US climate credibility crisis explained

Yesterday's investigation into methane certification by The Guardian should give policymakers serious pause. It finds that gas facilities in the United States rated as “low-emitting”, including those awarded the highest certification grades, are in fact releasing substantial volumes of methane. Independent imaging reveals large emission plumes at sites officially classified as high-performing. This points to a deeper structural problem. Methane is responsible for roughly a third of global warming to date, and reducing it represents the fastest available route to slowing temperature rise in the near term. However, that opportunity depends entirely on the accuracy of our measurement and reporting systems. If emissions are consistently underestimated, then the scale of the problem is obscured and the effectiveness of our response is compromised. At the Climate Crisis Advisory Group, we have consistently emphasised that methane is the emergency brake on climate heating. But an emergency brake is only effective if it is grounded in robust, verifiable data. What this investigation highlights is a growing mismatch between certification and reality. Many current approaches rely heavily on operator-reported data, combined with periodic or pre-announced audits. A substantial body of scientific evidence shows that such methods systematically undercount methane emissions. In this context, certification risks becoming a proxy for performance, rather than a reflection of it. This is not an issue confined to any single scheme. It is a broader question about whether voluntary certification, in its current form, can provide a credible basis for regulatory compliance. This question is now highly relevant in Europe. As the EU Methane Regulation moves into implementation, there is increasing pressure to allow voluntary certification schemes to play a central role, alongside calls from parts of the gas industry to delay or weaken key provisions. That would be a mistake. The scientific position is clear. Effective methane mitigation requires independent, transparent and continuous measurement. Without this, emissions cannot be reliably quantified, and reductions cannot be credibly demonstrated. Methane remains the fastest lever we have to reduce near-term warming. But if we fail to measure it properly, we risk losing that opportunity. At its core, this is an issue of credibility. Climate policy must be grounded in evidence and integrity. Anything less risks undermining both public trust and the effectiveness of the transition itself. https://lnkd.in/ejqDwaa8

When leadership ignores climate rules, no strategy, rating, or heartfelt comms can fix the rot. That’s not climate leadership. That’s Climate Pretendership. Your organisation says it cares about the climate. But your actions say something very different. Most organisations have a name for this: climate hypocrisy, the greenwash gap, organisational sustainability contradictions. But none of these fully capture what’s really going on. That’s why I use a different term one that exposes the internal gap between what organisations claim and what they actually do: Climate Pretendership Because it’s not climate leadership. It’s pretending. And almost every organisation has it. Here’s a real example from client work: I once helped an agency strengthen their sustainability systems, improve their processes, and secure a high EcoVadis rating. Sharpened policies A strategy that made sense. The communication narrative was polished and proudly shared. But the CEO? He flies internationally every single weekend and does not care when advised on the contradiction. One of those flights emits roughly 182–240 kg of CO₂e per passenger. That’s 9–10 trees per flight just to offset it. Multiply that by 40 weekends, and the climate narrative collapses instantly. This isn’t a misunderstanding. It’s a system problem. Because when leadership doesn’t model climate responsibility, no rating, no strategy, no report, no certification will protect credibility. This isn’t about shaming individuals. It’s about acknowledging a truth: 🌍 Climate-aligned communication is meaningless if climate-aligned behaviour is optional. 🌍 Sustainability ratings don’t matter if leadership operates outside the rules. 🌍 You can’t claim climate ambition while practising carbon-heavy convenience. And here’s where communication becomes critical: If your external narrative says “We care about the planet” …but your internal reality says “The rules don’t apply to us” you don’t have a sustainability issue. You have CLIMATE PRETENDERSHIP a communication integrity crisis disguised as climate strategy. A question for you: Where does Climate Pretendership show up in your organisation? Are you closing the gap or widening it? 👇 I’d love to hear how you’re dealing with this where you work. If your organisation is ready to move beyond Climate Pretendership and build communication that actually matches your values let’s talk Charlotte Wiback I help organizations build Smart, Safe, Sustainable Communications that protect their people, strengthen their purpose, and reduce their impact on the planet.

The day we put oil drilling on the climate solutions map is the day the compass broke: RMI just launched a sleek interactive tool* to 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐬. You can click, scroll, and deep-dive into sector snapshots and quality criteria. It’s all very user-friendly… until you notice CO₂ Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) sitting there as if it’s a legitimate form of carbon credits / carbon removal. For the uninitiated: EOR’s main job is to pump more oil, increasing net emissions. Dressing it up as climate action is like calling a casino a “retirement planning service.” As someone who worked with and for  CarbonCredits.nl (ERUPT -  one of the pioneering Kyoto flexible mechanism government initiatives run by the Dutch Government ) and the The World Bank Bank’s Prototype Carbon Fund , I’m stunned. We once fought for carboncredits that actually reduced emissions. Now, 20 years later, part of the VCM and Silicon Valley–backed engineered CDR industry seem more focused on blurring lines, bending definitions, and calling it “green innovation” that would save us from the climate crisis ( for details and context see:  Carbon Removal Confidential: A Climate Fairy Tale, Brought to You by Billionaires Who Don’t Like Questions. Direct Air Capture Lessons from Climeworks ;  https://lnkd.in/eMnfFTcw  When Carbon Market Reputation Gets Buried (Literally) :   https://lnkd.in/efGqqH5c . ) We don’t need another taxonomy that makes bad ideas look respectable. We need systems  - including carbon pricing policies & masures -  that reward real, verifiable, and durable climate benefits. Until then, tools like this aren’t “demystifying” the carbon market… they’re just redrawing the map to make oil look like a climate solution. If we’re serious about climate action, we need to stop dressing up fossil fuel side hustles as salvation. RMI, if you want to protect market integrity, draw a hard line between EOR and actual climate solutions. Focus on interventions with verifiable, positive impacts – including co-benefits and trade-offs -, not flashy tools that risk giving VCM’s project based interventions another shove toward irrelevance. Otherwise, this “demystification” is just a fancy distraction from the real work we should be doing actually tackling the climate crisis before Silicon Valley turns it into another tech-bro unicorn fantasy.... +++ additional update: Caitlin Smith from RMI had swift and constructive follow-up: " We mistakenly classified all enhanced oil recovery using CO2 capture as a removal. We have corrected our our descriptions and volume estimates. Our analysis of various technologies in this framework should not be viewed as an endorsement of those technologies." In my experience, online discussions rarely lead to such quick and productive resolutions - more often, my inconvenient questions or suggestions earn me a polite silence… or the occasional “block” button. +++

Climate disinformation and misinformation are winning. 📉 A recent analysis found a 267% increase in climate‑related disinformation in the run‑up to a major UN climate summit, with over 14,000 misleading posts identified That's not fringe noise anymore. Here's what's actually happening: 🔴 The infrastructure attack. Science institutions are being questioned, defunded, and politicised. When people stop trusting the source of truth, everything downstream breaks. 🔴 The standards rollback. Decades of climate progress, quietly unwound. Real policies. Real impacts. 🔴 The credibility collapse. Investors, voters, and employees now assume climate claims are greenwashing by default. The cost? Trust evaporates. Policy stalls. Business gets harder. But here's what the data actually shows: Scientists remain the most trusted messengers, even now, ~75% of people still believe them. Verifiable evidence still cuts through the noise. Transparent action beats polished messaging every single time. So the question isn't whether to communicate climate progress. It's whether you're willing to back it with evidence that can be independently verified. At Compare Ethics, we see this daily. Companies that start with data can build real-world action and stakeholder trust. The shift is real. The opportunity is yours if you're willing to move. What else do you think is causing climate disinformation and misinformation? For more posts on climate information, follow Abbie Morris.

Excellent piece on why a fact-based information environment is good for business. This is right on: "Disinformation doesn’t just delay climate action; it destabilizes the institutions, policies, and coalitions needed to deliver it. Conflict, often fuelled by climate stressors like food insecurity or water scarcity, both feeds on and amplifies disinformation. The result is a dangerous feedback loop: disinformation breeds polarization, which escalates into conflict, which further degrades the conditions needed for effective climate response. The longer this cycle persists, the harder it becomes to coordinate global action, or even agree on the nature of the crisis. For businesses, these aren’t abstract global dynamics. They translate directly into market volatility, regulatory unpredictability, and rising reputational risk. In an environment where truth is under siege, credibility has become a form of strategic infrastructure." My colleague Charlotte Scaddan who leads our information integrity team is prominently quoted throughout: One of the core dynamics fueling the rise in climate disinformation is the growing fragmentation of information environments. “Algorithms reinforce individual biases, perceptions, and preferences,” explained Scaddan. “This information can be leveraged and exploited by anti-climate action interests.” Scaddan also cautions that businesses may be unknowingly contributing to the problem. “Through their advertising practices, companies may be funding climate disinformation without realizing it. As brands,  they hold unique power, and responsibility, within the information ecosystem.” https://lnkd.in/eDH2BpTr

I’ve long believed that one of the clearest ways climate and nature risk would hit home in the US is through the insurance market. While the President dismisses climate change as a hoax at the UN, the insurance industry is delivering a very different message: risk is real, and it’s reshaping the market. We’ve talked about food deserts—places where access to healthy food is scarce. Now, we’re entering a new era of insurance deserts. As climate and nature pressures mount, homes and businesses are becoming effectively uninsurable. Since 2018, insurers have dropped more than 1.9 million home insurance contracts across the US. In some counties, more than 1 in 25 policies has been pulled. The knock-on effects are severe: 🔴 Without insurance, many families can’t get mortgages 🔴 Without mortgages, housing markets freeze When communities become uninsurable, property values fall—eroding the tax base that funds schools, public safety, and other essentials. The climate and nature crisis is directly reshaping financial systems, housing markets, and entire communities. Rob Wyse, Koji Oki, Amir Sethu (FCA), Yuichiro Imaizumi, Chris K., Jun Ikegami, Yohei Sekiguchi, Hiren Mulchandani

The US retreat from climate action is driving a global slowdown in climate policy momentum, casting doubt on whether the world can stay on top of decarbonisation goals, a new report warns. Climate-positive policies have fallen by 7.5%, while regressive policies have surged by 575% over the last three months, according to analysis from Inevitable Policy Response, commissioned by Principles for Responsible Investment. The US, under climate-denying President Donald Trump, accounted for 70% of these reversals. But Australia and India have also seen steep decelerations in climate policy – cancelled offshore wind projects, softened emissions standards for coal power and shelved green hydrogen projects in recent months. While the global climate policy narrative has cooled, much rides on COP30 talks in Belém, Brazil, which hold particular significance as countries will be updating their national climate plans under the Paris Agreement. "The accountability and credibility of the Paris Agreement is at risk, and it will be interesting to see whether emerging nations [such as India, Indonesia and China] align with higher or lower climate ambition [at COP30]," said Karoline Hallmeyer, senior manager for climate and biodiversity strategy, Deloitte. Full story on Eco-Business: https://lnkd.in/gnTXu2Mf

Energy Security Has Killed Net Zero Narratives When survival is at stake, climate commitments become optional. And the last 24 months have exposed it—globally. • Europe reopened coal plants after the gas crisis triggered by the Russia-Ukraine war • Global oil & gas investments are rising again after years of “decline narratives” • Energy prices—not climate targets—are dictating national policy decisions • Renewable transitions are being delayed due to supply chain shocks and geopolitical instability. Let’s stop pretending this is temporary. This is structural. 💡 What’s really happening (and no one is saying it openly): Net Zero strategies were built for a stable world. But we are operating in a fragmented, conflict-driven, resource-nationalist world. And in this world: Energy independence > Emission commitments Reliability > Sustainability narratives Short-term survival > Long-term pledge ✍️ Equation that boards need to understand: Energy security > Climate commitments (during crisis) And here’s the uncomfortable extension: Unreliable energy strategy = Broken Net Zero roadmap 💡 Real-world pattern in the last 18–24 months: A large manufacturing player (confidential) with aggressive Net Zero targets: → Shifted back to fossil fuel-based backup systems → Delayed renewable PPAs due to price volatility → Quietly revised internal decarbonization timelines Public narrative: “Committed to sustainability” Internal reality: “Ensure operations don’t stop” This gap is where credibility collapses. 📉 Market consequence (this is where it gets serious): If your Net Zero strategy does NOT account for: -Energy volatility -Geopolitical disruption -Supply chain shocks You don’t have a strategy. You have a presentation. And markets are beginning to see through it. Because going forward: 👉 Capital will flow to resilient, execution-ready decarbonization pathways 👉 Buyers will shift to supply-secure, low-carbon producers 👉 Regulators will enforce credible, audit-ready transition plans   If your Net Zero strategy looks strong on paper but fails under disruption—you’re exposed. If you're ready to build decarbonization strategies that survive real-world shocks—let’s connect Earthood #Decarbonization #NetZero #EnergyTransition #ClimateStrategy #CarbonAccounting #Scope3 #EnergySecurity #ClimateRisk #Earthood #Earthoodies

Significant changes have occurred in corporate climate claims recently, and this past summer was no exception. Since last spring, when the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) board hinted at the possibility of accepting carbon credits for companies' scope 3 emission reductions, there has been intense speculation and debate about the future of the voluntary carbon market. The SBTi's spring announcement was driven by strong lobbying from carbon market stakeholders and companies realizing the challenge of achieving net-zero targets for scope 3 emission reductions. However, it quickly became apparent that the SBTi staff had not been consulted prior to this announcement, and experts did not support the idea of using carbon credits for scope 3 emission reductions. The scandal grew and ultimately led to the resignation of the SBTi's executive director. Now, SBTi has published a series of reports that definitively undermine the idea of using carbon credits to cover scope 3 reduction targets. The only credible way to utilize carbon credits going forward is through climate contribution claims that do not imply counterbalancing emissions. This is something that many critical actors, including myself and the Compensate Foundation, have long advocated. Expectations of explosive growth for the traditional voluntary carbon market appear to be ending. The market has contracted since its peak in 2021 and has been plagued by chronic oversupply. Truthful contribution claims, such as "beyond value chain mitigation," are now emerging as the only credible way for companies to leverage carbon markets. This undoubtedly represents a more sustainable future for the voluntary carbon market, even though the market may now grow more moderately. Companies can, and definitely should, still take responsibility for their emissions by supporting various climate efforts, such as developing carbon removal technologies or funding advocacy work. It seems absurd that in this stage of the climate crisis, companies would not be accountable to take responsibility for the damage they are causing. Although offset claims, whose use is also complicated by new EU directives, are likely to be phased out, this does not mean that companies should not take responsibility for their emissions. Now, it must be done through truthful claims. #carbonmarkets #climatecrisis #sustainability #SBTI #carbonmarkets #voluntarycarbonmarket https://lnkd.in/d2Gx862a

89% of people want their governments to do more to address the climate crisis 🌎 New global research featured in The Guardian reveals a critical disconnect between public opinion and perceived social norms regarding climate action. A comprehensive survey across 125 countries representing 96% of global emissions shows that 89% of respondents believe their governments should take stronger measures to address the climate crisis. However, most people significantly underestimate how many others share this view—creating a perception gap that contributes to widespread inaction. This phenomenon aligns with what social scientists refer to as the “spiral of silence.” When individuals assume they are in the minority, they become less likely to express their views or support policy initiatives. Over time, this misperception becomes self-reinforcing, suppressing visible momentum for climate solutions. Experimental evidence cited by The Guardian supports the importance of correcting these misperceptions. In behavioral studies, participants who were informed that most people support climate action contributed significantly more to climate-related causes. This demonstrates how perceived norms directly influence individual behavior. The findings also reveal that willingness to act is global and cross-cutting. In China, 97% of respondents support stronger government intervention. In the United States, the figure stands at three-quarters. Even in high-emission petrostates such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, a majority expressed willingness to allocate a portion of their income to climate efforts. Policy-making has not kept pace with public sentiment. In the United Kingdom, while 72% of the public supports onshore wind developments, only 19% of Members of Parliament correctly perceive this level of support. This misalignment between political judgment and actual public opinion delays or derails climate-related policy decisions. Communicating accurate data on public support for climate action may represent one of the most efficient, scalable interventions available. Social norm correction strategies are low-cost, evidence-based, and capable of catalyzing large-scale behavioral change across demographics and regions. As The Guardian concludes, making the silent majority visible is essential. Strategic communication that reinforces true public sentiment can help unlock social tipping points, strengthen climate policy, and accelerate the transition toward a low-carbon, resilient future. Source: The Guardian #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange