Planet Tracker previously highlighted the negative environmental impacts of deep sea mining – but there’s another factor to consider – the minimal financial benefits for countries do not outweigh these negative impacts on the planet.

While proponents of deep sea mining argue it is needed to meet future demand for energy transition minerals, questions are beginning to be asked about the economic risk deep sea mining could pose to countries that mine these metals on land. By analysing the 12 biggest countries mining copper, cobalt, nickel and manganese, Mining for Trouble aims to highlight the value at risk to these economies if deep sea mining was to be green lit.

As the International Seabed Authority (ISA) is currently debating whether to allow deep sea mining in international waters, Race to the Bottom analyses the taxes and royalties countries could receive, revealing insignificant economic returns. According to Planet Tracker, there is no financial justification for deep sea mining, yet the environmental impact is vast.

Planet Tracker has released the third update of its Nature Scorecard, adding a further 178 companies, reflecting the latest developments in corporate biodiversity commitments and natural capital. It now incorporates the latest Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) adopters as well as those included in the Morningstar Sustainalytics’ Biodiversity and Natural Capital Thematic Stewardship Programme. The Nature Scorecard serves as a vital resource for stakeholders monitoring the evolving landscape of biodiversity stewardship and aims to equip stakeholders with essential insights to drive impactful nature-related reporting.

This Nature Scorecard examines over 470 corporates which are involved in nature-related frameworks and initiatives. It analyses corporate involvement across 3 voluntary (TNFD early adopter, SBTN submission or appointment of a nature executive ) and 3 involuntary frameworks and initiatives (Nature Action 100, PRI Spring, Forest 500 score) – i.e. being named by investors as a nature focus companies whether they like it or not.

This paper provides an overview for financial institutions of the most pertinent issues identified by Planet Tracker from the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP16) in Cali, Colombia. Topics range from the availability of nature transition plans, to who has responsibility for nature in government structures – it’s looking complicated, to the availability of nature data – or rather its processing and analysing. The struggle to finance countries’ nature and ecosystem services remained unresolved.

Dow, the global chemical company aims for carbon neutrality by 2050. However, analysis by Planet Tracker suggests Dow’s mid-term climate strategy is not ambitious enough to align with the well-below 2°C pathway, instead aligning closer to a 3°C warming scenario by 2030.
Based on Planet Tracker’s assessment, to meet the well-below 2°C pathway by 2030 and its 2050 carbon neutrality goal, Dow would need to set more ambitious reduction targets, clearly link its investments to emissions reductions, and improve transparency in its sustainability initiatives.

Executive Assistant

There is a nature financing gap. The precise numbers vary but plans to close the gap partially rely on the reallocation of harmful subsidies to nature-based solutions. This paper briefly examines whether such a strategy is realistic. We observe that a range of countries have successfully eliminated subsidies – so it can be done – but others failed. We need to learn how the former delivered subsidy reform, and why others were unsuccessful.

Financial markets spend much of their time focused on risk and return metrics. The generally accepted relationship is that one needs to take on more investment risk to realise a higher return. If the investor is unwilling to take on risk, they should expect to receive the risk-free rate – e.g. a risk-free bond. But this assumes efficient pricing. Planet Tracker believes that the risks of synthetic chemicals are not being correctly priced by financial markets. A reassessment of the risk premium applied to producers and users of these substances looks wise.