Search Climate Insights Directory

The document is an open letter from energy systems researchers supporting the modernization of the GHGP scope 2 market-based method (MBM). The authors argue that the current MBM allows companies to claim zero emissions without a physical relationship between generation and demand, thereby failing as a legitimate value chain inventory and providing minimal real-world emissions impact. They advocate for the adoption of hourly matching, deliverability, and incrementality criteria to steer procurement toward new clean energy projects and technologies like energy storage and clean firm generation. While supporting the proposed updates, the signatories suggest strengthening them with an explicit age-based incrementality requirement to close gaps where legacy clean generators operate as merchant participants.

The document argues that offshore seismic surveying is fundamentally damaging to marine ecosystems and contradicts South Africa's COP26 commitments to transition from hydrocarbons to renewables. The authors highlight legal deficiencies in the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) that allow these surveys to bypass full environmental impact assessments and criticize the outdated Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) used for Shell Oil's surveys off the Transkei Coast. They call for a halt to all planned surveys, a review of EIA regulations, and the commissioning of a Strategic Environmental Assessment for the South African Exclusive Economic Zone.

The document is a formal letter from a multidisciplinary group of experts urging the EPA to maintain strong fuel efficiency and emissions standards rather than adopting the proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule, which they argue would harm the climate, public health, and the economy.

A group of environmental scientists warns that proposed EU forest accounting rules, which would allow policy-driven increases in harvesting to be included in the baseline, could hide up to 400 MtCO2/yr of emissions. They argue that any reduction in the forest sink is effectively a net increase in emissions and that failing to account for this would undermine the credibility of EU bioenergy accounting, contradict the Paris Agreement, and compromise the EU's alignment with IPCC 2°C trajectories.

A group of environmental scientists warns that proposed EU forest accounting rules, which would allow increased harvesting to be included in the baseline, could hide up to 400 MtCO2/yr of emissions. They argue this approach undermines the credibility of bioenergy accounting, contradicts the Paris Agreement, and risks failure to meet the IPCC 2°C trajectory. The authors advocate for a robust baseline based on historical data and forest dynamics to ensure transparency and climate credibility.

The document is an open letter from environmental scientists warning that proposed EU forest accounting rules could allow member states to hide the impact of policies that increase net emissions. The authors argue that including policy-driven harvest increases in the 'Forest Reference Level' baseline would effectively mask up to 400 MtCO2/yr of emissions, undermining the EU's 2030 climate targets, the credibility of bioenergy accounting, and the spirit of the Paris Agreement.