The European Commission is expected to present a Proposal for a Directive on Green Claims  ("Proposed Green Claims Directive" or "the Proposal") within the next few months.  Together with the Proposal for a Directive empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and better information ("Consumer Empowerment Directive Proposal"), the Proposed Green Claims Directive would contribute to the EU's green transition towards a circular, climate-neutral and clean economy by creating a common methodology for the substantiation of green claims that concern the environmental footprint of products, services and companies.It would aim to reduce greenwashing and enable consumers to take informed purchasing decisions based on reliable information about the sustainability of products and traders.

If adopted, it is likely to significantly limit the environmental claims that businesses can make in the EU/EEA.  Businesses may want to consider approaching the Commission to try to influence the final legislative proposal that it is expected to present by March 2023.  Once the Commission presents its legislative proposal, businesses should consider proposing amendments to the European Parliament and Council. 

Harmonization of the Rules on Green Claims in the EU

Currently EU law does not explicitly regulate environmental claims.万博体育app手机登录Instead, environmental claims are subject to the general rules of Directive 2005/29 on Unfair Business-to-Consumer Practices and Directive 2006/114 on Comparative Advertising.  While the Commission and Member States have issued guidance interpreting these directives and their national implementation in the context of green claims, in practice there is a wide range of variations on the requirements for and enforcement against these claims among Member States.  The Proposed Green Claims Directive is expected to create a harmonized set of rules on the substantiation of voluntary green claims applicable to all companies operating in the EU/EEA.

Covered Green Claims

The Proposal is expected to define green claims subject to the new rules as "any message or representation, including text, pictorial, graphic or symbolic representation (e.g., labels, brand names, company names or product names), which states or implies that a product or trader has a positive or no impact on the environment or is less damaging to the environment than other products or traders, respectively, or has improved their impact over time."  The Proposal is not expected to apply to claims that cover aspects other than those related to the environment.  For example, sustainability claims would only be covered if they refer to environmental sustainability (e.g., preventingbiodiversity loss).

The proposed rules are also only expected to cover voluntary claims made by companies in the context of business-to-consumer ("B2C") transactions.  The rules would also not cover environmental mandatory labelling or disclosures under EU environmental rules.万博体育app手机登录For example, mandatory declarations under Proposal for Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, or the requirements under the EU Taxonomy Regulation or the Proposal for a Regulation Establishing a Union Regulatory Framework on the Certification of Carbon Removals) are out of scope.

General Rules on Green Claims

The Proposal is expected to impose general requirements on the environmental claims that companies can make that will mirror those of the existing Commission's guidance.  In particular, it will require that companies:

• only make environmental claims that have been substantiated through an approved methodology that meets specific criteria (see below); 
• do not make a positive environmental claims where a product has both a positive and negative environmental impact.  Companies may communicate the positive claim only if they also communicate the negative impact in a clear and understandable way.  For example, if savings in water consumption lead to a notable increase in greenhouse gas emissions or to a negative environmental impact in another stage of the life-cycle of the product (e.g., CO₂ savings at the stage of manufacturing leading to a notable increase of CO₂ emissions at the use phase), both facts should be disclosed together with the claim;
• make available the information on the assessment on which the environmental claim is based, including (i) information on the product or activities of the trader subject to the claim, (ii) environmental aspects, environmental impacts or environmental performance covered by the claim, (iii) the methodology used, (iv) the underlying studies or calculations used to assess, measure and monitor the environmental impacts or aspects covered by the claim, (v) a brief explanation how improvements in environmental performance are achieved, etc.  Access to this information may be provided in the form of a weblink, QR code or equivalent!万博体育app手机登录and
• review the accuracy of their environmental claims (and their substantiation) at least once every five years from the date of the underlying studies or calculations.  In cases where there are circumstances that may affect the accuracy of the claim (i.e., when there are updates of the scientific methodology substantiating the claim), the environmental claim should be reviewed and updated immediately.

Methodology to Substantiate Green Claims

In line with current Commission's and Member States' guidance on environmental claims, the Proposal is expected to require economic operators to duly substantiate their environmental claims on the basis of a methodology that:

• is based on widely recognized scientific evidence, state of the art technical knowledge and takes into account relevant international standards.  Where there is no recognized scientific method or insufficient evidence to assess environmental impacts and aspects, claims referring to such environmental impacts would not be allowed;
• assesses the environmental impact throughout the whole life-cycle of the product;
• takes into account: the product composition!素材制作从过程和产品使用中排出耐用性、可恢复性和生命终结性;
• asesse万博体育app手机登录and
• is regularly reviewed by a third party with a view to take account of technical and scientific progress and the development of relevant international standards as well as revised where necessary to reflect such progress.

The Proposal is expected to add a lengthy list of additional requirements with which the methodologies to substantiate environmental claims must comply.  This is a significant departure from the previous, lighter requirements under the Commission's and Member States' green claims guidance.  In this context, the Proposal links these requirements to the existing EU Product and Organization Environmental Footprint methods ("PEF" and "OEF").  Where a company complies with the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules ("PEFCRs") for a product, the claims made on the basis of the PEFCRs are deemed compliant with the requirements of the Proposal.

Requirements Related to Comparative Environmental Claims

The Proposal is also expected to include rules on environmental comparative claims, namely, that:

• companies use the same methodology to assess the environmental impacts, aspect or performance of products or traders to which the comparison is made (e.g., where two traders make a claim on climate change, where one considered only direct impacts, whilst the other considered both their direct and indirect impacts, the results are not comparable);
• data used for the substantiation of the comparative claim must be generated or sourced in an equivalent manner to ensure their comparability (e.g., choosing indicators on the same aspects but that use a different formula for quantification makes comparisons impossible, and therefore, there is a risk of misleading consumers)!and
• the most significant stages along the value chain must be taken into account for all products and traders compared, etc.

If adopted, these requirements are likely to make environmental comparative advertising more challenging for companies.  Product certification and testing is costly, and the proposed wording would in practice require companies to conduct head-to-head studies to be able to claim any comparative advantage.  Broad, sector-wide claims based on publicly available studies would no longer be acceptable.

New Rules on Forward Looking Claims

The Proposal is also expected to introduce new strict rules on forward-looking claims (i.e., claims that suggest that a product, service or company will achieve specific environmental benefits by a certain future date).The Proposal is expected to require that claims related to the future environmental performance of a product, service or trader:

• be accompanied by commitments that include milestones to be achieved within clearly specified time frames (if a target set for 2030 does not include any periodic milestones, it is impossible for stakeholders, or the trader itself, to monitor whether they are on track and what are the challenges);
• indicate a baseline year for targets and the indicators reflecting performance in the baseline year and the year linked to the improvement set out in the claim (e.g., "50% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions compared to 2015" instead of "50% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions");
• not include actions or targets already achieved, etc.

Enforcement and Access to Justice for third Parties

The proposal is expected to introduce new and reinforced rules on enforcement against companies making non-compliant environmental claims.  Member States are expected to be required to carry out a compliance monitoring:

• as part of their regular checks;
• in cases where they have sufficient reason to believe that an environmental claim presents a risk of infringement of the rules, laid down in the Proposal!或
• 响应.

CompanyAfter receiving a notification for non-compliance, companies would only have 10 business days to provide an answer.  Where a trader does not provide a timely or satisfactory answer, enforcement authorities must require the trader to correct the non-compliant claim or immediately stop its communication.  The trader will have to implement the corrective actions within 30 business days.

The Proposal is also expected to allow third parties to submit complaints against non-compliant green claims before administrative authorities, and thereafter courts, if the third parties have sufficient interest or have the rights infringed.   Such complains may lead to injunctive actions, including the immediate stop of the communication of the non-compliant claims.

Next Steps

The European Commission is expected to formally present its proposed Green Claims Directive by the end of March 2023.  Once presented, the European Parliament and Council will consider the Proposal for adoption through the ordinary legislative procedure.  This process will allow for the introduction of amendments and will take at least 18 months.  As indicated above, industry should keep a close eye on the development of this proposal as the requirements it will impose will have a significant impact on the current practices.

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol ("GHG Protocol" or "Protocol")—a leading standard setter for measuring and managing corporate greenhouse gas emissions, borne of a partnership between World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)—has opened stakeholder surveys concerning the revision of its Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, Guidance on Scope 2 Emissions, and the Scope 3 Standard and Scope 3 Calculation Guidance.

The GHG Protocol's standards and guidance are a foundational element of the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), which helps shape and verify corporate emissions reductions targets and ensure they are aligned with the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement.协议是大企业首选碳核算机制:2016年92%以上Fortune500公司向CDP报告排放数据时,根据Hgorm协议会计标准这样做。万博体育app手机登录自2004年以来公司会计报告标准从未修订过,范围2排放指南-即自2010年代初首次发布以来与公司电热三维排放相关联的排放量从未修订过。

对最后宣言文本的谈判自昨天以来似乎没有取得显著进展阻塞进度的问题与一开始确定为关键的问题相同:损耗和损耗缓冲漏洞自2020年起承诺给发展中国家的1000亿美元气候金融并倍增1000亿美元 用于适应项目埃及外交部长和缔约方会议双会长呼吁代表们寻找解决办法-尽管通常由东道国负责向前推进文本spanids.gle.com/spreteshes/d/1Z0wyEGOU_6da9Sgnsqyi8PE0fkeIY4Xcmezo>

目前的草案远非可编辑成形文本,而只是提供可载入定本中某些内容的选项从正面看,文本草案拒绝印度推送“逐步下调化石燃料”,转回原初COP 26“逐步下调煤炭 ” 。 食品现在也得到了一个重要的提法然而,当前文本中至少14次显示“当前谈判中相关结果的持有者”。Considering tomorrow is supposed to be the final day of COP 27, it would appear likely that negotiations will continue well into the night if the deadline is to be met.

The UN Secretary General flew directly from the G20 meeting in Bali to Sharm to try and give impetus to the talks, signaling his frustration at their pace and stating, "There is clearly a breakdown in trust between North and South, and between developed and emerging economies." As if to prove his point, the Guardian quoted a G77 negotiator, saying: "I've never seen us so united on an issue as loss and damage ...美国...不接受建立损耗基金的决定死锁就在那里77国集团表示不可接受问题很清楚,即曾一度激进概念“损耗和损耗”现已非常牢固地成为气候变化议程前端和中心点。

回埃及后,关于最后宣言措辞的协议仍然难以实现虽然新文本细节不多,但印度建议宣言最终引用“压倒所有化石燃料”,而不是缔约方会议第二十六届会议仅引用煤炭,支持似乎在增加更令人担忧的是,有迹象表明,最后宣言可能不再确认对1.5摄氏度目标的承诺,而代之以引用2摄氏度默默承认进展缓慢,澳大利亚气候变化部长被委以牵头商谈穷弱国家气候融资的关键问题。

G20国家对全球排放量的75%负责,G20公报中的强语似旨在刺激沙姆沙伊赫谈判延缓进展德国气候特使表示G20公报中包含1.5C表示“向COP 27的部长和谈判者发送重要信号”。..G20支持Glasgow气候协议,在沙姆沙伊赫无法反弹 。

77国集团损耗说明与发达世界的立场形成对比:我们希望今年能建起损耗设施而不是谈折中..损耗和损耗是本次COP的主要标语头条,我们不放弃。”欧盟想继续商谈后再决定是否需要新设施七大集团支持全球盾牌保险计划,支持者认为这是向正确方向迈出的重要一步,而批评者则视之为转移注意力创建严重损耗设施的努力。

..现实是,在[裁量排 方面没有进展,我们正在超出适应能力..of course I want to see progress on loss and damage, but unless we stick to [1.5C] all of that is going to be a lot more difficult."

Other Developments:

• A wide range of international media organizations published a joint editorial article calling for a windfall tax on the biggest fossil fuel companies.
• Reports continued to emerge from within the negotiating teams that there was "some pressure" to revise the wording from 1.5 degrees C to the higher 2 degrees C mentioned in the 2015 Paris Agreement.
• A leaked copy of the "Draft COP decision on long-term climate finance" has raised NGO concerns due to watered down commitments on the provision and timing of additional climate finance.

November 16th is Biodiversity Day which will focus on the impact of climate change on biodiversity and initiatives to halt biodiversity loss through nature and ecosystem-based solutions.

COP27 was never going to be a ‘Big COP' in the way that COP26 in Glasgow was.  It was not originally designed to be one of the five-year ratchet reviews of NDCs set out by the 2015 the Paris Agreement and there were no major new climate change texts due to be negotiated.  Sharm's value is likely to be assessed, at least in part, on whether it effectively tees up important items for next year, including:

• the Global Stocktake (the technical dialogue will conclude in June next year, and the political phase at COP28);
• the Global Goal on Adaptation, due to conclude next year;
• the New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance, due to conclude in 2024!and
• the increasingly important future discussions on loss and damage. 

However, COP27 remains an important waypoint – not least in how successful it eventually is in avoiding acrimonious debate and significant tensions over loss and damage.

Glasgow was a five-year review point.  But the UNFCCC assessed that not enough progress had been made by countries' emissions reductions targets towards the 1.5 degree target and required all member countries to return to COP27 with improved goals.  So COP27 represents an important departure from the UNFCCC's agreed timetable and in that sense demonstrates the increasing urgency of reducing emissions: an urgency juxtaposed against the record high attendance of representatives from oil and gas companies and the anguished debate about the role of gas as a transitional fuel.

And COP27 was set against a difficult geo-political and geo-economic backdrop.  Russia's invasion of Ukraine has caused upheaval in international energy markets and pushed inflation up to record levels.Central banks have responded by raising interest rates, pushing countries already struggling with the hangover from the pandemic to the brink of recession.  Europe's search for non-Russian gas has put pressure on developing countries, which have turned increasingly to coal as a cheaper alternative source of energy (and an increase in interest in exploiting Africa's untapped gas reserves), leading to the highest use of coal since 2013 and resulting in 2022's emissions being the highest on record.  Meanwhile, the UNFCCC has warned that the world is currently on target for temperature rises of 2.8 degrees by the end of the century (with the UN Secretary General warning colourfully that the world is ‘on a road to hell, with our foot hard down on the accelerator').

As if this set of circumstances were not unpropitious enough, this year has seen a sequence of climate-related natural disasters, with appalling flooding, wildfires and droughts afflicting countries across the globe.  The fact that COP27 was also billed as ‘The African COP' gave extra impetus to the calls from developing countries, which are bearing the brunt of the rapidly changing climate, for assistance with more than adaptation.  The issue of ‘loss and damage' (financing to address the actual impact that climate change is now having on developing countries) has been steadily increasing in importance: a shift developed countries have resisted out of concerns about potentially unlimited liability.

Initial negotiations around the content of the agenda (which took over 30 hours to reach an agreement) suggested a fraught and tense COP was likely.  But those negotiations resulted in loss and damage making its way onto a COP agenda for the first time.  Now that it is on the agenda, it is highly unlikely it will be removed at future COPs, meaning the developed world will have to address the issue eventually.  And in a welcome move on Saturday, John Kerry announced that the US was "totally supportive" of moves to address loss and damage and "100% ready" to discuss the issue in detail.

So COP27, which was supposed to have been about improved NDCs (though fewer than 30 countries came forward with revised offers), has been transformed into a COP which is all about the financing – both for adaptation and for loss and damage.  Whilst there is normally intense focus on the negotiations over UNFCC texts, with the focus on financing, such texts as were due to be negotiated were something of a sideshow, with negotiations only beginning late in the week.  This left negotiators working late into the night on Friday in order to try and finalize all decision texts before the closing plenaries of the Subsidiary Bodies on Saturday.

A COP of Few Announcements:

Although this COP has delivered fewer eye-catching initiatives than Glasgow, there are a few worth noting:

• A new US proposal to reduce methane emissions from oil and natural gas operations;
• US support for early warning systems for extreme weather disasters in Africa;
• US-Egyptian agreement to support solar and wind projects and decommission gas power plants;
• A UN plan for the Biodiversity COP15, due to be held in Montreal in December, to be "a Paris moment for biodiversity";
• Support for proposals for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty;
• Israel, Lebanon and Iraq announced plans to work together to reduce emissions;
• Norway postponed development of the world's most northerly oilfield exploitation;
• Israel and Jordan signed an MoU for a water-for-energy deal;
• The UK introduced "climate resilient debt clauses" by its export credit agency;
• France announced its support for the Bridgetown Agenda to reform the World Bank, to focus on providing climate finance;
• The US announced a new global carbon credit trading initiative;
• Barbados called for a global 10% tax on fossil fuel profits to fund loss and damage;
• China announced that Beijing and Washington are having ‘informal talks' and indicated potential support for a loss and damage fund;
• Kiribati, Rwanda, Malawi, Cabo Verde, Suriname, Barbados and Palau called for increased funding for loss and damage;
• The EU called for additional support for climate financing in the Global South;
• A new Report by Lord Stern estimated the cost of mitigation and adaptation in developing countries would be $2 trillion/year by 2030;
• The UK announced a doubling of funding for the Forest and Climate Leaders' Partnership to halt and reverse global forest loss by 2030;
• France doubled its domestic decarbonisation budget to help French heavy industry deacarbonise;
• The UN called for "red lines" to stop support for new fossil fuel exploration and overuse of carbon offsets;
• The UN called for the creation of a new "climate solidarity pact" in which rich countries would help poorer nations financially;
• New Zealand announced a climate fund for land and resources lost by developing countries to the effects of the climate crisis;
• The UN launched a plan for a $3.1 billion global early warning system for extreme weather events.

Comment:

The US position is clearly focused on mitigation on the basis that if not dealt with in a much more robust and accelerated way now and the world loses the opportunity to keep the goal of 1.5 degrees C within reach (it may already be in the rearview mirror), then the costs will continue to rise exponentially for adaptation and will make the feasibility of meeting those adaptation demands even more remote. 

The developing world also recognizes the importance of mitigation.  But their focus is increasingly on managing the impacts of climate change that they are already experiencing.  They argue they need financing now to address those impacts and there is frustration that the developed world is not doing enough to demonstrate recognition of and engagement with the climate justice issue of loss and damage.  Absent that recognition, the spirit of collaboration will be lacking: without that spirit, movement progress on mitigation is going to be slow at best, absent at worst.

John Kerry's Saturday evening comments about loss and damage are welcome as they demonstrate that the US recognizes the importance attached to loss and damage: that may be enough to open the door for progress. 

What that might look like is unclear, but one way forward would be a radical overhaul of the world's public financial institutions.布里奇顿议程引起全球关注,即世界银行需要将其业务焦点转向为发展中世界提供气候融资-以赠款形式而非贷款形式提供-这一变化将显示全球致力于为发展中世界寻找适应/损耗和损耗融资源,这可能解阻同样重要的缓解进展。 如果Gripsm实现这一点,我们毕竟会记住它为大COP.

Other COP 27 Developments:

• UN urged countries to use their remaining time in Egypt to make progress on 1.5 degrees, adaptation, finance, and loss and damage.
• Developing countries criticized the G7's loss and damage strategy which they accuse of pushing the Global Shield Insurance scheme, which could result in the exclusion of some countries considered ‘too developed'.
• The big three tropical rainforest nations – Brazil, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo – have signed a strategic alliance to coordinate at their conservation summit at G20.
• Germany followed France, Spain and the Netherlands in announcing its intention to exit the ECT, the arbitration system which allows energy companies to sue governments.
• President-elect Lula is reported to be attending part of the second week at COP.

G20 Announcements

• To counterbalance the less positive news regarding the progress of negotiations, the U.S.中方在20国集团今晚会谈中宣布,他们将“增强关键高官能力”,探讨潜在的合作领域,包括解决气候危机尚不清楚这是否意味着中国和美国将重开直接气候变化会谈,今年早些时候这些会谈陷入停顿状态。 拜登总统宣布ExxonMbil和印尼国有能源公司Pertamina达成2 500元碳捕获协议白宫声明指出, 合作伙伴关系“将帮助关键行业去碳化”, 并会降低碳排放, 确保印尼工人的经济机会, 帮助印尼实现净零雄心

明天为能源日与金融日并发,这是COP 27的两个最受人注目的主题日之一,重点是能源部门的公正过渡、绿色氢化、提高能效的重要性以及技术在管理和加速能源过渡中的作用。

//www.ludikid.com/2022/11/highlights-from-cop27-decarbonization-day/ 托马斯·赖利 Frii,2022年11月11日21:13:36+00 ESG系统 国际气候努力 2022排放 化石燃料 小岛国 过渡燃料 //www.ludikid.com/?p=8245 p对齐=center###p>全球碳项目报告阴暗发布以主犯身份UN预测全球排放到2025年必须峰值到2030年减半Continue Reading… s/www.globalcourproject.org/colbate/以主犯身份UN预测全球排放量必须到2025年峰值并到2030年减半,这样世界才能实现2015年巴黎COP商定的1.5度雄心值(2022年排放比2015年高5%以上)。
spanid='more-8245'##/span>

公司和国家与小岛国和非政府组织社区争吵不休,认为建设天然气必备数十年碳排放风险,发展中国家应跳跃依赖碳氢化合物并直通可再生电源。

Biden总统向COP讲解,警告全球升温科学清晰,应对危机时间不多。使用语言调用“每个主要发射体与1.5摄氏度一致”,然而,他确认美国致力于帮助受气候冲击影响最严重的发展中国家,他没有提到支付损耗。

最后,人们越来越担心经商文本可能无法及时提交,以便下周能讨论/并达成协议。

EPA issued a new proposal to reduce methane emissions from oil and natural gas operations by 87% by 2030, compared with 2005 levels;
• President Biden announced U.S.support for new early warning systems for extreme weather disasters in Africa and a deal to back new solar and wind projects in Egypt in return for the country decommissioning gas power plants and cutting its emissions;
• The UN set out plans for "a Paris moment for biodiversity" at COP15 in Montreal in December;
• The UK called on other countries to consider implementing debt suspension plans for countries which had suffered a climate-related disaster (following UK proposals to include this provision in Export Credit Guarantees earlier this week);
• Proposals for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty gathered further support from the World Health Organization, the Vatican, the European parliament, 70 cities (including London, Paris and Los Angeles) and 1,700 NGOs.

wednesday在英国、法国和美国发布气候融资公告后谨慎改善情绪A number of organizations called for more details of the United States' announced plans to launch a carbon credit program, dubbed an "Energy Transition Accelerator" (ETA), such as when companies could buy the credits and how the system would be policed, with some groups arguing that the plans risked distracting companies from reducing emissions by compensating for them with relatively cheap credits.

In another indication of the fractious nature of this year's COP, NGOs called for the end of fossil fuel sponsorship of COP amidst news stories that over 600 fossil fuel representatives are in Sharm  ̶  a 25% increase on COP26.

Other Developments

·       Israel, Lebanon and Iraq announced plans to work together to reduce emissions.

·       Norway announced the postponement (for four years) of development of The Wisting field – a major oil field and the world's most northerly oilfield exploitation.

·       A large protest activists took place outside the Conference Centre, linking the issues of climate justice and human rights.

·       Israel and Jordan signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for a water-for-energy deal (first announced a year ago), under which Jordan will build 600 megawatts of solar power capacity to export electricity to Israel in exchange for 200 million cubic meters of desalinated water.