Uncategorized - Whitestone Chambers

The Environmental Impacts of A.I.

Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) powers some of the most exciting advancements of our time, reshaping industries and solving complex problems. Its applications are vast, from assisting doctors in diagnosing diseases to predicting weather patterns. However, this computational brilliance comes at a price. Imagine A.I. as a high-performance sports car: its capabilities are extraordinary, but it consumes an enormous amount of fuel to operate. Similarly, A.I.’s energy demands leave a significant environmental footprint. How can we embrace AI’s potential while ensuring its development remains environmentally responsible?

Training A.I. models is like teaching a massive class of students complex subjects simultaneously. High-performance processors act as the teachers, tirelessly explaining and re-explaining concepts until the entire class grasps them. Each session consumes substantial energy, contributing to a growing carbon footprint. Similarly, data centres—the sprawling campuses where these lessons happen—operate 24/7, requiring not just power for teaching but also air conditioning to keep the environment conducive to learning.

This constant demand for energy presents a clear sustainability challenge.

AI’s environmental footprint can be traced to several interdependent factors: In 2019, researchers at Amherst reported that the process of training A.I. models required so much electricity that it generated as much carbon dioxide as five times the lifetime emissions of the average American car. Similarly, GPT-3 consumed approximately 1,287 megawatt-hours of electricity during training, equivalent to the annual energy use of hundreds of households. Manufacturing GPUs and CPUs essential for AI involves mining rare earth materials, a process often linked to deforestation and pollution. Additionally, outdated hardware adds to the growing e-waste problem, with over 53 million metric tonnes generated globally in 2019.

To grasp the scale of A.I.’s environmental impact: Google’s data centres consumed 15.5 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2020—about twice as much electricity as the city of San Francisco. E-waste from IT equipment continues to grow, with a recycling rate of only about 17% globally.

The environmental challenges posed by A.I. are significant, but solutions are emerging. Companies are investing in renewable energy projects to power their facilities. For example, Google has committed to operating its data centres 24/7 on carbon-free energy by 2030, reducing emissions significantly. Startups like Hugging Face are pioneering smaller, more efficient A.I. models that consume less energy without compromising performance. Techniques like model pruning—removing unnecessary parts of an A.I. model—are helping cut energy consumption. NVIDIA has introduced energy-efficient GPUs, designed to deliver higher performance with less power. Meanwhile, initiatives like Apple’s commitment to using recycled rare earth elements in their devices show how sustainable practices can be implemented in hardware manufacturing.

A.I. is both a challenge and an opportunity in the fight for sustainability. While its energy demands and carbon footprint raise concerns, A.I. also offers tools to address global environmental issues. For example, the potential to enhance energy efficiency in urban infrastructure or analyse satellite imagery for real-time tracking of deforestation activities. It is paradoxical as a tool that has the potential to implement sustainable solutions yet, can be completely unsustainable on its own.

However, achieving a balance requires a collective effort. Governments can mandate carbon neutrality for data centres by a specific year and require public reporting on energy consumption and emissions. Subsidies and tax breaks can encourage businesses to power operations with solar, wind, or hydroelectric energy. Public funding can support the development of green technologies, such as advanced cooling systems for data centres or low-power A.I. algorithms. Policies that mandate e-waste recycling or sustainable hardware design can reduce the environmental toll of AI-related devices. Companies must commit to transparency in energy use, adopt renewable energy, and invest in efficient models. Developers can design A.I. systems with environmental sustainability as a guiding principle.

The environmental cost of A.I. is an issue that demands attention, but it also presents an opportunity to reimagine technology’s relationship with the planet. By transitioning to renewable energy, designing efficient systems, and embracing sustainable practices, we can shape an A.I.-driven future that is both innovative and ecologically responsible.

The road to sustainable A.I. is not just desirable—it’s essential for a future where technology and the environment thrive together.

©Whitestone Chambers 2025

New North Sea Drilling Plans: A Climate Crisis in the Making?

Recent concern has been sparked over outstanding oil and gas drilling licences in the North Sea. Even though the current government has pledged not to issue any new licences, the previous administration’s motto to “drain every last drop” from the North Sea resulted in permits being issued with what seems to be little regard for environmental impact. As it currently stands, the licences already issued, if utilised, have the potential to “emit as much carbon dioxide as British households produce in three decades.” This, coupled with the fact that relatively loose climate checks were required before these projects were approved, has caused significant alarm. Many are now calling on the current government to rescind some of these licences.

Environmental Impact: Alarming CO2 Projections

A primary concern surrounding these drilling sites is their staggering environmental impact. As previously mentioned, projections estimate that the CO2 emissions generated by the extraction and burning of fossil fuels from these fields could match the equivalent of 30 years’ worth of emissions from all UK households. This startling comparison raises red flags about the UK’s ability to meet its legally binding climate targets.

Additionally, if all the sites holding licences are developed, they would yield an estimated 3.8 billion barrels of oil which, if burned, would release 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Energy Security Versus Climate Action

The debate surrounding the North Sea drilling plans highlights a fundamental tension between energy security and climate action. Advocates argue that domestic production will protect the UK from volatile global energy markets and provide a bridge as the country transitions to renewable energy sources.

Critics counter that investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure locks the UK into a carbon-intensive future, diverting resources away from clean energy alternatives. The government has pledged that no new licenses will be issued however this falls short of solving the concerns brought by environmental groups.

Reactions and Criticism

Environmental groups and scientists have been vocal in their opposition to the expansion of drilling in the North Sea. Organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have condemned the plans as reckless and shortsighted, warning that they jeopardise global climate efforts. Additionally, Uplift, a group dedicated to helping the UK transition away from oil and gas production, has described the current scale of planned drilling as alarming. They argue that the UK must adopt a stronger stance against new fossil fuel projects.

Global Context and Alternatives

The UK’s decision comes at a time when many countries are scaling back fossil fuel investments in favour of renewable energy development. Nations such as Germany and Denmark are accelerating offshore wind projects and expanding solar energy infrastructure, demonstrating viable pathways to decarbonisation.

Investing in renewable infrastructure could provide the UK with long-term energy security without compromising climate goals. Technologies such as wind, solar, and hydrogen, along with battery storage systems, offer sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels. Transitioning to these solutions would not only reduce emissions but also create jobs and foster innovation in the green energy sector.

In Conclusion

The licensing of new North Sea drilling sites poses a significant threat to the UK’s climate ambitions. While energy security remains a valid concern, the environmental costs of expanding fossil fuel extraction cannot be ignored. Balancing short-term energy needs with long-term sustainability requires a bold commitment to renewable energy and decisive action against carbon emissions. The world is watching to see whether the UK will double down on fossil fuels or lead the charge towards a cleaner, greener future.

©Whitestone Chambers 2024

A.I. & E.S.G. 2025

For mid-sized companies, ESG, (Environmental, Social, and Governance) goals often feel like an uphill climb. With limited budgets and resources, addressing sustainability, ethical governance and social responsibility is overwhelming.

Hey, this is what Lawrence thinks: what if technology, in the right hands, could help level the playing field?

A.I. is emerging as a practical tool – not a flashy fix, but a quiet enabler, offering efficient solutions to complex challenges by uncovering insights, automating tasks and enabling companies to focus on their core priorities. It is not about replacing human judgment but amplifying it, allowing these companies to make meaningful strides in E.S.G. without overstretching their capabilities.

Streamlining ESG Reporting with A.I.

Consider this situation: Without A.I., companies are forced to manually gather data from various departments, procurement, operations, and logistics then consolidate it into a cohesive report. The process is not only time-consuming but also prone to errors, especially when data comes from disparate sources.

Enter A.I. powered platforms like Briink or Enablon. These tools use natural language processing and machine learning to analyse unstructured data from emails, invoices and supplier documents, automatically extracting relevant E.S.G. information. Instead of spending weeks compiling a report, the company can now generate one in hours. The result? Faster compliance with frameworks like the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and improved accuracy in tracking emissions data.

Moreover, A.I. does not just stop at reporting. Tools like Watershed can monitor the company’s carbon footprint in real-time, providing actionable insights into which processes or suppliers contribute most to emissions. For example, by analysing the transportation data of Company X, the A.I. might highlight that switching to a local supplier could cut emissions by 15%. Armed with this insight, the company not only improves its environmental performance but also lowers costs, a win-win for both E.S.G. goals and profitability.

Making Data-Driven Decisions

A.I. helps companies simulate the impact of different sustainability strategies, empowering them to make informed decisions about reducing emissions, conserving resources and adapting to climate regulations. Studies indicate that A.I. could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by up to 4% by 2030, highlighting its potential in combating climate change. Yes, it’s not “huge” but every part helps.

Case Studies: How Companies Are Using A.I. for ESG

A.I. powered solutions can help businesses track their emissions and identify inefficiencies in their supply chains. Patagonia, for instance, uses A.I. to enhance supply chain transparency. By monitoring the materials they use, they have been able to identify environmental risks and make sustainable changes.

Tools like Clarity AI provide data-driven insights to help businesses predict risks, such as regulatory changes or reputational challenges and identify opportunities to improve their E.S.G. performance. For mid-sized companies, these predictive capabilities are invaluable in staying proactive rather than reactive.

EnerSys, a mid-sized manufacturing company specialising in energy solutions, faced challenges in consolidating E.S.G. data across its global operations. By implementing A.I. tools to automate data collection and reporting, the company not only improved efficiency but also enhanced the accuracy of its sustainability metrics. This automation allowed EnerSys to meet compliance requirements faster and dedicate more resources to strategic ESG initiatives. EnerSys reported a 25% reduction in Scope 1 emissions since 2019 and a 15% improvement in energy intensity since 2020.

The company has been recognised with the prestigious German E.S.G. Transparency Award, highlighting EnerSys’s dedication to sustainability and transparent ESG disclosures.

Challenges in Adopting A.I. for ESG

Despite A.I.’s potential, adopting it for E.S.G. management is not without obstacles. The cost of implementing advanced A.I. tools can be prohibitive for mid-sized businesses with tight budgets. Many of these tools are designed with large enterprises in mind, leaving smaller organisations with fewer affordable options.

Moreover, a lack of technical expertise within mid-sized companies often hampers their ability to deploy and manage A.I. effectively. Even when A.I. tools are accessible, ensuring the quality and accuracy of input data remains a significant challenge. Without reliable data, the insights generated by A.I. may not be actionable.

A.I. as a Partner, Not a Replacement

While A.I. is clearly a powerful tool for E.S.G. management, it comes with limitations that require careful consideration. Its effectiveness hinges on the quality and completeness of data, which can be a challenge for mid-sized companies with fragmented or biased datasets. Over-reliance on A.I. risks sidelining the human judgment necessary for addressing complex, nuanced issues like workplace culture or community engagement. Ethical concerns, such as algorithmic bias and transparency, add another layer of complexity.

Additionally, as governments introduce A.I. specific regulations, companies face compliance risks if their tools fail to meet emerging ethical and legal standards. For A.I. to truly complement E.S.G. efforts, it must be used as a supportive tool rather than a replacement for human oversight and strategic vision.

Trends to Watch

As A.I. technology continues to evolve, its potential to reshape E.S.G. management is only just beginning to unfold. One area of development is democratising A.I. solutions. Emerging platforms are focusing on affordability and ease of use, making A.I. powered E.S.G. tools available to businesses without large budgets or technical teams. Cloud-based A.I. services and modular solutions could soon enable even the smallest companies to track carbon emissions, monitor supply chain sustainability, and generate E.S.G. reports with minimal upfront investment.

Another exciting trend is the integration of A.I. with other technologies, such as “old school” blockchain. This combination could enhance supply chain transparency, allowing companies to verify ethical sourcing and reduce environmental impact with greater precision. Predictive AI models are also becoming more sophisticated, offering companies the ability to forecast E.S.G. risks and opportunities with unprecedented accuracy. For example, Arabesque has developed A.I. systems to analyse companies’ environmental data, aiding investors in making more informed and sustainable choices.

2025 and Beyond

As 2024 ends we are looking ahead to 2025 and beyond. A.I. will not replace human effort but enhance it, making E.S.G. management smarter, more efficient, and more impactful. For mid-sized companies, this evolution represents an opportunity to lead with purpose, leveraging A.I. to achieve both sustainability and long-term success.

Happy New Year, we have much to do and the resolve to get it done.

©Lawrence Power 2024

From a Desert to an Oasis; A Bold Approach to Combat Climate Change

The Sinai Peninsula is at the centre of a grand vision that has sparked both enthusiasm and debate: a large-scale initiative to transform this arid desert into green, arable land. This project, led by Dutch engineer Ties van der Hoeven, aims to rejuvenate about 13,500 square miles of the Sinai desert, once lush with vegetation and wildlife. The project proposes to tackle pressing global issues such as climate change and economic development through ecological restoration and desert re-greening.

Reversing Environmental Degradation

The Sinai greening initiative aims to reverse centuries of environmental degradation by bringing back plant life, boosting biodiversity, and helping the region sequester carbon. Van der Hoeven’s approach hinges on a multi-decade plan, starting with the rejuvenation of Lake Bardawil, a saltwater lagoon in the northern Sinai that has seen ecological decline due to overfishing and high salinity.

The project hopes to use dredged sediments from the lake to enrich the surrounding land with nutrients, creating conditions that could support a diverse array of plants and eventually attract wildlife. This ambitious project could serve as a model for other desert regions worldwide, demonstrating the potential of ecological restoration on a monumental scale.

Converting desert land to green space could offer numerous ecological benefits. The increase in vegetation would capture significant amounts of carbon, contributing to global carbon reduction efforts. Salt-tolerant plants would help stabilise the soil and increase rainfall through transpiration. Increased plant coverage would lead to improved soil moisture retention and cooler temperatures, creating a more hospitable environment for wildlife. By encouraging sustainable farming, the initiative could also provide food security and jobs to Sinai residents, addressing socio-economic disparities in the region.

Challenges and Solutions

Despite its promises, the Sinai regreening project faces significant challenges. One of the primary concerns is water scarcity. Transforming a desert requires vast amounts of water, which is already a precious resource in arid regions. This issue is evident in projects like the Great Green Wall in Africa, where the planting of drought-resistant trees across the Sahel faced difficulties due to water shortages and poor soil.

Employing innovative technologies would make desert greening much more feasible. Advanced drip irrigation systems and desalination are expected to optimise water use, while sediment dredged from Lake Bardawil will be used to improve soil quality. This sediment is nutrient-rich despite its salinity and can act as a substrate to foster initial plant growth. Weather monitoring systems could aid in tracking microclimate changes in the area, ensuring that reforestation aligns with regional climatic shifts.

Learning from Other Projects

These technological efforts reflect forward-thinking strategies in other large-scale projects, such as China’s Loess Plateau Restoration Project. The project, though older, used terracing and native plant species to curb erosion and promote water retention, offering a model for sustainable land restoration. While the project brought remarkable ecological recovery, studies have shown that vegetation density in the area may have reached a point where it risks depleting local water resources—a cautionary lesson for the Sinai initiative to learn from.

The Great Green Wall initiative across Africa has highlighted the importance of regulatory oversight by making the project an African Union flagship initiative to prevent issues like deforestation and unauthorised land use. In regions where land tenure laws are unclear or enforcement is weak, mismanagement of resources can hamper progress. As part of the Sinai project, creating a strong framework around water extraction, plant species introduction, and land use can help mitigate environmental risks while ensuring that local populations are protected.

Political Considerations

However, the Sinai project, like many other large-scale environmental initiatives, is deeply intertwined with political considerations. In the Middle East, where water scarcity and geopolitical tensions are critical concerns, securing government support is paramount. The Egyptian government’s interest in the Sinai re-greening project signals a willingness to pursue ambitious environmental goals as part of a broader agenda of regional stability, economic development, and climate action. Support for the project aligns with Egypt’s National Strategy for Climate Change 2050, which aims to build a more resilient environment and advance green initiatives, including sustainable agriculture and renewable energy development.

Moreover, because the Sinai Peninsula borders Gaza and Israel, the project’s scope extends beyond national boundaries, making diplomacy vital however complex political relationships in the region may impact long-term collaboration in light of the continuing war in Gaza.

Ultimately, the Sinai project brings to light critical questions about the relationship between human intervention and the environment. As the world grapples with climate change, such ambitious projects offer hope — and also caution. With the stakes high, balancing environmental optimism with ecological, political, and regulatory realism will be essential to making a lasting, positive impact.

©Whitestone 2024 – Legal Climate Counsel

What was the Court of Appeal’s Decision in London International Exhibition Centre v RSA & Ors and What Does It Mean for Businesses?

The shadow of the Covid-19 pandemic continues to loom over businesses still rebuilding after the worldwide lockdown. The 2020 pandemic brought about a lockdown, during which the UK government implemented safety measures that affected all sectors of the economy. Businesses focused on hospitality and leisure were especially affected due to reliance on physical attendance at their premises. This raised the question for many businesses of whether the interruption to their business operations warranted loss coverage under their insurance policies. The ambiguous wording of the relevant causes left the fate of the policyholders’ claims for compensation at the mercy of insurers, who were quick to issue rejections.

The London International Exhibition Centre v RSA & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 1026 followed the hearing of six expedited cases by the Court, which concerned policies providing cover for diseases occurring “at the premises” of policyholders. The hearing of these cases shed light on the potential for Covid-19 business interruption (“BI”) claims. His Honour Mr. Justice Jacobs handed down the judgement, addressing the availability of BI insurance coverage for the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic on businesses. The policies under consideration included BI losses due to notifiable diseases (those that medical practitioners had to report to public health authorities) within a certain distance or radius of the insured property. The central legal question was whether the losses experienced could be causally linked to the occurrence of Covid-19 “at the premises” of the businesses, in conjunction with the broader outbreak that led to the government-mandated closures. Insurers claimed that the “at the premises” clauses should strictly limit coverage to losses directly caused by the presence of the disease at the insured premises only.

The Court of Appeal rejected the insurers’ arguments for a narrow interpretation of causation. The reasoning applied as follows: assuming that there were occurrences of Covid-19 at each of the policyholders’ premises, those occurrences together with all the other cases of Covid-19 in the country were the cause of the business closures. In ordering a national lockdown, therefore, the government was responding to the fact of disease having occurred at each of these premises. Thousands of policyholders with the relevant wording in their insurance policies are now entitled to claim for losses caused by Covid-19.

How does this ruling impact businesses with “at the premises” disease clauses in their policies?

In 2020, amidst the pandemic, the Financial Conduct Authority took the decision to resolve the lack of clarity surrounding the application of business interruption clauses. The FCA brought a claim on behalf of affected policyholders against numerous insurers. Their decision significantly assisted policyholders as these organisations no longer needed to fight independently for the resolution of the contractual uncertainty issues with insurers. The key finding from the Supreme Court’s decisions was the fact that disease clauses for business interruption due to the disease within the radius of the premises did in fact apply to Covid-19 losses. Businesses were able to claim for disruption even if the disease occurred outside the specific radius but had an impact within the premises. The clauses that covered losses due to public authority restrictions which prevented access to the premises could be triggered by the Covid-19 lockdowns. The Supreme Court rejected the insurers’ arguments that losses had to be tied to specific local outbreaks in the landmark 2021 decision in FCA v Arch.

The Supreme Court’s findings applied to “radius” disease clauses, but many policyholders were covered under ATP clauses instead, which addressed losses from diseases occurring specifically at the premises. ATP clauses were not specifically considered in the FCA Test Case, which triggered the London International Exhibition Center to initiate legal proceedings in the series of six test cases heard in June 2023. The ATP Test Case in 2023 (London International Exhibition Centre v RSA) was the natural extension of the Covid-19 BI test case by the FCA.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the insurers’ approach that the policies in the ATP clauses should be interpreted by focusing on their language and context rather than comparing them to the “radius” clauses from the FCA v Arch case. However, they dismissed the insurers’ appeals and maintained the first-instance decision. The Court aligned with the findings from the previous rulings, despite differences between ATP and radius clauses. Lords Justice Males and Popplewell and Lady Justice Andrews confirmed that businesses with an ATP disease clause in their policies are entitled to claim an indemnity for their loss of gross profit caused by the UK government’s response to the pandemic.

What are the key legal points, such as causation, knowledge, and the closure of premises due to government or medical officer advice?

In terms of causation, the ATP case confirmed that the approach to causation in ATP disease clauses mirrors the principles established in the FCA test case regarding “radius” clauses. It was established that each case of Covid-19 is a concurrent cause of government restrictions. The “but for” causation argument from insurers, which claimed that ATP clauses differ from radius clauses, was rejected, as the court maintained that all relevant occurrences should be considered part of the causation analysis, including ATP ones. Justice Jacobs rejected insurers’ arguments, holding there was no principled reason why different causation analyses should apply to radius and ATP clauses. The judgement on the closure of the premises emphasised that the restrictions imposed as a consequence of the pandemic were evaluated on a general situation basis instead of looking at isolated occurrences at individual premises.

Regarding the context of knowledge, policyholders were not expected by the court to be able to distinguish between the nuances of policy wording concerning the pandemic. The court focused on the ordinary policyholder’s understanding of the contract instead of a detailed legal analysis. The court considered the notion of equitable coverage by preventing different treatments of claims arising from the same event, with the only distinction being between the ATP or “radius” clauses that they subscribed to.

What are the broader implications for insurers and businesses, including the upcoming case Bath Racecourse & Ors v Liberty Mutual Insurance?

The broader implications of these cases lie in their influence on pending Covid-19 BI claims across the insurance industry. It will affect the necessity of setting precedents on policy interpretation, policy coverage, and the treatment of government aid like furlough payments (which cover employee wages when they are on temporary leave due to a pandemic). Insurers will be under increased pressure to clarify policy language, as the courts appear sympathetic to the challenges faced by businesses during the pandemic, upholding the idea that the average policyholder would be unaware of nuances in the clauses’ language.

The Bath Racecourse & Ors v Liberty Mutual Insurance case, due to be heard in 2025, will continue the trend of Covid-related claims in court. This case will determine whether insurers can deduct furlough from Covid business insurance payouts. It will likely set an important precedent, deciding whether policyholders are required to pass furlough payments to their insurers or if the benefit should rest with the businesses that received the relief.

©Whitestone Chambers.

The Robotic Takeover: Building Tomorrow’s Solar Farms Today

In comic books, robots take center stage—saving humanity, waging wars, and even questioning their own existence. But in reality, they’re quietly revolutionising industries. Real game-changing robots are out in the sun, installing solar panels at a pace humans could never match, with precision, speed, and the potential to transform how we navigate our world. Enter automation, a groundbreaker for the renewable energy sector.

At the heart of this innovation is Maximo, a robot developed by AES Corporation. Maximo uses a combination of artificial intelligence (AI), computer vision, and an extendable arm equipped with suction cups to lift and position solar panels with precision. Roughly the size of a pickup truck, Maximo can install solar panels twice as fast as human workers and at half the cost. It operates tirelessly in harsh environments like the California desert, where it is set to be deployed for large-scale solar-plus-battery projects. The robot’s design enhances speed and accuracy and allows for continuous operation, overcoming limitations posed by human labour. This is a critical advancement as solar energy companies seek to meet the increasing demand for renewable power while grappling with workforce shortages.

There are numerous advantages of using robots in solar panel installation. First and foremost, they offer substantial cost savings. By automating a labour-intensive process, companies can reduce the overall expense of building solar farms, which makes renewable energy more affordable for consumers.

Another key benefit is safety. Working in challenging environments is another area where robots have proven their worth. In regions like Australia’s outback, where solar farms such as the Bungala Solar Project are located, the extreme heat and harsh conditions pose significant risks to human workers. With robots handling the most strenuous tasks, companies are improving worker safety by reducing the number of people exposed to dangerous conditions. Furthermore, automation would open the door to scaling up renewable energy projects. Robots can work 24/7, unlike human workers, ensuring projects remain on schedule despite workforce limitations.

This has the potential to drive a significant increase in solar energy production, helping countries meet ambitious climate goals and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. This automation could also inspire further innovations, with more specialised robots being developed for tasks such as cleaning, inspecting, and maintaining solar panels.

Looking ahead, this technological shift could reshape the renewable energy landscape, making solar power more accessible and widespread. As automation continues to evolve, it will become a cornerstone of efforts to combat climate change by accelerating the transition to green energy. The EU’s Horizon Europe, which aims to support large-scale solar projects across Europe, also highlights the role automation can play in meeting renewable energy goals. Projects like the Núñez de Balboa Solar Power Plant in Spain, which is the largest solar farm in Europe, show how automation could be instrumental in achieving the EU’s targets for carbon neutrality by 2050. By deploying robots for panel installation and maintenance, the speed and scale of these projects could be greatly enhanced.

As much as the potential benefits of robotic solar panel installation are exciting, significant challenges remain. The initial cost of developing and deploying these robots is high, which may slow down adoption, especially for smaller companies. Additionally, robots still require oversight and maintenance, meaning that human workers will continue to play a role in the process, albeit in a more supervisory capacity. There is also the issue of technical limitations. Not all solar farm sites are uniform, and robots may struggle in environments with uneven terrain or complex layouts. While robots like Maximo excel in large, flat desert sites, further advancements will be needed to make them adaptable to a broader range of conditions.

Legal and regulatory hurdles are significant issues for robotic deployment in solar installation. For example, the Núñez de Balboa Solar Power Plant must navigate stringent EU labour laws and regulations. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), for example, comes into play with the use of AI-driven robots like Maximo. Compliance with GDPR requires companies to ensure that personal and sensitive data collected during operations is adequately protected and not misused.

Robotic automation has raised concerns about workforce displacement, especially in regions where jobs in renewable energy are a key part of the local economy. The European Social Charter plays a similar role, as it ensures workers’ rights are protected, including the right to fair working conditions. Renewable energy projects must address how automation may affect employment and must negotiate with labour unions to avoid conflicts.

The use of robots in solar panel installation is part of a larger trend toward automation and sustainability in the construction and energy sectors. As industries strive to reduce their carbon footprints, automation offers a pathway to streamline operations while minimising environmental impact. For the renewable energy industry, automation is not just about cutting costs—it is also about making the energy transition happen faster and more effectively.

Robots like Maximo represent a glimpse into the future of construction and renewable energy. As technology advances, we can expect to see even more sophisticated systems emerge, reshaping the way solar farms are built and operated. This shift will not only help solve current challenges but will also pave the way for a more sustainable, energy-efficient future.

©Whitestone Chambers.

The UK’s £2.3 Billion Fraud Epidemic: Will New Reimbursement Rules Backfire?

The UK lost an estimated £2.3 billion to fraud in 2023 – a staggering 104% increase from 2022. Fraud can have a devastating impact on individuals, exacerbating disadvantage, vulnerability, and inequality. It also erodes trust in businesses and government programs, damaging the UK’s international and economic reputation.

Authorised Push Payment (APP) Fraud

APP fraud, the most common type of financial scam in the UK, uses social engineering tactics to trick individuals and businesses into sending money under false pretences. One common example is when fraudsters impersonate HMRC, threatening victims with bogus fines ahead of self-assessment deadlines. In 2023 alone, APP fraud cost the UK economy approximately £459 million.

Reimbursements for APP Fraud

In the past, a number of banks operated voluntary reimbursement schemes for APP fraud. More recently, in recognition of its prevalence, the Financial Services and Markets Bill 2023 established mandatory rules requiring banks and payment firms to reimburse victims for APP scams – with the costs shared among involved firms.

The new rules specifically addressed Faster Payments — a platform that has allowed fraudsters more time to move funds before transactions are flagged, making recovery more difficult. As such, Faster Payments has become the platform of choice for APP scammers. Despite presenting positive changes for victims, the implementation of these new rules is inevitably facing teething issues.

Unintended Consequences

Some have voiced concerns that criminals have already taken advantage of the voluntary reimbursement of APP fraud previously offered by banks. This might involve collusion between a criminal payer and payee, arranged solely to claim mandatory compensation from the banks involved.

Under the new rules, payment companies are now obligated to reimburse customers for fraud, with limited grounds for refusal. The primary exception is when victims fail to meet the ‘consumer standard of caution,’ meaning they are careless about paying unintended recipients. That said, large firms might compensate clients even where this is not met so as to avoid adverse publicity. This is something unlikely to be matched by smaller outfits – widening the gap between large and small payment firms in how they deal with fraud.

Lawyers have warned of the opportunities for organised crime: for example, large Ponzi schemes where dozens of individuals make payments. If a small payments firm was faced with 25 payments of up to £85,000 each, it may have to pay out up to £1m in mandatory compensation.

Balancing the Rights of Victims and Payment Firms

To address these concerns, the Payments Association have suggested introducing a £30,000 reimbursement cap and requiring a police report for larger payments before reimbursement decisions. This approach could help balance victim protection with minimising opportunities for fraudsters to game the system. It is claimed that this would encompass 95% of fraud cases.

It remains uncertain whether these measures will effectively deter organised crime, or if smaller caps will encourage a surge in false claims. Mandatory reimbursement, while well-intentioned, opens the door to a new form of profitable fraud. If unchecked, this could not only fail to address APP fraud but also overwhelm payment firms with fraudulent claims, ultimately increasing scrutiny on legitimate victims.

Striking the right balance is essential—ensuring victims of APP fraud are fairly compensated while maintaining a just reimbursement system that doesn’t incentivise criminal exploitation.

If you or your business has been affected by APP fraud, or if you are seeking legal guidance in navigating these new regulations, contact our team for expert counsel.

The Truth Behind Greenwashing: Corporate Deception is Stalling Climate Action

I have noticed a definite “uptick” in the amount of “box ticking” in branding climate awareness when trying to sell goods or services.

Imagine buying a product you believe helps fight climate change, only to find out the company behind it is exaggerating—maybe even fabricating—its green credentials. This is the growing issue of greenwashing, and Tyson Foods, one of America’s biggest meat producers, is now in the hot seat. Accused of overstating its sustainability efforts with promises like “net-zero by 2050,” Tyson’s case is not just another corporate slip-up—it’s part of a larger problem where feel-good marketing clouds the truth. Whilst the environmental costs are high, the real damage might be to the trust between consumers and the companies they rely on to do the right thing.

Tyson Foods isn’t alone in this controversy. As consumer demand for sustainable products grows, many companies are quick to tout their eco-friendly credentials. But when these claims are empty or exaggerated, it creates more than just confusion for shoppers — it erodes trust and stalls genuine efforts to address climate change.

Earlier this year, JBS, a Brazilian meat conglomerate, was sued by the New York Attorney General for similar greenwashing claims. JBS had pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2040 but, like Tyson Foods, lacked a concrete plan to make this a reality. Such instances highlight a troubling trend where companies leverage sustainability buzzwords to maintain consumer loyalty without making meaningful environmental changes. Greenwashing lawsuits are on the rise globally. Europe and Australia have led the charge in holding corporations accountable, with their advertising integrity boards frequently issuing violations for misleading environmental claims.

Several high-profile cases have exposed the damaging impacts of greenwashing. For instance, Volkswagen’s infamous “Dieselgate” scandal, in which the company falsely marketed its diesel engines as environmentally friendly, cost the company billions of dollars in fines and settlements. Volkswagen rigged its vehicles to appear less polluting during emissions tests, deceiving regulators and consumers for years. The fallout from the scandal highlighted how corporate deception can damage consumer trust, impact the environment, and have severe financial consequences for businesses.

Similarly, ExxonMobil has been under investigation for allegedly misleading the public and its shareholders about the risks of climate change. Internal documents revealed that the company had been aware of the environmental risks associated with fossil fuel use since the 1970’s but had publicly downplayed or dismissed these concerns. Exxon’s greenwashing efforts involved promoting its investments in renewable energy, which, in reality, constituted only a small fraction of its overall business.

These cases are stark reminders that greenwashing is not just a marketing misstep—it has real-world consequences. By diverting attention away from meaningful action, companies engaging in greenwashing contribute to further environmental degradation and delay critical efforts to combat climate change.

Greenwashing is not just about companies making themselves look good. It’s about misguiding well-intentioned consumers. Many people want to spend their money in ways that align with their values, supporting companies they believe are doing the right thing. But when corporations exaggerate their environmental impact, they rob people of the chance to make informed decisions. Consumers may unknowingly support businesses that are contributing to climate change rather than helping to reduce it.

The environmental consequences are just as severe. When companies like Tyson Foods or JBS make empty promises, it delays meaningful action. In the case of Tyson Foods, beef production is responsible for a significant portion of its greenhouse gas emissions, but the company has yet to outline a clear path to reducing these emissions in a meaningful way. Instead of contributing to real progress, greenwashing creates a smokescreen that hides the ongoing environmental damage.

I think we must spare more than a thought for the businesses that are genuinely working toward sustainability often find themselves at a disadvantage, competing with companies that make bold but false claims. This undermines the market for truly sustainable products and creates confusion for consumers trying to make responsible choices. I am advising my hard-working climate conscious clients to take positive action both legally and with PR to protect their efforts.

Thankfully, the rise in greenwashing lawsuits is pushing some companies to be more transparent. Advocacy groups, legal frameworks and concerned consumers are playing an increasingly important role in holding businesses accountable for their environmental promises. For example, the lawsuit against Tyson Foods could result in the company being forced to pull back its climate claims or publish an actionable plan to back up its goals.

Time is pressing, we must get past quaint labels and examine what we find. Greenwashing does more than just harm the reputation of companies like Tyson Foods or JBS—it undermines the global fight against climate change. If corporations don’t back up their pledges with real action, it’s not only their credibility at risk but our planet itself.

Your Climate – a Mid Term 2024 Report.

What we must realise is that the 2015 Paris Agreement set an ambitious goal – to limit global temperature rise to ‘well below’ 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, with an optimistic target of 1.5 degrees. What I now fully appreciate is that the “pledge” nature of the commitment had no teeth of enforceability. We need laws that bite.

As the consequences of climate change become clearer by the day – look no further than the deadly floods which rocked Central Europe just last week – the urgency of decisive measures have never been clearer. Yet recent headlines are depressing – COP28 appears to have been a damp squib, and current data indicates that regrettably in early 2024 we have already surpassed the 1.5 degree target. Please do pause on this point and realise how shocking this reality is. Despite Paris promises in 2015; the first world has knowingly presided over failure to comply.

Despite this, going forward and of further concern is that private companies – key players in the race to reach net-zero, are drifting away from the very targets which they had adopted with much fanfare. Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google, has abandoned it’s longstanding commitment to counterbalance it’s emissions in the face of the rapid expansion of its AI data centers.

In spite of these drawbacks, I still believe there is room for some cautious optimism. The upcoming COP29 summit in Baku, Azerbaijan seeks to reaffirm the international commitment to the 1.5 degree target – emphasising the need for investment as a vehicle for change. Ahead of the summit, many investors are rallying around the need for net zero. This year, could a meaningful and real commitment be on the horizon?

The $29 Trillion Coalition

This month, more than 530 financial institutions – managing $29 trillion in assets – signed a statement urging governments to enact policies to unlock capital for the net-zero transition. This includes calling for national policies which will accelerate the transition to a net-zero, climate-resilient economy – including mandatory climate-related reporting and decarbonisation strategies for high-emitting sectors.

These are all published in the 2024 Global Investor Statement to Governments on the Climate Crisis, outlining 5 critical policy areas:

1. Enact economy-wide public policies

This might include providing incentives such as grants and loan guarantees to accelerate the development, deployment and dissemination of technologies that enable the net zero transition. Likewise, that states should ensure that their targets for nationally determined contributions align with the 1.5 degree Celsius goal.

2. Implement sectoral transition strategies, especially in high-emitting sectors

For example, remove subsidies for fossil fuels and replace them with clean energy subsidies that boost clean energy deployment and bolster low-emission fuels. This statement comes at a time where fourteen of the worlds biggest banks and financial institutions are pledging to increase their support for nuclear energy; a low-carbon form of energy which could be crucial in the energy transition.

3. Address nature, water and biodiversity related challenges contributing to and stemming from the climate crisis

Why is this an issue? To tackle this, it suggests that governments establish and deliver commitments to address water scarcity and pollution, halt degradation of other national ecosystems, including halting and reversing deforestation.

4. Mandate climate-related disclosures across the financial system

The statement includes a radical proposal to institute mandatory climate risk disclosure in financial reporting, subject to external assurance, with reporting for all public and large private companies and financial institutions. In my view, this will require discovery powers for the external reviewer(s) with penal powers for wilful failures/breaches/cover-ups.

5. Mobilise further private investment into climate mitigation, resilience and adaptation activities in emerging markets and developing economies (EDMEs)

For developing countries, the energy transition needs to be balanced against other urgent priorities – health, poverty, and economic growth. Recognising the hurdles faced by EDMEs in achieving these goals, the statement emphasises the need for external assistance; such as scaling up technical assistance provided to EDME governments, or enhancing the use of collaborative platforms such as Just Energy Transition Partnerships to scale climate finance contributions and delivery in EDMEs.

Legal Climate Counsel

How Sustainable Were the 2024 Olympics? – A Closer Look At Green Promises

As the 2024 Olympics and the Paralympics have ended, the question of sustainability comes to the forefront.

Many wonder whether the efforts made to ensure sustainability have truly been realised and whether these Games will be remembered as “historic for the climate” and the greenest in history. However, as previous Olympic Games have shown, promises of green initiatives often fail to result in significant change.

Paris 2024: Promises of Sustainability

The 2024 Paris Games aimed to succeed where others have struggled, committing to various measures to reduce their environmental impact. Most notably, unlike many previous host cities, Paris avoided constructing new complexes and facilities, instead relying on existing infrastructure.

An impressive 95% of the buildings and areas hosting the Games were already in place, eliminating much of the environmental toll associated with new construction. The Games also placed an emphasis on renewable energy and sustainable transportation, aiming to cover electricity use with green sources.

Other measures included:

Leasing over 60% of equipment rather than purchasing new.
Reducing 50% of single-use plastics in food and beverage consumption.
Ensuring 100% of infrastructure, furniture, and equipment have a second life beyond the Games.
Using eco-design, with recycled and repurposed materials.

The Paris Games introduced several innovative measures, including heating aquatic pools using waste heat from nearby data centres and launching a “climate coach” platform to help other sporting events reduce their carbon footprints.

Criticism Despite Efforts

While these initiatives are promising, there is vaild criticism. One analysis of 16 Olympic Games from 1992 to 2020 found that even the most modern Olympics have struggled with environmental sustainability. Sochi, Rio, Tokyo and London, for example, were among the least sustainable, despite claims to the contrary.

Even with the changes in Paris, questions remain. Can these efforts offset the emissions generated by 600,000 spectators and 10,500 athletes travelling to the city?

Advertising, labour, memorabilia, hotels, food and broadcasting also contribute to the Games’ carbon footprint, making it difficult to fully declare them sustainable. The triathlon and swimming events, held in the Seine, also sparked concerns, and many criticised Paris’s attempts at eco-friendly measures. Even athletes voiced their concerns, many turning to social media to express frustration with some of the eco-friendly measures. Issues ranged from discomfort with recyclable beds and dissatisfaction with the food, to criticism of event locations. It seems that in some cases, sustainability efforts may have inadvertently affected the athlete experience.

Looking Ahead

While we wait for the Paris Games to release final data on the overall sustainability of the event, many remain hopeful that they will demonstrate that with focus and effort, the Olympics can one day become truly green.

As sustainability continues to evolve in global events, is your organisation prepared to make a difference? Contact my team for advice on environmental regulations and strategies for sustainable event planning.