In this week’s edition of Economy and Society:
- New York appeals federal court rulings blocking climate superfund law
- EU Parliament backs three-year delay of methane reporting requirements
- ISSB proposes new nature-related corporate disclosure guidance
- Canada delays decision on oil and gas category in sustainable finance taxonomy
- LinkedIn report finds demand for green skills growing twice as fast as supply
In the states
New York appeals federal court rulings blocking climate superfund law
What’s the story?
New York Attorney General Letitia James’ (D) office filed appeals challenging two U.S. district court rulings blocking the state’s Climate Change Superfund Act, according to an Oct. 26 report from the Times Union. The appeals will go before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The law would require certain fossil fuel companies to contribute a combined $75 billion toward climate adaptation projects based on greenhouse gas emissions attributed to their fossil fuel production and refining activities.
The rulings came in two separate federal lawsuits. A coalition of 22 states and industry groups filed one in the Northern District of New York, while the U.S. Department of Justice and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed another in the Southern District of New York. Both courts concluded that the federal Clean Air Act and the federal government's foreign affairs authority preempted the state law.
Why does it matter?
The appeals could determine whether New York can enforce its program requiring fossil fuel companies to help pay for climate-related infrastructure and adaptation costs.
The cases also raise federalism questions about the extent of state authority to impose costs on companies for greenhouse gas emissions associated with activities outside their borders.
What’s the background?
Governor Kathy Hochul (D) signed the law in December 2024. The law passed both chambers of the state legislature with overwhelming Democratic support and limited Republican support. A coalition of 22 states challenged it in February 2025, arguing that federal law preempted New York’s attempt to impose costs associated with emissions beyond its borders.
On Aug. 31, Chief Judge Brenda Sannes of the Northern District of New York ruled that federal law preempted the statute. The decision was previously covered in the Sept. 9 edition of Economy and Society.
On Sept. 23, U.S. District Court Judge Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York also ruled against the law in a separate lawsuit the Justice Department and EPA filed.
The federal government’s challenge followed President Donald Trump’s (R) April 2025 executive order directing federal officials to challenge certain state climate and energy policies, including New York’s law.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Oct. 5 in Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, a separate climate lawsuit addressing whether federal law preempts state-law claims seeking compensation from fossil fuel companies for climate-related harms. Although the cases involve different legal claims, the Court's ruling could affect how courts evaluate federal preemption challenges to state climate policies.
Around the world
EU Parliament backs three-year delay of methane reporting requirements
What’s the story?
The European Parliament voted 341-225 on Oct. 22 to support delaying certain methane emissions monitoring and reporting requirements for oil, natural gas, and coal importers by three years. The vote establishes Parliament’s position for negotiations with the Council of the European Union and goes beyond the European Commission’s Oct. 14 proposal for a one-year postponement.
The requirements are part of the EU Methane Regulation, which took effect in August 2024 and established rules for measuring and reporting methane emissions, detecting and repairing leaks, and limiting venting and flaring in the energy sector.
Parliament’s position would give fossil fuel importers until May 2031 to demonstrate that certain supply contracts meet methane monitoring, reporting, and verification standards equivalent to EU requirements. The position would also postpone methane intensity reporting requirements for EU producers and importers until August 2031.
Parliament also backed extending deadlines for EU oil and gas operators to submit verified methane emissions reports. The changes are not yet final and must be negotiated with the Council of the European Union.
Why does it matter?
The proposed changes respond to concerns raised by some EU lawmakers and industry groups about compliance costs and potential disruptions to energy supplies. The European Commission cited rising energy prices and supply pressures associated with the conflict in the Middle East when proposing its initial one-year postponement.
The European People’s Party’s representative Christian Ehler said, “This is not about increasing or permitting further methane emissions, it is about security of supply and lower energy prices.”
Importers’ monitoring and reporting obligations are still scheduled to apply Jan. 1, 2027, unless Parliament and EU governments agree to a delay. Parliament’s position would also retain existing deadlines for imports from countries subject to relevant EU sanctions.
ISSB proposes new nature-related corporate disclosure guidance
What’s the story?
The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) released a proposal on Oct. 22 to establish more detailed guidance for companies reporting nature-related financial risks and opportunities. The proposal takes the form of a Practice Statement, a standalone guidance document that will undergo the IFRS Foundation's full review and consultation process. The ISSB operates under the IFRS Foundation, a nonprofit organization that oversees international accounting and sustainability disclosure standards.
The proposed disclosures would cover how companies identify and manage nature-related risks, incorporate those risks into business strategies, and assess the resilience of their operations. Companies would also report information about assets and business activities exposed to nature-related risks, as well as their nature-related targets.
The ISSB developed the proposal using elements of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) framework, including considerations related to geographic location and interactions with Indigenous peoples and local communities.
ISSB Chair Emmanuel Faber said, "Whether it is access to water for production, to rivers for transportation or to bees for pollination, companies around the world depend on nature."
The ISSB is seeking public feedback through Feb. 19, 2027.
Why does it matter?
The ISSB's proposed guidance could help companies provide more consistent information about nature-related financial risks and opportunities. The ISSB develops sustainability disclosure standards that companies can adopt voluntarily or that governments and regulators can incorporate into mandatory reporting requirements. Investors use the resulting disclosures to evaluate companies' financial risks and opportunities.
Existing ISSB standards already require companies applying those standards to disclose material sustainability-related financial risks and opportunities, including those involving nature. The new guidance would provide more specific reporting recommendations without imposing additional mandatory requirements.
ISSB Vice-Chair Sue Lloyd said the proposal seeks to balance companies' ongoing implementation of existing sustainability standards with investors' demand for nature-related information. The ISSB is also seeking feedback on whether to finalize the guidance as a Practice Statement or adopt another format, such as a standalone standard.
Canada delays decision on oil and gas category in sustainable finance taxonomy
What’s the story?
The Canadian Taxonomy and Transition Planning Council released its final methodology report on Oct. 20 for Canada's sustainable finance taxonomy, retaining two investment categories while postponing a decision on a proposed category covering emissions reductions in the oil and gas sector.
The taxonomy aims to help investors identify activities that qualify for two investment categories: green and transition. The green category covers zero- or near-zero-emission activities, while the transition category covers emissions-intensive activities capable of achieving substantial emissions reductions.
The council's July draft also proposed an abatement category for activities that could achieve significant near-term emissions reductions in sectors such as upstream oil and gas production. However, approximately two-thirds of respondents to a public consultation opposed the category, expressing concerns that classifying oil and gas activities as sustainable investments could attract additional financing, extend the operating lives of fossil fuel assets, prolong associated emissions, and increase financial risks.
The council concluded that it lacked sufficient information to include or exclude the abatement category. It plans to begin additional research in 2027 to determine whether the category could support the taxonomy's objectives and what safeguards it would require.
The council will now develop technical screening criteria for specific industries, beginning with electricity, buildings, and transportation. It expects to release draft criteria for public feedback later this winter and develop criteria for mining, manufacturing, forestry, and agriculture by the end of 2027.
The Taxonomy and Transition Planning Council will review and approve the technical criteria before publication. Once finalized, the taxonomy will serve as voluntary guidance that financial institutions, investors, and companies can use to identify and classify climate-aligned investments.
Why does it matter?
The decision leaves unresolved whether Canada will recognize certain emissions-reduction investments in fossil fuel production under its sustainable finance classification system.
Canadian Taxonomy and Transition Planning Council Chair Marlene Puffer said, “While we still have a lot of work ahead of us, the Methodology Report marks a significant milestone for sustainable finance in Canada. This strong foundation sets us on course to deliver the credible, usable, interoperable taxonomy that investors need to confidently invest in Canada’s needs and opportunities, aligned with the path to net zero by mid-century.”
On Wall Street and in the private sector
LinkedIn report finds demand for green skills growing twice as fast as supply
What’s the story?
According to LinkedIn's Global Green Skills Report 2026, published ahead of the United Nations' COP31 climate summit, demand for workers with green skills is growing nearly twice as fast as the supply of workers with those skills.
The report found that the share of new hires with green skills increased 25% year over year, compared with a 13% increase in the share of workers with green skills. Green skills include those used to reduce emissions, improve energy efficiency, and address the effects of climate change, such as flooding, wildfires, and extreme heat.
Workers with green skills were hired at a rate 52.7% higher than the overall workforce. Nearly 74% of green hires entered positions without traditionally green job titles, indicating that employers increasingly seek sustainability-related skills across a range of occupations.
The financial services industry recorded the fastest growth in green skills, at 18% annually, followed by technology and media at 15% and retail at 14%.
Why does it matter?
The findings suggest that demand for sustainability-related skills is expanding beyond traditionally environmental occupations, creating workforce challenges for companies seeking to meet climate commitments and improve operational efficiency.
LinkedIn warned that continued shortages of workers with green skills could slow climate and energy projects, limit investment opportunities, and constrain economic growth.
LinkedIn Head of Global Public Policy Sue Duke said, “Green skills are no longer a niche. They're how businesses build efficiency, manage risk, and stay competitive. Demand for them is now outpacing supply in every industry we measure, and that makes talent the bottleneck for progress.”