The year 2024 was marked by violence and elections, as conflicts escalated around the world and billions of voters went to the polls.
However, climate change still made headlines.
Thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles were published over the course of the year, helping shape online discourse around climate change.
Tracking these mentions was Altmetric, an organisation that scores research papers according to the attention they receive online.
To do this, it tracks how often published peer-reviewed research is mentioned online in news articles, as well as on blogs, Wikipedia and on social media platforms such as Facebook, Reddit, Twitter and – in a new addition for 2024 – Bluesky. (Carbon Brief explained how Altmetric’s scoring system works in this article.)
Carbon Brief has parsed the data to compile its annual list of the 25 most talked-about climate-related papers of the past year.
The infographic above highlights the most mentioned climate papers of 2024, while the article analyses the top 25 research papers in greater detail, including the diversity and country affiliation of authors.
Overall, Altmetric’s data reveals the papers which generated the most online buzz in 2024 were – for the fourth year running – associated with Covid-19, with five of the 10 most talked-about papers of the year related to the virus.
However, a number of the most-shared studies were about climate change, from how warming is impacting ocean currents, the economy and timekeeping, through to efforts aimed at mapping historical temperatures using proxy data.
A return from last year’s highs
After a blockbuster year for online mentions of climate science in 2023, last year saw a return to more typical levels.
The most widely shared climate paper of 2024 has a score of 5,414, placing it at the bottom end of the range for top climate papers over the past seven years.
By contrast, the three most talked-about climate papers of 2023 received the highest attention scores recorded across all of Carbon Brief’s annual reviews, which date back to 2015. They clocked scores of 13,886, 8,686 and 7,821.
(For Carbon Brief’s previous Altmetric articles, see the links for 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016 and 2015.)
The graph below shows how the score given to the top paper in Carbon Brief’s annual review has changed over the past 10 years.
A spokesperson for Altmetric says the falling popularity of climate papers was not due to any adjustments to its methodology, noting that its scoring system “had not changed”. They tell Carbon Brief that online mentions of papers – across all disciplines – have declined in recent years from a peak in 2020, resulting in lower average scores across the board.
The spokesperson said it was unclear why the average number of mentions had fallen since 2020, but hypothesised that several factors could be at play. This includes a surge of policy citations during the Covid-19 pandemic and changes in how people use social media – such as a decline in posts on public Facebook feeds and a spike in Twitter posts in 2021.
The top 10 climate papers of 2024
- Physics-based early warning signal shows that AMOC is on tipping course
- The economic commitment of climate change
- 2023 summer warmth unparalleled over the past 2,000 years
- The growing inadequacy of an open-ended Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale in a warming world
- Critical transitions in the Amazon forest system
- Highest ocean heat in four centuries places Great Barrier Reef in danger
- Abrupt reduction in shipping emission as an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock produces substantial radiative warming
- A global timekeeping problem postponed by global warming
- Accelerating glacier volume loss on Juneau Icefield driven by hypsometry and melt-accelerating feedbacks
- A 485-million-year history of Earth’s surface temperature
Later in this article, Carbon Brief looks at the rest of the top 25, and provides analysis of the most featured journals, as well as the gender diversity and country of origin of authors.
AMOC alarm
The most talked-about climate paper of 2024 is a Science Advances study that finds the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) – a system of ocean currents that brings warm water up to Europe from the tropics and beyond – is “on route to tipping”.
The research, titled “Physics-based early warning signal shows that AMOC is on tipping course”, marks the first time that an AMOC tipping event has been identified in a cutting-edge climate model, in this case the Community Earth System Model.
The study’s Altmetric score of 5,414 shoots it to the top of Carbon Brief’s leaderboard and 1,272 points ahead of the second-placed paper.
However, as illustrated in the graph above, the research is the lowest-scoring climate paper to reach the top of the leaderboard since 2017.
The researchers from the Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research Utrecht describe the paper’s finding as “bad news for the climate system and humanity”. They explain:
“Up until now one could think that AMOC tipping was only a theoretical concept and tipping would disappear as soon as the full climate system, with all its additional feedbacks, was considered.”
The study paints a grisly picture of the consequences of a collapse of AMOC. This includes a 10-30C drop in winter temperatures in northern Europe within a century, and a “drastic change” in rainfall patterns in the Amazon. The paper states:
“These – and many more – impacts of an AMOC collapse have been known for a long time, but thus far have not been shown in a climate model of such high quality.”
Papers exploring the stability of AMOC have dominated Carbon Brief’s climate science leaderboard in recent years, coming in fourth and second place, respectively, in 2023 and 2021.
Media coverage has been amplified by disagreement over what metrics to use to measure the strength of AMOC. Previous studies have used sea surface temperature to make projections about when the tipping point may occur.
The Science Advances paper reaches its conclusions using a new, “physics-based” early warning signal for the breakdown of the vital ocean currents based on the salinity of water in the southern Atlantic.
Overall, the study racked up 601 news mentions, with the Times, Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Associated Press and CNN all reporting on its findings. It was also featured in 39 blogs, the highest of any paper in the top 25, and was shared more than 3,866 times on Twitter.
Study author Dr René van Westen tells Carbon Brief he believes the paper owes its popularity to its alarming conclusion that AMOC is approaching a tipping point, as well as the detail it offers around the “large-scale changes” and “substantial” climate impacts such an event could trigger. He explains:
“The urgency of the situation, suggesting that we are heading toward this collapse, underscores the need for immediate action to prevent such a scenario. We believe that the combination of these far-reaching climate impacts and the risk of AMOC collapse contributed to the extensive media coverage of our study.”
Economic commitment
The second highest-scoring climate paper of 2024, published in the journal Nature, is “The economic commitment of climate change”. The study has an Altmetric score of 4,142 and clocks in at second in the 2024 rankings.
The three-person authorship team, from Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, used 40 years of data on damages from temperature and rainfall from more than 1,600 regions around the world to assess how damages could increase under a warming climate.
They estimate that the world economy is committed to an income reduction of 19% within the next 26 years, regardless of how rapidly humanity now cuts emissions. These damages are six times higher than the mitigation costs required to limit global warming to 2C in the near term, the authors say.
They also warn that climate change is likely to exacerbate existing inequalities, adding:
“The largest losses are committed at lower latitudes in regions with lower cumulative historical emissions and lower present-day income.”
The study was mentioned 55 times on Bluesky. It has also been cited by Wikipedia seven times, including in pages on climate justice and climate change mitigation.
The study’s lead author, Dr Maximilian Kotz, tells Carbon Brief:
“We think we made a helpful contribution by pushing the limits of the spatial scales, climate information and assumptions around long-term persistence which are used in these kinds of studies.”
However, he said the media coverage mainly focused on the final numbers, speculating that “part of the wide interest in the media was likely that these numbers were large”. He told Carbon Brief that, in his experience, it is “normal for the media not to pay much attention to the kind of details a researcher finds important”.
Kotz added that since his study came out, a number of other papers have been published using different approaches, but arriving at similar final numbers.
Record hot summer
Coming in third place is a Nature paper which uses temperatures reconstructed from tree rings to conclude the northern hemisphere summer of 2023 was the hottest in two millennia.
To build a picture of summer temperatures stretching back to AD1, the researchers turn to nine of the longest temperature-sensitive tree ring chronologies in North America and Europe, as well as observational data for 1901-2010.
Rest of the top 10
In fourth place, with an Altmetric score of 3,907, is a paper that assesses whether the classification system for tropical cyclone wind speed needs to be expanded to reflect storms’ growing intensity in a warming world. It was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The research, “The growing inadequacy of an open-ended Saffir-Simpson hurricane-wind scale in a warming world”, says climate change has led to more intense storms, which could justify a new category on the Saffir-Simpson scale.
Introduced in the 1970s, the scale is used to communicate the risk tropical cyclone winds present to property. Events are ranked from category 1, for storms with winds of 74-95 miles per hour (mph), to category 5 for storms with a wind-speed of 157mph and above.
The study highlights how five tropical cyclones of the last nine years were so intense they could sit in a hypothetical sixth category, which could cover storms with winds of 192mph and above.
The study received more news coverage than any other in this year’s top 25, amassing 720 mentions.
In fifth and sixth place, with scores of 3,757 and 3,248, respectively, are a pair of Nature papers.
The first, “Critical transitions in the Amazon forest system”, finds that by 2050, 10-47% of the Amazon forest will be exposed to “compounding disturbances” that may trigger a tipping point, causing a shift from lush rainforest to dry savannah. Carbon Brief covered the study.
The second is a paper looking at how rising ocean temperatures are endangering the Great Barrier Reef. It cautions that without “urgent intervention” the world’s largest coral reef system is at risk of experiencing “temperatures conducive to near-annual coral bleaching” with negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem services.
The seventh-placed paper finds a reduction in sulphur emissions from ships – driven by cleaner fuel regulations introduced in 2020 – has led to “substantial radiative warming” that could lead to a “doubling (or more)” of the rate of warming this decade. (Carbon Brief published its own analysis of how low-sulphur shipping rules are affecting global warming in 2023.)
The Communications Earth & Environment study goes on to suggest that marine cloud brightening – a geoengineering technique where marine low clouds are “seeded” with aerosols – may be a “viable” climate solution.
Coming in eighth is a paper which finds that ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica is delaying an observed acceleration of Earth’s rotation, with consequences for global timekeeping.
The Nature paper, “A global timekeeping problem postponed by global warming”, finds the redistribution of mass on Earth as polar ice melts means timekeepers will have to remove a second from global clocks around 2029. If it were not for the acceleration in polar ice melt, this second would have been due for removal by 2026, it says.
Timekeepers are no strangers to tweaking time to adjust for the Earth’s rotation; 27 leap seconds have been added to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) since the 1970s. However, the paper cautions the first-ever removal of a second is set to pose “an unprecedented problem” for computer network timing.
(Similarly, in 25th place is a Proceedings of the National Academy of Science paper that finds melting ice sheets and glaciers are redistributing the planet’s mass, causing days to become longer by milliseconds.)
In ninth place is a Nature Communications paper which finds that rates of glacier area shrinkage on the Juneau ice field, which straddles Alaska and British Columbia, were five times faster over 2015-19 relative to 1948-79.
Rounding out the top 10 is a Science study that uses proxy data to conclude that the Earth’s average surface temperature has varied between 11C and 36C over the past 485m years.
Retracted papers go viral
One of the most shared papers of the year looks into a CO2 “saturation hypothesis” – a popular topic among climate sceptics. The theory contends the atmosphere has reached a CO2 saturation point, which means that additional emissions of the gas will cause little or no further warming.
The paper argues “continued and improved experimental work” is needed to ascertain whether “additionally emitted carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is indeed a greenhouse gas”.
The research, entitled “Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases”, was published by Applications in Engineering Science in March, but subsequently retracted by the editor.
In a retraction notice, Applications in Engineering Science said the rigour and quality of the peer-review process for the paper had been “investigated and confirmed to fall beneath the high standards expected”.
While the paper received just four news mentions, it was widely shared on Twitter, clocking more than 6,000 posts. With a score of 2,661, it would have been the ninth most talked-about climate paper of 2024 had it not been retracted.
UK political commentator and climate sceptic Toby Young, who was recently promoted to the UK House of Lords, shared an article promoting saturation theory in late December that references the research. As of 9 January, his Twitter post had been shared 6,500 times and viewed 128,300 times.
Controversial Covid-19 treatment and vaccination research also received significant attention in 2024, with four of the most talked-about papers of the year – of any topic – retracted by journal editors.
The studies in question – three of which relate to vaccines and one to hydroxychloroquine – would have placed first, third, fourth and sixth in Altmetric’s overall rankings, had they not been withdrawn.
A controversial paper that did make it into the top 25 without being retracted was a study in the journal Geomatics. It argues that a decrease in planetary albedo and variations in “total solar irradiance” explain “100% of the global warming trend” over 2000-23 and 83% of interannual variability in global temperatures.
The authors have previously proposed a theory that global warming is caused by atmospheric pressure – and were caught publishing their papers under pseudonyms, which were their own names spelled backwards.
With only four news mentions, most of the attention from this article came from other sources. A tweet from the study’s lead author prompted a heated discussion and generated thousands of likes and retweets. Overall, the research was mentioned on Twitter 9,599 times.
The study, which came 13th in the overall rankings with a score of 2,096, was also mentioned on 14 blogs, including a number of climate-sceptic websites.
Elsewhere in the top 25
The rest of the top 25 contains a varied mix of papers that were typically well-received by the scientific community, including research on oil and gas system emissions (15th), mortality due to tropical cyclones in the US (16th) and the latest “state of wildfires” update (22nd).
Paper number 12 finds that a “record-low planetary albedo”, mainly caused by low cloud cover in the northern mid-latitudes and tropics, may have been an important driver of the record-high global temperatures in 2023.
Published on 5 December in the journal Science, it is a relatively late entry into the annual rankings. Despite its late publication date, the study tops the charts for Bluesky mentions, gaining 376 mentions in less than one month.
A Communications Earth & Environment study, called “A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet”, sits at number 21, with an Altmetric score of 2,018. The study uses statistical methods to search for a recent acceleration in global warming, and concludes that it is not possible to detect one.
The lead author of the study told Carbon Brief that the findings do not rule out that an acceleration might be occurring. She said that “the point of the paper is that it will take additional years of observations to detect a sustained acceleration”. However, some scientists questioned the utility of the methods used in the study, arguing there is evidence of an acceleration in warming.
At number 23 is a study in the journal Science which evaluates 1,500 climate policies that have been implemented over the past 25 years. The lead author of the study told Carbon Brief that taxes are “the only policy instrument that has been found to cause large emission reductions on their own”. The study received 30 mentions in blogs and more than 200 news mentions.
Some studies receive a lot of attention because they provoke discussion or a significant backlash, which drives up news stories and discussion on social media.
For example, the paper ranking at number 14 is a Nature Climate Change study claiming that the planet has already exceeded the 1.5C warming threshold set under the Paris Agreement.
The authors use proxy data from sea sponges in the Caribbean Sea to create a record of ocean temperatures from AD700 to the present day. They find that warming started 40 years before the IPCC’s pre-industrial baseline period began, and argue that this means “warming is 0.5C higher than [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] estimates”.
However, many experts were critical, warning Carbon Brief that the framing of the study is misleading, and arguing that the finding has no bearing on the Paris Agreement 1.5C limit. One expert, who was also not involved in the study, said that “the way these findings have been communicated is flawed, and has the potential to add unnecessary confusion to public debate on climate change”.
The study received 262 news mentions, with some outlets – including the Guardian and New Scientist – highlighting the disagreements over the study’s framing.
All the final scores for the top 25 climate papers of 2024 can be found in this spreadsheet.
Top journals
Across the top 25 papers in Carbon Brief’s leaderboard this year, Nature features most frequently with seven papers. Nature is perennially high-placed in this analysis, taking first or joint first spot in Carbon Brief’s top 25 six times – 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2015.
In joint-second place this year are Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and Communications Earth & Environment with three papers each.
Earth System Science Data has two papers, and there are seven journals that each have one paper.
Diversity of the top 25
The top 25 climate papers of 2024 cover a wide range of topics and scope. However, analysis of their authors reveals an all-too-familiar lack of diversity. Carbon Brief recorded the gender and country of affiliation for each of these authors. (The methodology used was developed by Carbon Brief for analysis presented in a special 2021 series on climate justice.)
In total, the top 25 climate papers of 2024 have 275 authors. This is fewer than in the past two years, partly due to the absence of the Lancet Countdown report, which typically has more than 100 authors.
The analysis reveals that the authors of the climate papers most featured in the media in 2024 are predominantly men from the global north.
The chart below shows the institutional affiliations of all authors in this analysis, broken down by continent – Europe, North America, Oceania, Asia, South America and Africa.
The analysis shows that 85% of authors are affiliated with institutions from the global north – defined as North America, Europe and Oceania. Meanwhile, only two authors are from Africa.
Further data analysis shows that there are also inequalities within continents. The map below shows the percentage of authors from each country in the analysis, where dark blue indicates a higher percentage. Countries that are not represented by any authors in the analysis are shown in grey.
The top-ranking countries on this map are the US and the UK, with 26% and 18% of the total authors, respectively. Germany ranks third on the list with 15% of the authors.
Meanwhile, only one-third of authors from the top 25 climate papers of 2024 are women. And only five of the 25 papers have a woman as a lead author.
The plot below shows the number of authors from each continent who are men (purple) and women (yellow).
The full spreadsheet showing the results of this data analysis can be found here. For more on the biases in climate publishing, see Carbon Brief’s article on the lack of diversity in climate-science research.
The post Analysis: The climate papers most featured in the media in 2024 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: The climate papers most featured in the media in 2024
Britain’s new prime minister announced in his first week that he will cut the cost of public transport and electricity, making lower-emission technologies like bus travel, electric vehicles and heat pumps more affordable for voters. But some of the funding for those policies will come from the budget for international climate finance, the government has said, raising concerns about fairness.
Former Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham took over from Keir Starmer as Labour Party leader and prime minister on Monday, appointing climate advocates Ed Miliband as foreign and development minister and Miatta Fahnbulleh as climate and energy minister.
On Tuesday, Burnham said his government would cut the value added tax (VAT) households and some small businesses pay on their electricity bills from 5% to zero from October 1, saving households £45 ($60) a year.
On Wednesday, he said the maximum fare bus companies in England can charge for a single journey will be reduced from £3 ($4) to £2 ($2.67) from January 1, 2027. The government said the subsidies to achieve this would be mostly funded by switching money set aside for overseas climate finance projects from grants to loans. It did not give further information in its announcement, while the UK’s transport minister told Sky News the plan is still being worked out.
-
Tropical forest protection fund at risk after UK stalls on pledge
The Brazil-led TFFF was launched at COP30 as an innovative financial model to keep rainforests standing, but is still short on startup cash -
UK halves Green Climate Fund contribution, as it spends more on security
After promising £1.6 billion to the UN’s flagship climate fund in 2023, the UK government has now said it will only hand over half as much -
EU, UK lead push for electrification as “powerful weapon” against fossil fuels
A group of dozens of countries seeks to build momentum for a COP31 pledge to electrify 35% of global energy use by 2035 as an alternative to fossil fuels
The floated changes to the climate finance budget were immediately criticised by groups working on climate justice for developing countries, including Bond, the UK network for NGOs, which described the decision as “disappointing”.
“Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not the answer and pitches marginalised communities in the UK against marginalised communities in lower-income and climate-vulnerable countries,” BOND CEO Romilly Greenhill said in a statement. “Climate finance must not worsen the debt burden of countries that are already suffering the worst – and most costly – impacts of a climate crisis they did not cause.”
Hunt for money
Burnham promoted both policies as measures to combat the rising cost of living and “give people breathing space”, with climate campaigners and industry groups noting they are also likely to reduce the UK’s climate-heating emissions by encouraging bus travel and the use of electric vehicles and heating.
But thorny questions remain over how the policies will be paid for. The government said Tuesday’s VAT cut for electricity would be funded by scrapping the previous government’s digital ID programme, but Darren Jones, a former minister involved with that policy, said it had been “unfunded” – a statement that dominated media coverage.
A day later, the government said the new bus fare cap would cost £454 million ($606m). Transport minister Heidi Alexander told Sky News that £54 million would be taken from an under-spend in the budget of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) and £400 million would come from changing unspecified international climate finance from grants to loans. The details “still need to be worked through”, she said, adding that the government “had wanted to make an announcement today”.
Mohamed Adow, director of Nairobi-based think-tank Power Shift Africa, said “climate finance was never meant to be a pot of money that governments raid when they need to pay for domestic spending”.
DESNZ had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication. “We’re not wanting to fleece anyone here, and we actually want to maximise the development potential of this money that is available,” minister Alexander said in her TV interview.
Aside from the controversy over their funding, the policies themselves were widely welcomed by climate campaigners. Jess Ralston, energy lead at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), said the tax cut on electricity bills “could help households to switch to electric heat pumps, protecting UK homes from becoming ever more exposed to the whims of Putin and Trump when turning on their gas boiler”.
The last few months have seen global momentum build behind electrification, spurred by the US-Iran war disrupting oil and gas supplies and driving up prices. The Turkish and Australian COP31 presidencies have announced a global target to boost electrification, backed by the European Union, Canada, Philippines, UK and others.
Campaigners call for lower power prices
While reaction to the VAT cut was supportive, some questioned whether £45 a year of savings per household is enough and called for more measures to cut electricity bills.
Friends of the Earth’s energy lead Imogen Dow said those on the lowest incomes should be given cheaper electricity through a “social tariff” and the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) think-tank – which is close to the Labour Party – said levies on energy bills should be shifted to general taxation.
Matthew Paterson, a politics professor at Manchester University, told Climate Home News that the most effective way to reduce electricity bills is to take on the UK’s private electricity companies, while consumer-oriented measures like the VAT cut are “tinkering around the edges”.
Jarrod Birch, head of policy and public affairs for the EV charging industry association Charge UK, said that while the policy would make home-charging cheaper, people who charge their vehicles at public points will still have to pay 20% VAT. The UK’s tax authority is fighting a court ruling that ordered it to reduce the tax motorists pay on public chargers to the current household rate of 5%.
Further measures will be the responsibility of Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Miatta Fahnbulleh, who is relatively new to politics after a career at left-wing, pro-climate think tanks the IPPR and the New Economics Foundation.
Michael Jacobs, political economy professor at Sheffield University and former adviser to UK Labour prime minister Gordon Brown, said Fahnbulleh would be a “climate advocate” who would continue the “progressive climate agenda” of her predecessor Ed Miliband.
“She’s a very creative policy wonk so I expect there to be lots of policy innovation under her,” he said, “I think she will be looking at new ways to encourage take-up of heat pumps and domestic batteries.”
Aid budget in Miliband’s hands
Despite reports he could be made finance minister, Miliband has been appointed Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Miliband has attended many climate COP meetings over several decades, most recently representing the UK at COP29 and COP30, and has been targeted by the right-wing media for his support for climate action and opposition to new oil and gas drilling in the UK’s part of the North Sea.
In his new role, Miliband will be responsible for the UK’s overseas aid budget including its international climate finance, which the Starmer government had slashed to fund increases in defence spending.
UK cuts support for climate action abroad to fund military instead
Jacobs said he expected Miliband to prioritise climate and development in the UK’s foreign policy and to push Burnham and new finance minister John Healey to reverse Starmer’s aid cuts.
But there are fears Healey could try to cut the aid budget further to fund the military. Healey was a surprise pick for Chancellor of the Exchequer and grabbed headlines when he resigned as Starmer’s defence minister in June over what he saw as insufficient defence spending.
The post Will new UK PM’s green measures at home cause climate finance pain overseas? appeared first on Climate Home News.
Will new UK PM’s green measures at home cause climate finance pain overseas?
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands, 22 July 2026 – Greenpeace Netherlands has launched legal proceedings against a multi-billion-dollar global expansion plan by the biggest meat producer in Australia, JBS, in an escalation of climate litigation against the livestock industry.
Greenpeace petitioned a Dutch court to compel the meat giant to disclose information in order to challenge its business policies in court, including a US$6 billion global expansion, for which almost half is earmarked for Nigeria.
Elizabeth Atieno, Food Campaigner at Greenpeace Africa, said: “JBS’ meat empire expanded hand-in-glove with Amazon destruction, colossal emissions, human rights and corruption scandals, all with barely a semblance of transparency. This is the business model it wants to export to sub-Saharan Africa. JBS promises food security, but its expansion in Nigeria risks causing irreversible environmental damage and the displacement of smallholder farmers to line the pockets of wealthy global elites.
“Nigerians know well from the legacy of companies like Shell the destructive impact wrought by unchecked corporate power. As Greenpeace Africa has argued before the African Court of Human Rights, states with jurisdiction over multinationals must hold those corporate actors accountable – wherever they operate in the world. We welcome this bold legal action: the Netherlands and other European states must not be safe havens for corporations like JBS seeking to evade their responsibilities.”
In light of JBS’ longstanding failure to publish accurate and reliable information on its climate, nature and human rights impacts or its expansion plans, Greenpeace Netherlands views accessing this data as a necessary precursor to formal litigation in order to support its case. The case has the potential to be the first climate litigation of this scale against the livestock industry. This could set a major precedent for future legal challenges against the industrial agriculture sector, a major source of global emissions, particularly of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, responsible for 0.5°C of warming since the Industrial Revolution.[1]
JBS, via its subsidiary JBS Foods Australia, is the largest meat and food processing company in Australia. With a weekly processing capacity of over 50,000 cattle, it accounts for almost a quarter of all beef processing in the country, as well as a significant presence in the lamb, pork and farmed fish markets. [2] In 2022, ABC’s Four Corners accused the company of ‘repeatedly failing to protect its workers from horrific injuries.’ [3]
Marieke Vellekoop, Executive Director at Greenpeace Netherlands, said “In a month where JBS has thrown its flagship environmental commitments onto the scrap heap, JBS’ disdain for basic transparency only adds to the impression that this meat giant has something to hide and is desperate to prevent its expansion plans from going public. We were hoping we wouldn’t have to trouble a judge with this matter, but JBS has left us no choice but to seek our right to information through the Dutch courts.
“JBS appears to believe that despite moving to the Netherlands, our rules do not apply to it. This legal action aims to prove it wrong – and lay the ground for a first major climate and nature lawsuit against the dangerous expansion of the global meat industry.“
At the centre of the dispute is JBS’ planned US$ 2.5 billion investment in industrial livestock production in Nigeria.[2] Civil society groups in Nigeria have raised urgent warnings that the aggressive expansion will threaten local food security, drive regional instability, and accelerate ecological degradation. There is no available evidence that JBS has conducted any impact assessments or community consultations in Nigeria, and local efforts to gather more information via Freedom of Information requests have reportedly been ignored.[3]
The escalation to the courts follows the refusal of JBS, the world’s largest meat company, to comply with a formal disclosure demand delivered by Greenpeace Netherlands in April. The environmental group is utilising new Dutch legislation, which grants parties with a legitimate interest the right to demand access to specific corporate data necessary to build litigation against Dutch companies.[4]
Greenpeace Netherlands’ lawyers allege that JBS’ historic business practices and future expansion plans are inconsistent with the company’s climate and biodiversity obligations and represent a breach of its Dutch duty of care, which requires companies to act in line with international human rights law.[5]
If the court rules in favor of Greenpeace Netherlands, it is entitled to seek the required information in the form of documents and from senior JBS figures under oath, raising the prospect of the Batista brothers being forced to testify in Dutch court. JBS reincorporated as a Dutch entity (JBS N.V.) last year to facilitate a dual listing on the New York Stock Exchange.
In April, JBS was forced to temporarily suspend its first annual general meeting since moving its headquarters to Amsterdam after it was disrupted by dozens of Greenpeace Netherlands activists.
Last week, JBS scrapped two flagship commitments to reach Net Zero emissions by 2040 and eradicate deforestation from its supply chain. It also removed any explicit reference to Indigenous lands from all of its current policies. Greenpeace Netherlands is concerned this indicates JBS is seeking to expand unconstrained by the climate, nature and human rights impacts of its business.
–ENDS–
Notes:
[1] The livestock sector is estimated to be responsible for 31% of global methane emissions (more than oil and gas operations). In comparison to CO2, methane is shorter lived (around 12 years) but has a much stronger ability to trap heat in the atmosphere over its lifetime: it has approximately 80 times more climate impact than CO2 when measured over 20 years. This means that changes in methane emissions have a more rapid effect on the climate than changes in CO2. See Greenpeace Netherlands letter to JBS dated 30 April 2026.
[2] JBS Foods Australia, Our Business
[3] ABC, Australia’s biggest meat company JBS is repeatedly failing to protect its workers from horrific injuries, 25 April 2022
[4] JBS announcement
[5] Experts raise concerns over the risks of industrial animal farming (The Sun Nigeria)
[6] Simplification and modernisation of Dutch evidence law (Fieldfisher)
[7] Greenpeace Netherlands petition to Dutch court available here. Media briefing with further details on JBS expansion plans, including in Nigeria, available here.
Greenpeace launches legal challenge against Australia’s biggest meat company
Climate Change
“Next year is too late for regulations”: Beetaloo Energy’s 2GW gas-powered AI data centre a “disaster proposal” destined to cause climate chaos
SYDNEY, Wednesday 22 July 2026 — Beetaloo Energy has secured land from the NT Government for a massive $40 billion “hyperscale” AI data centre near Darwin, which would be powered by 2 gigawatts (GW) of gas power fracked directly from the Beetaloo basin, prompting calls from Greenpeace for urgent federal legislation.
The proposal marks a dangerous escalation in the AI data centre industry’s expansion, which threatens to entrench fossil fuel infrastructure for decades and put immense pressure on the region’s fragile water resources — while continuing to be unregulated.
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This disaster proposal for a 2GW gas-powered AI data centre in the NT is a shocking example of the unchecked expansion of hyperscale data centres in Australia. It is also, critically, more evidence for the urgent need for a moratorium on all new data centres until strong, binding regulations are put in place to protect our communities and climate.
“This proposal mirrors the frenzied, unchecked expansion currently wreaking havoc on communities in the US. We are seeing cowboy data centre operators treat Australia like a playground, steam-rolling ahead with projects that would lock down precious water resources and spike emissions, despite the overwhelming community opposition.
“Every day, more councils, communities and environmental groups are joining Greenpeace’s call for a moratorium on data centres, yet as of today there is still no system of safeguards or rules in place to regulate these companies.
“While Beetaloo Energy and the NT Government prepare to bulldoze ahead with this climate and water disaster, the Prime Minister is asleep at the wheel, promising to legislate a vague set of standards next year.
“Next year is too late, and anything less than mandating data centres cover their own energy demand, and then some, with new renewable energy is not enough.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Lucy Keller on 0491 135 308 or lucy.keller@greenpeace.org
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测