Fines for companies caught importing, trading or selling banned products will total up to at least 4% of annual EU revenues. Using Nestlé as an example, this could mean a fine of about $800m
But possibly even more important is the fact that over time, case law around the EU Biodiversity Regulations and and biodiversity loss may give rise to the possibility of directors’ liability for breaching their duties
4/12
The EU Deforestation Regulation is innovative and tough: The burden of proof for imports, and showing they are deforestation-free, is on traders and EU buyers and not on producing countries where law enforcement may be patchy (and I am being polite)
5/12
The 7 commodities required to be deforestation-free in order to be sold on the EU market or exported from it must be covered by a "due diligence statement" and produced in accordance with applicable local laws
6/12
Buyers and traders marketing these products in the EU (or exporting them from the EU) must:
> Conduct extensive diligence, down to the geolocation of all plots of land where they were produced
> Time-stamp the production
7/12
> Collect detailed information that demonstrates the products comply with the regulation
> Establish and maintain a due diligence system of procedures and measures to ensure relevant products comply
> Mitigate risks by carrying out independent surveys/audits
8/12
> Carry out a risk assessment in relation to each product to ascertain the risk of non-compliance, including human rights and whether indigenous rights were respected
9/12
In short, the law forces companies to clean up their supply chains, by holding them responsible for where they get their commodities from and ensuring suppliers aren’t violating applicable human rights, labor and environmental standards in the exporting country and the EU
10/12
This will result in a tsunami or consequences in countries exporting, for example, beef, leather, furniture, chocolate, palm oil or coffee to the EU - and meaningfully and forcefully fight-back against deforestation
Gone are the incentives producers, traders and companies across the supply chain of these commodities had to [turn a blind eye to][not give a toss about the] associated environmental, biodiversity, human rights and climate catastrophes
1 For the first time ever, an oil chief - and in this case no less than the CEO of a major oil company - is appointed president of the COP28 climate summit
2 The COP28 team is marshalling a new alliance of the oil and gas sector which of course is "forgetting" to include in its pretend-decarbonizing goals the bulk of emissions from fossil fuels
Saudi Aramco just posted $161b in "profits" and is going to "increase production capacity to 13m barrels/day"
Its scope 3 emissions, however, are 1,600m tons of CO2. Its charge for this environmental destruction should have been, at $100/ton, $160b, wiping out its profits
1/n
That's before ANY charge for environmental destruction other than emissions, of which they have an enormous amount
2/n
Big Oil profits only exist because environmental destruction isn't quantified or accounted for. Today, destroying the environment and polluting free of charge are simply a disclosure and reporting issue: Big Oil executives and shareholders are recompensated for destruction
3/n
Some context around the $200 billion in net profits just 5 oil companies made in 2022
$200bn isn't just obscene, it's also wrong: these companies all lost money. We just can't "see it" because they don't pay for their wanton destruction of the environment
THREAD
Big Oil profits exist because environmental destruction isn't quantified or accounted for. Today, destroying the environment and polluting free of charge are simply a disclosure and reporting issue: Big Oil executives and shareholders are recompensated for destruction
2/n
ExxonMobil tells us its emissions were the equivalent of 690 million tons of CO2. The social cost of carbon – in other words, how much damage in dollars one ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere causes – is estimated to be anywhere from $50 to $200. Let’s suppose it is $100
3/n
The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero is a complete joke and provides cover to banks frying the planet while pretending to go "net zero"
A new report published by 13 NGOs comprehensively proves the point
THREAD
The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero presents itself as "a global coalition of leading financial institutions committed to accelerating the decarbonization of the economy" blah bah blah
As a matter of fact, they appear committed to exactly the opposite aim
2/n
Top 10 climate destroying banks: largest fossil fuel expanders from joining NZBA
1 Citigroup $31b in climate destruction finance
2 Bank of America $23b
3 MUFJ $23b
4 Mizuho $19b
5 JP Morgan $17b
6 HSBC $12b
7 SMBC $12b
8 Morgan Stanley $11b
9 RBC $10b
10 Deutsche $9b
My animal of the year (including humans): Insects, which we are in the process of wiping out
If you drive, have you noticed that many fewer insects crash into your windshield compared to a few years ago? Sadly, this has a name: the ‘windshield phenomenon’
🧵
This should be front-page headline news every day. We like to think we run the world, but we are not the world’s ultimate controllers. The ultimate controllers, the tiny things that enforce our world order, are insects
Yet we are in the midst of a massive insect apocalypse
2/n
As we continue to transform - and destroy - Earth, insects are declining at an unprecedented rate of perhaps 2% a year from deforestation, pesticides, pollution and climate change
3/n