TBLI Weekly - November 26th, 2024
Your weekly guide to Sustainable Investment
TBLI Radical Truth Podcast
Financing for Impact: Innovations, Challenges, and the Future of Result-Based Finance
Explore how sustainability-linked loans and KPI-based blended finance are advancing impact investing and driving measurable results /w Massimiliano Riva
Discover EBRD's High Impact Programme and development banks' evolving role in equity funds for impactful corporate growth.
Insights into pioneering work, including the Joint SDG Fund's support of ocean, energy, agriculture, and health initiatives for sustainable change.
This session will offer valuable insights for investors and sustainability leaders aiming to leverage finance for sustainable development.
Massimiliano Riva (Max) is a senior sustainable finance advisor and manager with over 20 years of experience in international organizations, development banks and in the public and private sector.
He advanced impact and sustainability strategies in equity funds, public guarantee schemes, microfinance organization, export credit schemes, green/SDG bonds and designed blended finance solutions in the areas of nature, climate, agriculture, and health.
Meet the Changemakers: Join the TBLI Mixer
Date: November 29th - 16:00 CET
Join Us for an Extraordinary Networking Experience: TBLI Virtual Mixer.
Free to attend - no charge. Imagine a networking event where you don’t have to sell anything – just be yourself. Through our TBLI virtual mixers, we’ve reimagined how professionals can connect. This is where people who care deeply about sustainability, impact, and creating real change come together. Meet non-extractive, authentic eccentrics – people from diverse industries who think beyond the ordinary and act for a better world. The conversation flows, the connections are meaningful, and every participant brings something unique to the table.
Register Here and add to calendar.
TBLI Hero
Audrey Selian exemplifies what it means to be a true TBLI Hero. Her unwavering dedication to sustainable investing, innovative solutions, and empowering underserved communities has left an indelible mark on the impact investing landscape.
As the Director of Artha Impact, Audrey has championed transformative initiatives that bridge the gap between social impact and financial returns, setting a gold standard for the industry. Her tireless advocacy for ethical investment practices, combined with her passion for fostering collaboration among diverse stakeholders, has made her a guiding light for those committed to building a better future.
Audrey’s ability to lead with integrity and inspire others to pursue meaningful change is precisely why she was chosen as a TBLI Hero. Thank you, Audrey, for your leadership, vision, and relentless pursuit of impact. Your work is a beacon of hope for all who strive to align capital with positive change.
You have always been supportive of TBLI and others who were working to restore the social and environmental balance in a non-extractive way. On top of being the TBLI Hero of the month, you are a true Mensch. Big hug
How Many Companies at Cop29 Support Climate Policies Aligned with Science?
By: Jeremy Whannell
At COP29, only 17% of companies advocate for science-aligned climate policies, while 21% support pathways risking excessive warming. A majority (62%) hold mixed positions, with 45% disengaged from meaningful policy advocacy. Fossil fuel companies maintain strong influence, while progressive firms and renewable energy associations strive to counteract them. Transparency in corporate lobbying remains critical.
Only 17% of companies attending COP29 are advocating for climate policies aligned with science (as defined by the IPCC pathways for the 1.5 °C limit). This is what emerges from the analysis of the NGO Influence Map of the list of corporate participants at COP29.
Furthermore, a further 21% of participating companies actively promote policy paths that risk entrenching warming scenarios well above the international targets set by the 2015 Paris Agreement. The remaining 62% of companies present at COP29 show mixed positions in their climate policy advocacy, with only partial alignment to these standards.
Finally, many companies are not taking a stand: 45% of participating companies are not strategically engaged at the government level on real climate policies for the economy, highlighting a significant gap in corporate leadership in this area.
The analysis was performed by cross-referencing the list of registered participants, made public by the UNFCCC, with the InfluenceMap database on corporate lobbying, and it reveals the landscape of corporate climate policies at COP29. The results highlight a heated battle between fossil fuel companies, opposed to science-based policies, and a growing list of highly positive and strategically engaged companies, defined as “climate policy leaders” (see InfluenceMap’s Corporate Climate Policy Engagement Leaders 2024 ).
Big Oil’s influence on Cop29 remains strong
The influence of fossil fuel interests on the UNFCCC discussions is again a hot topic at COP29. InfluenceMap analysis suggests that while the proportion of participating companies with a science-aligned policy commitment has nearly doubled (from 10% in 2023 to 20% in 2024), a powerful minority of fossil fuel value chain companies and industry associations remain well represented . These stakeholders could use their participation to hinder climate progress from within the event.
Companies with more than 10 delegates at COP29 and a negative commitment include ExxonMobil, Gazprom, Petrobras and Lukoil. Other negative companies with smaller delegations include Chevron, Eni, BMW, JBS, JFE Steel, Nippon Steel Corporation and Toyota.
In contrast, companies with more than 10 delegates and positive engagement include Alphabet, SAP, Schneider Electric and SSE. Other positive companies with smaller delegations include Unilever, Trane Technologies, Acciona, Vestas, Microsoft and Iberdrola.
The role of industrial associations
Industry associations, also widely represented at COP29, play a crucial role in the national climate policy and regulatory process. They often prove more strategic and effective than individual companies. InfluenceMap analysis indicates that a third of industry associations present at COP29 , covered by the LobbyMap database, oppose climate policies aligned with science. Less than a sixth of the associations present support such policies. This reflects a tendency for associations to represent “lowest common denominator” positions, often giving voice to the most oppositional members over the most progressive ones.
Among the most influential and negative industry associations present at COP29 were the US Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute (API), the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Japan Iron and Steel Federation (JISF) and the Federation of German Industries (BDI). Read full article
World will be ‘unable to cope’ with volume of plastic waste in 10 years, warns expert
By: Karen McVeigh - The Guardian
Countries must curb production now and tackle plastic’s full life cycle, says Norwegian minister Anne Beathe Tvinnereim ahead of key UN talks this week
The world will be “unable to cope” with the sheer volume of plastic waste a decade from now unless countries agree to curbs on production, the co-chair of a coalition of key countries has warned ahead of crunch talks on curbing global plastic pollution.
Speaking before the final, critical round of UN talks on the first global treaty to end plastic waste, in Busan, South Korea, this week, Norway’s minister for international development, Anne Beathe Tvinnereim, acknowledged the split that had developed between plastic-producing countries and others. She represents more than 60 “high ambition” nations, led by Rwanda and Norway, who want plastic pollution tackled over its full life cycle. Crucially, this means clamping down heavily on production.
While a “perfect treaty” may not be possible due to the strength of opposition, mainly from oil-producing countries, she hoped a deal could be reached that could be strengthened over time.
“We are not going to land a perfect treaty. But we need to get further. And I think we will. I choose to be hopeful,” Tvinnereim said. “With high-ambition coalition countries, we will continue to demonstrate that there is a big group of countries that sticks to its ambitions. The world desperately needs some leadership now, and some good news.”
This year, various researchers found microplastics in every sample of placenta they tested; in human arteries, where plastics are linked to heart attacks and strokes; in human testes and semen, adding to evidence of the ubiquity of plastics and concern over health risks. The plastics crisis is widely recognised as a threat to human health, biodiversity and the climate.
Two years after a historic agreement by 175 countries to adopt a mandate on negotiations for a global, legally binding treaty to address the whole life cycle of plastics, delegates remain widely divided on what to do – and a deadline is looming. Progress has stalled over a row about the need for cuts to the $712bn plastics industry. The last talks, in April, failed to get an agreement to put production targets – seen as key to curbing plastic waste – at the treaty’s centre.
The final round of talks, which starts on Monday and is due to end on 1 December, is critical.
“We need increased recycling and waste management, of course, but if we don’t reduce production and consumption we will be unable to cope with the volume of plastic in the system 10 years from now,” said Tvinnereim.
Use of plastic could triple globally by 2060, with the largest increases expected in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. Plastic waste is also projected to triple by 2060, with half ending up in landfill and less than a fifth recycled.
An agreement on a “phase out” of a list of single use plastic products globally, as well as bans on poisonous chemicals in plastic – including for food contact plastic and children’s toys – was a “no-brainer”, said Tvinnereim. Many countries already have unilateral single-use plastics bans.
Fractious negotiations have seen divergent views, and countries with large fossil fuel industries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran, dubbed the “like-minded” group, have eschewed production cuts and emphasised waste management as the main solution to the crisis. Developing nations, which bear the consequences of plastic overproduction overwhelming their inadequate waste systems, are calling for global cuts.
How Much Food Does the World Really Waste? What We Know — and What We Don’t
By Liz Goodwin and Brian Lipinski Around one-third of all food the world produces never gets eaten — at least according to the long-accepted estimate. But the problem is likely much bigger than this. More recent data suggests up to 40% of food is lost or wasted along the value chain, exposing a major blind spot in global food systems.
The consequences of this food waste, even at the lower end of the estimates, are huge. It means that an amount of land larger than China is used every year to produce food that no one will eat — especially egregious in a world where nearly 1 in 3 people face some level of food insecurity. About 45 trillion gallons of water, almost one-quarter of all water used in agriculture, is consumed in the process. And food waste is linked to about 8%-10% of the greenhouse gas emissions warming the planet.
The UN has set a goal to halve food loss and waste globally by 2030. But countries and companies can't begin to tackle the issue unless they know how much food is really lost or wasted — and where and why.
Why Is It So Hard to Measure Food Loss and Waste?
Today, we have only a rough idea of how much food is lost or wasted around the world. The widely used 'one-third' statistic is based on data from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), but it is only an estimate. This figure doesn't include food that is lost before it leaves the farm, such as crops that aren't fully harvested or spoil in storage.
More recent data from Tesco and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) suggests that about 40% of the world's food supply goes to waste when on-farm losses are also considered.
But these numbers can only be so useful. Most are extrapolated from global data that isn't complete, relying on individual studies from various years to produce broad estimates. This can provide a general picture of food loss and waste within a region, but it is less helpful for pinpointing where exactly waste occurs and taking targeted action to reduce it.
In some cases, the data is also decades old; FAO's estimate is based on a 2011 study. Updated and more precise data just isn't available, as only 12% of the global population lives in countries currently tracking food loss and waste within their borders.
Accurately gauging how much food is lost or wasted involves measuring a lot of things across the supply chain — from how much fruit is left unharvested in the fields, to the vegetable scraps that a line cook throws out, to the questionable cheese in the back of your fridge. Almost no one is measuring on-farm food loss, in part because it can be difficult to determine the boundary between different causes, such as poor harvesting techniques or disease.
On top of that, many companies are still extremely reluctant to publish their food waste data due to possible reputational risks. Businesses may be worried about the public reaction and how their waste will compare with other companies. Or they may know they're wasting a lot and want to start improving before they publish any data.
On the other side of the supply chain, household waste is especially difficult to measure. People generally aren't very good at estimating how much food they throw out; one study found that almost half of Britons surveyed underestimated the economic cost of the food they wasted. In fact, most U.K. consumers say they don't waste food at all, but research by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) shows that 70% of food waste in the U.K. comes from households.
How a dwindling helium supply is impacting public land management
By: Zoë Rom, High Country News
A new BLM plan for western Colorado makes a priority of helium production, worrying environmentalists.
In October, the Bureau of Land Management finalized a new resource management plan for Colorado’s Western Slope that will determine how 2 million acres of public land are managed for the next 15-20 years.
The plan includes some conservation wins; it sets aside land designated as critical habitat, for example, and institutes extra protections for big game. But it also permits continued leasing in areas that have moderate and high potential for oil and gas development — with a particular focus on places with the unique geological conditions necessary for helium production.
Helium is a noble gas, meaning it is chemically inert and doesn’t react with other substances. These qualities mean that it’s in high demand for a variety of critical uses in medical technology, diving and national defense; diagnostic procedures like magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), for example, and nuclear detection systems, including neutron detectors, all depend on helium. Currently, there are no synthetic substitutes for the gas that can replicate its low boiling point and low reactivity.
While some helium is reused in some scientific areas, broader adoption of recycling is still limited by cost and infrastructure barriers. Some biotech companies are developing helium-free MRI systems and systems that use helium reclamation units, but helium remains an essential resource that many technologies need. And the world’s supply of the gas is rapidly dwindling.
This scarcity has put increasing pressure on federal public lands to produce a resource essential to industry and national security. Helium is nonrecoverable: Once it’s released, it escapes into the atmosphere and eventually into space. According to the BLM, it is “a nonrenewable resource found in recoverable quantities in only a few locations around the world; many of these are being depleted.”
In its final plan for western Colorado, the BLM proposes closing 543,300 acres in the Grand Junction Field Office to oil and gas leasing, but keeping 692,300 open, including about 165,700 acres that have been identified for helium recovery. A BLM spokesperson said that the nation’s shrinking helium reserves influenced the management plan: “The final decision on this plan to keep the helium area open to future leasing was based on helium’s rarity and strategic importance.”
Keely Meehan, policy director for the Colorado Wildlands Project, a nonprofit focused on protecting public lands managed by the BLM, criticized the plan for prioritizing resource extraction over preserving critical habitat.
“The environmental impacts and the impact to habitat and species is the same as for oil and gas,” said Meehan. “It disrupts habitat connectivity.”