with 21%, 15%, and 15% of companies, respectively, reporting strong DCF actions. However, the figures for other commodities, such as soy , coffee , cattle , and rubber , are significantly lower, showing that many companies in these sectors still face considerable challenges in ensuring deforestation-free supply chains. Across the board, 100% DCF volumes are still low, signaling that even industries with better performance still have significant work to do. For example, only 9% of companies reported deforestation-free volumes over 90% for timber, while palm oil and soy reported just 7%. The chart above summarizes these trends. This data underscores the fact that while companies are making progress, particularly in high-risk commodities like palm oil, the journey toward full compliance with the EUDR will be difficult for many. The diversity of supply chains and the complexity of geolocation tracking, particularly in sectors dominated by smallholder farmers (such as rubber, cocoa, and coffee), make this a considerable challenge. Supply Chain Transparency Through Geolocation A major part of the EUDR is the demand for complete supply chain transparency. Companies must track their raw materials from origin to market, using geolocation-based traceability to verify that their products are deforestation-free. This requirement applies across a range of commodities, from cattle and coffee to soy and timber. For many businesses, this level of traceability is a significant challenge. In industries where commodities pass through multiple layers of processing and trade, setting up a clear line from source to market can be complex. However, it is a necessary step. The EU is pushing for companies to adopt segregated or identity-preserved supply chains, replacing the more common mass balance models. This shift to ensure that commodities linked to deforestation are kept separate from those that are not, guaranteeing greater accountability. The High Stakes for High-Risk Commodities For companies dealing in high-risk commodities—such as palm oil, cocoa, and rubber—the stakes are particularly high. According to reports from both JP Morgan and Kepler Cheuvreux, many businesses are still grappling with how to adapt their supply chains to meet the EUDR’s stringent requirements. Recent data from CDP shows that less than 10% of companies report having over 90% of their supply chains deforestation-free for critical commodities like cocoa and rubber. This lack of readiness is why the delay was proposed, but it does not lower the bar. Failure to comply with the EUDR can result in steep penalties, including fines of at least 4% of a company’s annual EU-wide turnover. Other penalties include confiscation of revenues and products, market bans, and stricter customs controls. The regulation’s focus on high-risk countries and industries means that businesses working with palm oil, soy, and timber need to be especially vigilant, ensuring that they meet the EU’s legal liability for deforestation-free supply chains. Global Reactions and Local Impacts The global response to the EUDR is varied. Brazil, Indonesia, and Côte d’Ivoire, among others, have expressed concerns over the potential economic impact on smallholders, whose livelihoods depend on industries like cocoa and palm oil. These countries argue that the regulation could disproportionately harm their agricultural sectors, as smaller producers struggle to meet the new traceability requirements. On the other hand, environmental advocates see the EUDR as a necessary step to curb deforestation and reduce the EU’s environmental footprint. By holding companies accountable for their supply chains, the regulation can incentivize more sustainable practices and reduce the global demand for commodities linked to deforestation. While the path to compliance may be difficult, the EUDR is expected to drive long-term change in how businesses source and manage forest-risk commodities. Conclusion: A Crucial Step for Sustainability While the one-year delay of the EUDR may offer companies a brief reprieve, the regulation’s overall goals remain necessary for the future of sustainable supply chains. Businesses that act early, investing in traceability systems and segregated supply chains, will be better positioned than their peers to meet the 2025 deadline and avoid the penalties associated with non-compliance. The EUDR is more than just a regulation—it is a signal that the EU is serious about tackling deforestation at a global scale. For companies, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Those that embrace the regulation will not only mitigate risk but also prove their commitment to sustainability, transparency, and environmental responsibility. By aligning with the EU’s vision, businesses can help drive a more sustainable future for global supply chains—one where deforestation becomes outdated. What We Are Reading: Exploring the Complexities of Forests and Deforestation-Free Supply Chains While the EU Deforestation Regulation is a significant step toward ending deforestation in global supply chains, understanding the complexities of forest ecosystems and tree species turnover is essential. Two key reports offer deeper insights: The Biogeography of Amazonian Tree Flora : This study analyzes tree species composition across Amazonia, highlighting how environmental conditions—such as soil nutrients and water availability—drive species turnover. With over 5,000 tree species analyzed, it underscores the importance of diverse ecosystems when considering sustainability measures. ​ Luize, et al.  2024.  The biogeography of the Amazonian tree flora.   Communications Biology   7 :1240.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-06937-5 .   Tree Growth and Longevity Trade-offs : This research examines the pace of life for trees across global biomes. It explores how tree growth strategies and life expectancy are influenced by environmental factors, giving crucial insights into forest carbon dynamics and biodiversity. This study shows how trees vary in their ability to survive and sequester carbon, adding another layer to the discussion around forest conservation and deforestation-free supply chains. ​ Bialic-Murphy, et al.  2024.  The pace of life for forest trees.   Science   386 :92-98.