New Federal Rules on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting: What Businesses Need to Know

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are a primary driver of climate change, making transparency in corporate emissions reporting a critical step toward global sustainability. Governments worldwide have been tightening regulations to ensure businesses accurately disclose their environmental impact. In the United States, new federal rules now require companies to report their GHG emissions more transparently, marking a significant shift in climate accountability.

These regulations aim to provide investors, regulators, and the public with clearer insights into corporate carbon footprints. By standardizing emissions reporting, the government seeks to close loopholes that previously allowed companies to underreport or misrepresent their environmental impact. This move aligns with broader global efforts, including the European Union’s mandatory sustainability reporting framework.

As companies prepare for these new requirements, they face both challenges and opportunities. Understanding the implications of these regulations will be crucial for businesses navigating the evolving landscape of environmental compliance.

Background: The Need for Stricter GHG Reporting

For years, corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting has been largely inconsistent, with many companies voluntarily disclosing emissions data using different methodologies. While some businesses have taken proactive steps toward transparency, others have faced criticism for underreporting or omitting key emissions sources, creating a gap in accurate climate data. This lack of standardization has made it difficult for investors, regulators, and the public to assess corporate environmental impact effectively.

The growing urgency of the climate crisis has increased pressure on governments to tighten regulations. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been working to establish clear, enforceable reporting requirements that align with global sustainability goals. Additionally, international frameworks such as the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) have influenced the push for stricter regulations in the U.S.

Beyond regulatory pressure, stakeholders—including investors, customers, and environmental advocates—are demanding greater accountability. Companies that fail to provide transparent emissions data risk reputational damage and potential legal consequences. The new federal rules aim to address these concerns by requiring standardized, verifiable disclosures, ensuring that businesses take responsibility for their environmental impact.

Details of the New Federal Rules

The new federal rules on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting represent a significant shift in corporate climate disclosure, but recent statements from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) indicate that some aspects of the regulations are still under review. Legal challenges and stakeholder concerns have led to reconsideration of certain provisions, particularly regarding Scope 3 emissions reporting and compliance costs for smaller businesses.

Key Changes in the SEC Climate Disclosure Rules:

• Mandatory Reporting of Scope 1 and Scope 2 Emissions

  • Scope 1: Direct emissions from company operations.

  • Scope 2: Indirect emissions from purchased energy.

• Scope 3 Emissions Reporting Still Under Review

  • Originally proposed as mandatory for large companies, but now facing legal and industry pushback.

  • Final rules may limit Scope 3 disclosures to certain industries or make them voluntary.

• Third-Party Verification Requirements

  • Companies must ensure the accuracy of emissions data through independent audits.

• Regulatory Uncertainty and Legal Challenges

  • The SEC is facing lawsuits and political opposition, which could delay or modify final implementation.

While the rules aim to align with global reporting standards, the final version will likely be adjusted to address industry concerns and legal risks. Companies should prepare for stricter reporting requirements but remain aware that aspects of the regulation may still change.

Impacts on Businesses and Industries

The uncertainty surrounding the SEC’s climate disclosure rules is creating both challenges and opportunities for businesses. While the move toward greater transparency is seen as a positive step for environmental accountability, the potential costs and legal complexities are raising concerns among corporate leaders.

Compliance Challenges and Costs

One of the biggest concerns is the financial burden of compliance, especially for small and mid-sized companies. Businesses will need to invest in emissions tracking systems, conduct third-party audits, and integrate climate risk assessments into their financial disclosures. If Scope 3 reporting remains part of the final rules, companies with large supply chains could face significant compliance challenges.

Benefits: Transparency, Investor Confidence, and Sustainability

Despite these challenges, clear and standardized reporting could provide long-term business benefits. Investors and regulators increasingly favor companies with strong environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies, and greater transparency may enhance corporate reputation and access to sustainable investment opportunities. Companies that proactively adopt emissions reduction strategies may also gain a competitive edge as sustainability expectations continue to rise.

Regulatory Uncertainty and Potential Changes

With legal challenges still unfolding, some companies are waiting for final rule adjustments before making major investments in emissions tracking. Businesses should stay informed and prepare for compliance while remaining adaptable to potential modifications in the reporting requirements.

Reactions and Future Implications

The SEC’s revised approach to climate disclosure has sparked mixed reactions. Environmental advocates and ESG-focused investors argue that the rules need to be stronger to ensure full corporate accountability. They are particularly concerned about Scope 3 emissions potentially being dropped from mandatory reporting, as supply chain emissions often make up the majority of a company’s carbon footprint.

On the other hand, business leaders and industry groups have pushed back, citing high compliance costs and legal risks. Some argue that the SEC’s involvement in climate disclosure oversteps its authority, leading to lawsuits and potential delays in implementation.

Looking ahead, businesses should expect continued debate and possible modifications before the rules take full effect. However, the trend toward greater emissions transparency is unlikely to reverse, meaning companies will need to invest in sustainability reporting regardless of how the final SEC rules take shape.

Conclusion

The SEC’s new greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting rules mark a significant step toward corporate climate accountability, but ongoing legal challenges and regulatory uncertainty mean businesses must remain adaptable. While Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions reporting will likely become standard, the debate over Scope 3 disclosures highlights the complexities of enforcing climate transparency.

For companies, the shift toward stricter reporting represents both a challenge and an opportunity. Proactive businesses that invest in emissions tracking and sustainability efforts will gain a competitive edge in an evolving regulatory landscape. Regardless of final SEC rulings, the push for greater corporate climate accountability is here to stay.

EU Moves Forward with Single-Use Plastic Ban: Reducing Marine Pollution

Plastic pollution is one of the most pressing environmental challenges of our time, with single-use plastics contributing significantly to the degradation of ecosystems, especially marine environments. Every year, millions of tons of plastic waste end up in oceans, harming wildlife and disrupting natural processes. Items like plastic straws, cutlery, and packaging often break down into microplastics, which are ingested by marine animals and enter the food chain, posing risks to human health as well.

The European Union (EU) has taken a leading role in addressing this issue, recognizing the urgent need to reduce plastic waste and its damaging impact on marine life. In line with its broader environmental goals, the EU has introduced stringent measures to limit the production and use of single-use plastics, aiming to curtail pollution at the source and set a precedent for global environmental policy.

Background: The EU’s History with Plastic Regulations

The European Union has long been at the forefront of environmental regulation, including efforts to reduce plastic pollution. Over the past decade, the EU has introduced a series of measures aimed at managing plastic waste and promoting more sustainable alternatives. The first significant steps came in 2015 with the EU’s Circular Economy Action Plan, which included objectives to reduce plastic consumption and increase recycling rates across member states.

In 2018, the EU adopted the European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy, marking a pivotal moment in its approach to tackling plastic pollution. This strategy aimed to transition from a "take-make-dispose" model to a more sustainable, closed-loop system. A central component was addressing single-use plastics, which account for a large percentage of marine litter.

Following years of consultation and impact assessments, the European Parliament approved a directive in 2019 to ban the production and sale of specific single-use plastic items, such as straws, cutlery, and food containers, by 2021. This marked a significant escalation in the EU's plastic regulations, reflecting the growing urgency to combat marine pollution. The rationale behind these efforts was clear: the longer plastic pollution goes unchecked, the more devastating its impact on marine ecosystems and human health will be.

Key Provisions of the Single-Use Plastic Ban

The European Union's Single-Use Plastics Directive, adopted in 2019, targets the most common plastic products found in European waters, which are responsible for 70% of marine litter. The ban, fully enforced across EU member states by 2021, focuses on several key provisions aimed at curbing plastic pollution at its source.

First, the directive prohibits the sale of specific single-use plastic items such as plastic cutlery, plates, straws, stirrers, and balloon sticks. These products are banned entirely due to the availability of affordable and environmentally friendly alternatives. Additionally, the directive places restrictions on other single-use plastic items like food containers and cups. While not fully banned, these products are subject to strict reduction targets, requiring EU member states to significantly cut their use over time.

Beyond consumer goods, the ban also introduces mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes. Under these regulations, manufacturers of plastic products are required to cover the costs of waste management, cleanup, and public awareness campaigns. This financial responsibility creates an incentive for companies to innovate and produce more sustainable packaging solutions.

The directive also sets ambitious recycling goals. By 2025, the EU aims to achieve a 90% collection rate for plastic bottles. Moreover, manufacturers are required to incorporate at least 25% recycled content into new plastic bottles by 2025, increasing to 30% by 2030.

These measures represent a comprehensive approach to reducing plastic waste, combining outright bans with gradual reduction targets and promoting innovation in sustainable alternatives.

Environmental and Economic Impacts

The EU’s single-use plastic ban is expected to have significant environmental benefits, particularly in reducing marine pollution. By targeting plastic products that frequently end up in oceans, the directive aims to lower the volume of plastic waste entering marine ecosystems. This, in turn, should decrease the risk of marine animals ingesting plastics or becoming entangled in debris, both of which have been major contributors to species decline and biodiversity loss. Long-term, the reduction of plastic waste will also help address the growing issue of microplastics, which not only harm marine life but can also find their way into the human food chain.

From an economic perspective, the ban has created both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, industries related to eco-friendly packaging and alternative materials, such as biodegradable products or reusable items, have seen increased demand. This shift has spurred innovation, leading to new business opportunities and job creation in green industries. The EU’s directive, by emphasizing sustainable practices, positions Europe as a leader in the global green economy.

However, the transition has also posed difficulties for some businesses, particularly those heavily reliant on plastic manufacturing. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in sectors such as food packaging and disposable goods face rising costs as they switch to alternative materials. There are concerns over supply chain disruptions, especially in the early stages of the ban’s implementation. Nevertheless, with proper support and adaptation, the long-term economic benefits of a cleaner environment are expected to outweigh the initial challenges.

Challenges and Criticisms

While the EU’s single-use plastic ban has garnered widespread support from environmental groups, it has also faced criticism from certain industries and political circles. Manufacturers of plastic goods have argued that the timeline for the ban's implementation is too short, leaving little room for supply chains to adapt. Some business associations have raised concerns about the economic impact, particularly on smaller companies that may struggle to transition to alternative materials.

Additionally, enforcement across all member states presents a challenge, as different countries may have varying levels of compliance and infrastructure to support the new regulations.

Looking Ahead: The Global Implications

The EU’s single-use plastic ban sets a powerful example for other nations in the global fight against marine pollution. As one of the world’s largest markets, the EU’s decisive action could influence international policies and prompt other countries to adopt similar measures. Already, several nations—including Canada and New Zealand—have introduced bans or restrictions on single-use plastics, mirroring the EU’s approach.

The global implications extend beyond environmental impact. By fostering innovation in sustainable materials and waste management, the EU is setting new standards for eco-friendly business practices. International companies, especially those operating in multiple markets, may begin voluntarily aligning with the EU’s stringent regulations to future-proof their operations. This could drive a broader cultural shift toward sustainability, with increased pressure for global cooperation on marine pollution and other environmental issues. Ultimately, the EU's efforts signal that tackling plastic waste is not only an environmental necessity but also a global economic opportunity.

Earth’s Future, Now With 8 Billion Humans

Humanity has long been chasing that 8 billion number for our global population. As of November 2022, we have surpassed it with only increasing trends in sight. With such a large international population and growing numbers, what kind of new stressors will be placed on the planet? 

Global warming is already a direct indicator of influence on the planet. Humans have permanently changed how we interact with Earth's natural resources, but now it's clear that the reliance on those resources will be put to the utmost test. Populations will put immense pressure on nature, forcing humans to compete with other wildlife for water, food, and materials.

The problem not only arises with the total size of the global population but also with the rapid timeline to the astronomical number. Global population sizes previously always remained below 1 billion people on the planet at any given time until the late 18th century during the time of Napoleon. Rapid growth began to influence global numbers after the start of the Second World War when more than 1 billion people were added to the global population every 12 to 15 years. Key events spurred rapid growth over the last 300 years, including the industrial revolution, medical discoveries, technology, and global commerce trade. Currently, the human population is more than double what it was in 1970, doubling in just over 50 years.

Population analyses over the last few decades also draw attention to the uneven growth experienced worldwide. China and the USA are two places where population growth has been slowly leveling. At the same time, low-income regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and India are responsible for approximately 70 percent of the world’s population increases. There are difficulties to be faced in both scenarios because with leveling population growth, fewer individuals will support the enormous economies, and exponential growth in developing countries will continue to exacerbate already strained systems. The other caveat to increased global numbers is its likelihood to influence mass migrations and conflicts and further jeopardize at-risk environments. 

Experts are forecasting slower growth trends in the future, even though the population trends have been increasing exponentially. Their conclusions draw from increased knowledge and dispersal of contraceptives and safe sex to lower-income countries. Other factors influencing level growth trends include increased women’s rights worldwide, younger generations waiting to have families, and economic pressures driving living rates through the roof for most high-income countries. These forecasts are good news for slowing global population growth. Still, the world will likely not observe decreases until the latter half of this century, as fertility rates and population deaths will be important contributors to change. 
The urgency to allocate new green energy resources before it is too late is becoming increasingly evident. Experts agree that installing sustainable energy resources for low-income countries will greatly decrease their carbon emissions by supporting increasing population demands. Other changes must also be made in high-income countries responsible for more than double the carbon emissions released by the poorest half of the world.

Are Blue Carbon Habitats the New Trend?

As climate change continues to affect environments worldwide, many regions are investing in resource development projects to create blue carbon habitats that sequester atmospheric carbon and reduce urban footprints in nature. Restored blue carbon habitats are quickly appearing along coastlines worldwide, and many scientists have mixed reviews over their contributions to carbon sequestration on a global scale. 

Blue carbon habitats along coastlines are a natural phenomenon observable in mangroves, saltmarshes, and seagrass meadows. These vital coastal habitats sequester large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and serve as an essential barrier to storm surges and water inundation. Many coastal areas have been degraded due to modernization. Mangrove forests are bulldozed to make way for new beach high rises, and seagrass meadows are quickly eradicated. 

These invaluable coastal habitats support an array of life, with some of the highest biodiversity found anywhere in the world. Areas like mangroves often involve a community of intertwined plants and foliage that create an almost impenetrable wall, preventing the onset of incoming storm surges and rising water levels from reaching areas of land on their adjacent side. After removing large sections of mangrove forests, areas in Florida along the southeastern United States faced millions of dollars in damages after previously mundane tropical storms escalated into national disasters without any natural barriers. What was once a moderate storm surge quickly turned into urban flooding, beach erosion, and unprecedented damages. 

As environmentalists and lawmakers quickly realized the monetary and public safety significance of such vital resources, they began investigating ways to restore and instill new habitat areas that can contribute the same kind of preventative measures these areas once had. The additional benefit of these coastal regions’ ability for carbon sequestration increased their market value on a global scale, as it was thought that large-scale climate change could even be combated. 

Conservation of these regions provides natural climate solutions by conserving greenhouse gas emissions stored inside of their systems and by increasing the carbon dioxide drawn down as areas are restored or created. Experts argue the individual use of these systems to reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere is negligible on a global scale and should only be practically used as a mitigation measure while focusing on preserving their valuable biodiversity potential. 

The presumed carbon footprint benefits of restoring coastal ecosystems must have contributions from elsewhere. Otherwise, atmospheric carbon will continue to provoke future climate change. These blue carbon habitats and the associated movement will still have lasting impacts on coastal biodiversity and infrastructure defense, even if their carbon impacts are not as significant as previously thought.

Coastal regions should continue to develop and explore the benefits of restoring their coastal ecosystems to restore natural balance to their native flora and fauna while also contributing to mitigating carbon emissions in the atmosphere.

Last Ditch Effort to Save A Dying Species

Humans, unfortunately, do not have the best history when it comes to maintaining our relationships with the unique species that make up Earth’s wildlife. Many human factors contribute to the decline of a species, including habitat loss and degradation, urban sprawl, and ill-fit regulations to protect endangered populations. 

The vaquita are a charismatic species that has become one of the world's most endangered species. Their populations have declined over the past half-century. Estimates suggest only ten adult individuals are left in Mexico’s Northern Gulf of California. If nothing is done to prevent further decline, they will be erased from Earth’s oceans forever. 

Vaquita are extremely small and agile cetaceans that are incredibly elusive in the wild, making them all the more difficult to see as their population numbers continue to decline. They often inhabit nearshore waters where they come into contact with fishers, illegal gillnets, boats, and humans. The northern region of the Gulf of California has been designated a marine protected area, restricting fishing and banning illegal gillnets, often the culprit of vaquita deaths. However, illicit management tactics and a lack of supervisory resources have allowed continued illegal fishing activities that pose risks to the remaining vaquita. 

Studies suggest 1 in 5 vaquita get entangled and drown in gillnets intended for other species like the totoaba fish. The high price commodity of the totoaba, also a native species to these waters, is the driving force behind continued fishing. Totoaba fish were heavily overfished in the 1970s, even listed as endangered by the late 1970s. There is an international trade ban on totoaba products, but the demand is still thriving in Chinese markets, which has fueled an increase in illegal fishing efforts over the last decade. Many Chinese clients purchase the totoaba’s swim bladder for holistic medicinal purposes. Illegal fishing is incredibly lucrative to local fishers, who can receive up to $4,000 USD per pound of totoaba swim bladder they supply, making them almost half a year’s income. 

Governmental efforts have interceded to support the tiny porpoise, beginning with U.S. President Barack Obama and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto’s collaborative efforts like installing an international committee to focus on developing vaquita safe fishing technologies for local fishermen. This committee has worked diligently to improve fishing techniques, avoiding any bycatch complications and contributing to scientific studies on specimens they find in the wild. 

All is not lost for the vaquita, as recent studies extrapolated DNA data collected on individuals over the last 40 years to suggest their species will not suffer extinction due to inbreeding. The remaining individuals are still genetically unique enough to prevent those population complications. Experts suggest their population could rebound over the next 50 years if complete protection is provided and their numbers do not suffer any further exponential declines. 

Saving the vaquita will continue to face challenges from tense relationships between conservationists and local fishermen, foreign market demand for illegal products, and continued use of damaging fishing technologies. The installed committees, scientists, and government officials work to provide every available resource to aid the vaquita’s recovery and future protection.