In this paper we examine definitions of ‘greenwashing’ and its different forms, developing a tool for assessing diverse ‘green’ claims made by various actors. Research shows that significant deception and misleading claims exist both in the regulated commercial sphere, as well as in the unregulated non-commercial sphere (e.g., governments, NGO partnerships, international pledges, etc.). Recently, serious concerns have been raised over rampant greenwashing, in particular with regard to rapidly emerging net zero commitments. The proposed framework we developed is the first actionable tool for analysing the quality and truthfulness of such claims. The framework has widespread and unique potential for highlighting efforts that seek to delay or distract real solutions that are urgently needed today to tackle multiple climate and environmental crises. In addition, we note how the framework may also assist in the development of practices and communication strategies that ultimately avoid greenwashing.

Negotiations under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity have recently concluded on a protocol governing the safe handling, transport, and use of living modified organisms (LMOs)—the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. One of the most contentious issues in these negotiations was the inclusion of socioeconomic considerations in the evaluation for import of an LMO. Many countries wanted the protocol to include provisions that enable an import ban or other trade-related measure to be taken if negative socioeconomic impacts are predicted that would have downstream consequences for the conservation and/or sustainable use of biological diversity. Other countries, principally the United States, believed such measures would run counter to national obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. The author considers the rationale for inclusion of socioeconomic considerations in evaluation of LMOs for import and evaluates the arguments that such provisions would not be WTO legal.

Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and non-governmental organisations have begun to point out that there are significant and serious limits to adaptive capacity and possible adaptation to climate change, particularly to slow-onset impacts such as sea level rise, glacial retreat, desertification, and ocean acidification. The legal obligation to act established under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and this growing recognition of adaptation limits has elevated the issue of loss and damage in ongoing negotiations. In this paper, we review the evolution, foundations, and rationale for the establishment of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM) under the Convention, in particular, the role of the Convention in systematically addressing loss and damage in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. We also contribute some forward thinking on how to address needs of developing countries in the context of the operationalisation of the mechanism.

No abstract

Both are members of the Board of Directors of the Council for Responsible Genetics and Co-Chairs of the Science and Technology Committee of the newly formed Labor Party in the US.