Adam Hedley’s Post

🚢 Want to know more about the potential of carbon pricing solutions and their implications for global trade in international shipping? 👨🏫 If you missed our insightful lecture with Goran Dominioni on 'Carbon Pricing and the Equitable Transition of International Shipping,' the recording is ready for you. 🌱 Learn how the shipping industry can achieve the IMO's climate-neutral targets while addressing equity concerns. 🎥 Watch the lecture recording to understand the equity challenges and the strategies proposed to navigate this pivotal shift 👉 https://lnkd.in/esCHm5s7 #SustainableShipping #CarbonPricing #ClimateAction #MaritimeLaw

🚢 Want to know more about the potential of carbon pricing solutions and their implications for global trade in international shipping? 👨🏫 If you missed our insightful lecture with Goran Dominioni on 'Carbon Pricing and the Equitable Transition of International Shipping,' the recording is ready for you. 🌱 Learn how the shipping industry can achieve the IMO's climate-neutral targets while addressing equity concerns. 🎥 Watch the lecture recording to understand the equity challenges and the strategies proposed to navigate this pivotal shift 👉 https://lnkd.in/esCHm5s7 #SustainableShipping #CarbonPricing #ClimateAction #MaritimeLaw

Tiago Lopes Veiga's and my contribution to the latest edition of Uría Menéndez's International Arbitration Outlook is out. We have taken the opportunity of this issue being exclusively dedicated to ESG and arbitration to take a look at international climate change disputes, understand what the trends currently are and what we can expect in the future ahead of us. Check it here 👇 See also the other contributions from our dear colleagues here: https://lnkd.in/dW_xEwZK #investimentarbitrationoutlook

While the European Commission & European Parliament  accelerates its efforts to increase in general the ESG regulations and in particular the issue of greenhouse gas reporting the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission are considering the removal from the GHG draft legislation the requirement by companies to disclose their scope 3 emissions. https://lnkd.in/dsi9-Ux4 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) FSB Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) EFRAG #sustainabilityreporting #ghgemissions #scope3emissions

In this lecture, I discuss some of my recent research on carbon pricing in shipping, including why carbon #revenues are a preferable way to address #equity concerns in #shipping decarbonization compared to route-based #exemptions. See further here: https://lnkd.in/exv-75NE

A disappointing development which speaks to the US culture of litigation and the politicisation of the #ESG debate. https://lnkd.in/eq5gsSEd #climate #sustainability

#scope3emissions #financialdisclosure could take the chop in major #oilandgas industry win According to sources close to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission cited by Reuters News Agency, the latest draft of the forthcoming rule on #climate-related financial disclosures no longer includes #valuechain emissions. The SEC declined to comment on the current contents of the rule it is drafting and confirmed it was considering adjustments to its March 2022 draft based on public feedback. Investors consider value chain emissions key to gauging #transition risks (and corporate contributions to climate change), but a lack of legally mandated disclosures contribute to making such data scarce and unreliable. The oil and gas industry (whose #carbonfootprint is essentially found in use of products and thus captured in value chain emissions) reacted to discussions of mandated disclosure of (material) value chain emissions by seeding and feeding a dark-ops assault against Environmental, Social and Governance consideration by the financial industry (recast with a racist dog whistle as '#woke investing') and supporting an open and direct challenge against climate risk rule making by the SEC in general, and value chain emissions in particular. The latter challenge is based on general questioning of the ability of the Commission to write such rules without an explicit and specific mandate from Congress (while this is an old tune, the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in respect of the authority of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) brings new force to it) and on representing that estimation difficulties not only make value chain estimation expensive but also so imprecise that by mandating their disclosure, the SEC would force companies to make potentially misleading disclosures and thus violate their First Amendment protections (yes these are applied to legal persons as well) and expose them to litigation and liability risks (the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a long-time opponent of #climatechange regulation, is using this rationale to sue California for introducing emissions disclosure). Dropping the disclosure would be inconsistent with the solidifying global consensus - Scope 3 disclosures are required by the first topical standard of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) endorsed by the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), is mandated by the European Union Corporate Sustainability Disclosure Regulation #csrd now in force. They are also phased in for China-listed companies as per an announcement made earlier this month. I cover these issues in a forthcoming paper for which I offered a partial summary in the latest issue of the EDHEC Business School EDHEC-Risk Climate Impact Institute newsletter. Check in comments for links, inc. paid-for-access to peer-reviewed work on the importance and challenges of value chain emissions measurement and #mitigation #financialregulation #esginvesting

A new report by The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) shows that Australia has the second-highest number of climate-related court cases. Legal cases can drive change and accountability, but they are not a long-term solution. A sustainable transition requires regulation to level the playing field and improve corporate accountability. The current climate-related financial disclosures legislation before parliament could be the start of ensuring real progress towards global emission reduction goals, by removing opportunities for greenwashing and the need for legal action. However, the current legislation provides corporations with legal immunity for three years. Removing third-party rights to take legal action on misleading climate statements reduces accountability and paves the way for corporations to continue greenwashing. For Australia to meaningfully contribute to science-aligned climate action the government must close these loopholes and commit to raising the bar on what business is required to do. ➡ The LSE report on trends in climate litigation: https://lnkd.in/dEWNfK6j ➡  More on the government plan to provide corporations with legal immunity: https://lnkd.in/giKsMtGD

SEC Adjusts Greenhouse Gas Emission Disclosure Requirements: Understanding the Implications The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has recently been in the spotlight for its adjustments to corporate climate risk rules, particularly concerning greenhouse gas emission disclosure requirements. According to a Reuters report dated February 22, 2024, the SEC has removed some of the more ambitious aspects of its original draft, including the exclusion of Scope 3 emissions from the disclosure requirements. Scope 3 emissions encompass greenhouse gases emitted throughout a company's supply chain and product lifecycle, significantly contributing to overall carbon footprints. Their exclusion from mandatory disclosure could impact the comprehensiveness of companies' environmental reporting. However, it's important to note that the SEC's original draft still included requirements for Scope 1 and 2 emissions, which represent emissions directly under a company's control and those associated with its energy consumption, respectively. These remain crucial metrics for assessing a company's environmental impact. The decision to omit Scope 3 emissions from mandatory disclosure represents a shift from the SEC's initial proposal. It could be seen as a setback, but you have to consider that the SEC only has jurisdiction over public companies and not private companies, which comprise most of the supply chain. Nevertheless, the SEC's focus on Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions aligns with its mandate to regulate public companies and entities within the scope of public markets. While some stakeholders may view this adjustment as a win for corporations and trade groups lobbying for less stringent regulations, it will create discrepancies with European Union rules, where Scope 3 disclosures are mandatory for large companies. Moreover, the potential for litigation and legal challenges surrounding these disclosure requirements adds another layer of complexity to the regulatory landscape. For instance, in the US, only 3500 companies will be affected by the SEC regulations, whereas more than 15,000 companies are affected by non-SEC requirements. Notably, initiatives outside of SEC regulations, such as California's SB 253 and SB 261, push for broader disclosure requirements, including Scope 3 emissions. Additionally, voluntary frameworks like the International Sustainability Standards Board emphasize the importance of disclosing Scope 3 emissions as best practice. Ultimately, the SEC's GHG disclosure requirements adjustments reflect a delicate balance between regulatory mandates, industry interests, and environmental considerations. As discussions continue and regulations evolve, monitoring how these changes impact corporate transparency, investor decision-making, and the broader fight against climate change will be essential. https://lnkd.in/etXyPMdv

**Deepening Scandal: German Authorities Reject 215,000 Carbon Credits** In a significant development, the Federal Environment Agency in Germany has identified severe "irregularities" in previously authorized carbon offset projects. The rigorous scrutiny has led to the rejection of an astounding 215,000 carbon credits, casting a shadow over the integrity of some carbon market mechanisms. Furthermore, a deepening investigation is underway, with Berlin public prosecutors probing 17 individuals on suspicions of "commercial fraud." This unfolding scandal emphasizes the critical need for transparency and rigorous validation processes within carbon credit initiatives to maintain credibility and trust. What measures can corporations, governments, and regulatory bodies take to ensure the authenticity and credibility of carbon credits? #Sustainability #CarbonCredits #EnvironmentalFraud #ClimateChange #Regulation #Transparency