Conflicting Views on Climate Change Put Emissions in Focus

Two radically different opinions on the urgency of combatting climate change were in the news recently, with the Trump administration in the U.S. and the top court of the United Nations both making important announcements.

In our Top Stories this issue, we highlight articles discussing those conflicting views while also showing that while some countries are resisting mandates to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, major corporations remain committed to investing in emissions reduction initiatives.

On July 23, the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a landmark opinion saying that countries failing to take measures to protect the planet from climate change could be in violation of international law and could be sued for reparations by nations harmed by the effects of climate change.

While the ICJ’s opinion was non-binding, it was hailed as a turning point in international climate law. In an opinion piece in The Guardian, barrister Harj Nurjulla said, “the court specifically targeted the fossil fuel industry in its ruling and held that countries failing to take action to protect the environment from greenhouse gases – including from fossil fuel production, consumption, exploration licences or subsidies – can now be punished under international law.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on July 29 a proposed plan to overturn a key 2009 EPA finding, known as the “endangerment finding,” which says that pollutants from developing and burning fossil fuels, such as methane and carbon dioxide, can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. According to NPR, “the EPA has repeatedly reaffirmed the 2009 endangerment finding and in 2022 Congress included language in the climate-focused Inflation Reduction Act that labels greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.“

Climate advocates have vowed to challenge the EPA’s proposal, first through the public comment process and in court, if necessary. NPR’s article quotes Christy Goldfuss, executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), saying, “As Americans reel from deadly floods and heat waves, the Trump administration is trying to argue that the emissions turbocharging these disasters are not a threat.”

While the current administration in the U.S., and other countries involved in fossil fuel production including Russia and China, are resisting mandates to reduce GHG emissions, major corporations continue to forge ahead with investments to reduce their emissions.

Mars, a global leader in snacks and food products, has launched a US$250 million Sustainability Investment Fund to scale climate solutions across its supply chains. According to an article in The Health Care Technology Report, the fund is “aiming to speed up innovation in low-emission agriculture, next-gen ingredients, and recyclable packaging.” Mars recently reported a 16.4% drop in absolute GHG emissions since 2015 while growing annual sales over 69%.

Ingka Group, the primary retailer of the IKEA brand with 574 locations in 31 countries, has committed to cutting its emissions in half by 2030 and reaching net zero by 2050. According to Trellis, Ingka has invested more than $5 billion in solar and wind projects since 2009 but faces a challenge in reaching its targets because Scope 3 value-chain emissions made up 98% of emissions in its 2016 baseline year. By focusing on helping its suppliers reduce their emissions, Ingka reported emissions reductions in 2024 that are on track to meet its targets.

G&A will continue to monitor the impact of the ICJ’s opinion and the EPA’s new proposal and keep you updated. We remain committed to helping corporations and organizations that are focused on reducing GHG emissions and doing our part to address the climate crisis. For more information contact us at: info@ga-institute.com.

This is just the introduction of G&A's Sustainability Highlights newsletter this week. Click here to view the full issue.