Welcome to the 96th edition of our Newsletter EdGenie's 📜 Sunday Scroll...

Every Sunday I send out actionable tips, tricks and real-world application insights from my 15 year experience coaching students to achieve As and A*s in their Economics A Levels via EdGenie.

Hey Genies, 👋

You're often told to read the news, buy The Economist, and follow the Financial Times, but how do you actually use them effectively for A-Level Economics? 🤔

It's complicated, long, and sometimes hard to connect to your studies.

So, how do you do this on a daily or weekly basis?

Let me break it down for you.👇

Why the News Matters 📈

Real-world events are the exact topics you will be asked about in your exams.

That's how we generate our Hot Topics lists on EdGenie every single year! 🌍
And the best part?

It's how we generate loads of practice questions that tend to come up in your exams.

How to Get Started:

1) Pick the Right Sources 📚
Choose 3 or 4 publications that are appropriate for you.

🌱 Quiet Progress on Climate Goals

• Many firms are still pursuing decarbonisation, but increasingly without publicity — a trend dubbed “greenhushing” rather than greenwashing.

📊 Evidence of Continued Action

• A PwC report found 67% of firms with climate targets are on track to meet them, with only 16% rolling back goals.
• The share of companies targeting scope three emissions rose sharply from 28% in 2022 to 67% in 2024.

🏭 Moving Beyond Offsets

• Major firms like Microsoft, Google, and easyJet are shifting away from relying on carbon offsets, focusing instead on real emission reductions.

📉 Emissions Intensity Falling

• According to MSCI, companies with climate targets cut their emissions intensity by 8%, compared with 3% for firms without such targets.

🛢️ Sectors Facing Setbacks

• Oil and gas firms struggle to decarbonise profitably; BP has pivoted back towards fossil fuels.
• Key oil companies left the Science Based Targets initiative’s advisory group when told they must halt new field development.

🏦 Financial Institutions Backsliding

• Banks like HSBC, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley have left the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, with departures accounting for about two-fifths of its total assets.

⚖️ Politics and Regulatory Pressure

• In the US, Republican politicians argue that climate alliances breach antitrust laws.
• Since Trump’s return to office, pressure has intensified, with threats of legal action against financial firms pursuing green policies.

📉 Decline in Transparency

• Mentions of climate change on corporate earnings calls fell from 427 in Q1 2022 to 246 in Q1 2025, showing reduced public emphasis.

💡 Underlying Business Incentives

• Despite less publicity, many firms continue decarbonisation because they see it as good for profitability, not merely a political or reputational choice.

Q. Using an appropriate diagram, explain how setting climate targets may reduce negative externalities of production.
A. In a negative externality of production diagram, MSC lies above MPC because of pollution. By setting climate targets, firms cut emissions, shifting MPC upward towards MSC, reducing the welfare loss triangle. This internalises the externality, leading output closer to the socially optimal level. Such targets, especially those covering scope three emissions, enhance credibility. Yet if firms greenhush and avoid transparency, consumers cannot reward greener behaviour, limiting the impact of this adjustment.

Q. Examine two reasons why some firms might choose to engage in “greenhushing” rather than publicise their climate goals.
A. First, political risks are high: in the US, Republican-led states threaten legal action for participation in green alliances, so firms avoid publicity. Second, reputational returns have diminished, as public scepticism of “greenwashing” grows, making firms cautious of bold claims. Greenhushing allows them to reap efficiency gains while avoiding backlash. Yet, a lack of transparency reduces accountability, risking slower progress in sectors where monitoring is essential.

Q. With reference to the data in the article, explain why firms with climate targets might experience a greater fall in emissions intensity compared to those without targets.
A. Targets provide clear incentives for investment in green technology and supply-chain decarbonisation. MSCI data shows firms with climate targets cut emissions intensity by 8% versus 3% for others, suggesting targets integrate sustainability into strategy. This may reflect economies of scale and reputational benefits. However, correlation is not causation: firms predisposed to be greener may be more likely to set ambitious goals, meaning targets alone do not guarantee reductions.

Q. Assess whether the rise of “greenhushing” is a positive or negative development for achieving global climate targets.
A. Greenhushing can be positive as it shows firms act for genuine business benefits, not just publicity, with examples like Microsoft moving away from offsets and targeting scope three emissions. It indicates decarbonisation is embedded in core strategy. Yet the drop in climate mentions on earnings calls reduces transparency, undermining investor and consumer accountability. Furthermore, key sectors such as oil and finance continue to backslide, limiting progress. Overall, while greenhushing reflects real momentum, reduced visibility risks slowing the global coordination needed for net zero.

If you or your child are looking to Boost your A level Economics Grades in under 30 days, I'd recommend starting with an all-in-one support network where you get 24/7 access to a SuperTutor:

→ Join EdGenie 🧞‍♂️: Transform your A-Level Economics essays and exam marks (genuinely) with our comprehensive on-demand learning platform. This carefully curated course blends engaging content with effective exam techniques, the same ones that have empowered over 1,000 of my students to achieve an A or A* over the last 13 years.