Search Climate Insights Directory

The document warns against a surge of new LNG terminal projects in Europe triggered by the energy crisis following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It argues these projects will not solve short-term energy shortages due to construction delays and market constraints, while risking long-term 'carbon lock-in' and increased methane emissions. The author specifically criticizes the opacity of the Le Havre floating terminal project and calls on private financial institutions, including GFANZ members, to implement exclusions for LNG infrastructure to align with 1.5°C warming targets.

The document warns against the proliferation of LNG import terminals in Europe, arguing they will not solve the immediate energy crisis and will create long-term fossil fuel dependency. It calls on private financial institutions to deny funding for these projects to prevent carbon lock-in and mitigate methane emissions.

The report argues that decarbonizing the global steel sector requires a shift from project-based funding to systemic international cooperation that addresses both high capital and operational costs. It highlights a significant gap in green steel initiatives, which are currently clustered in the EU, while production growth is projected in emerging economies. The authors propose the international application of Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfDs) to cover incremental costs of clean production and mitigate risks for private investors. Furthermore, the report emphasizes that successful transformation depends on fostering trust through non-hierarchical policy dialogues and peer review processes to avoid concerns over national sovereignty and 'carbon colonialism'.

The report contends that Europe's rapid expansion of LNG import capacity in response to the Russian gas crisis is disproportionate and environmentally damaging. It argues that new terminals will not address short-term energy needs due to long construction timelines, will create carbon lock-in, and increase methane emissions, particularly from US shale gas. The author asserts that existing capacity is sufficient to meet demand under net-zero scenarios and that funds should instead be diverted to renewable energy and energy efficiency to avoid worsening energy poverty and impacting the Global South.

The global GSS+ bond market reached a cumulative issuance of $3 trillion by Q1 2022, despite a nearly 30% year-on-year decline in quarterly issuance due to interest rate hikes and the Russia-Ukraine war. While green and social bonds saw significant decreases, sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) grew by over 100%, with 61% of their KPIs linked to greenhouse gas emission targets. China led global green bond issuance in Q1 2022, and the period saw the emergence of the first sovereign SLB from Chile and the first public sector SLB from the city of Helsingborg.

The report examines the global and regional context of oil and gas transitions, focusing on the North Sea region. It identifies a significant 'ambition gap' between national net-zero targets and actual industrial strategies in the UK and Norway, while noting Denmark as a first-mover with a 2050 phase-out date. Using a scorecard analysis based on seven just transition principles, the report finds that while Scotland leads in support for workers and communities, the UK and Norway struggle with carbon lock-in due to continued licensing and a lack of comprehensive regional support policies.

The report identifies the fossil fuel industry as the most litigious sector in the ISDS system, accounting for nearly 20% of all known cases. It highlights a significant lack of transparency, with 54% of concluded cases remaining confidential. Findings show that investors frequently win on the merits (72% of disclosed cases) and receive substantially higher awards than non-fossil fuel investors, averaging over USD 600 million. The analysis emphasizes the role of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) and contract-based arbitrations, particularly in low-income countries. The report concludes that the ISDS system can create a 'regulatory chill,' deterring states from implementing urgent climate policies and phasing out fossil fuels to meet Paris Agreement objectives.

The document identifies a regional trend where Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico have used the COVID-19 economic recovery as a justification to expand fossil fuel extraction and subsidies, often framing natural gas as a 'bridge fuel' or citing 'energy sovereignty'. This approach creates a 'carbon lock-in' that contradicts their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and increases the risk of stranded assets. The report highlights the central role of state-owned enterprises (such as PEMEX, YPF, and Petrobras) in maintaining this fossil-fuel dependency and notes a general absence of concrete just transition plans for affected workers and communities.

ClientEarth argues that classifying natural gas as sustainable under the EU Taxonomy Regulation would violate the Paris Agreement, the European Climate Law, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The organization contends that natural gas activities do not meet the 'climate change mitigation' criteria because they increase greenhouse gas emissions, particularly when methane leakages are considered. Furthermore, ClientEarth asserts that natural gas cannot be a 'transition' measure as feasible low-carbon alternatives exist and such investments risk locking in carbon-intensive assets and diverting funds from renewable energy.

The report by ClientEarth, WWF Italy, and ECCO think tank opposes Enel's plan to convert the Federico II plant in Brindisi from coal to gas. It argues that the project is not needed for security of supply, risks creating stranded assets and overcapacity in Southern Italy, and causes adverse climate impacts through CO2 and methane emissions. The authors contend that the project contradicts EU and national decarbonisation goals and should be rejected by the Ministry for Ecological Transition.

The policy brief outlines a framework of seven principles to manage the socio-economic disruptions caused by decarbonization. It argues that a transition perceived as fair is essential for effective global cooperation and the success of climate goals. The framework emphasizes that decarbonization must be accelerated while simultaneously implementing support for affected workers, diversifying regional economies, remedying environmental damage, and ensuring inclusive planning. Drawing on historical cases of industrial decline, the document warns against government inaction and the risk of 'carbon lock-in,' suggesting that international financial and technical support should prioritize regions with low capacity or high carbon dependency.

ClientEarth argues that the draft CEEAG contains political compromises that undermine environmental ambitions, specifically criticizing the continued support for fossil gas, low-carbon hydrogen, and biomass. The organization advocates for the strict integration of the 'Energy Efficiency First' principle, the 'energy solidarity principle', and more rigorous safeguards to prevent 'carbon lock-in'. Key recommendations include limiting hydrogen aid to renewable sources, phasing out support for high-efficient cogeneration and small hydropower, and implementing stricter conditions for the closure of coal activities to ensure they occur by 2030.

A letter from a Stockholm Environment Institute scientist to the Massachusetts Attorney General arguing that Harvard's fossil fuel investments are misaligned with the Paris Agreement and contribute to global health and environmental crises.

The report finds that international public finance for gas in low- and middle-income countries is four times higher than for wind or solar, risking a 'dash for gas' that locks economies into high-carbon pathways. It argues that gas is no longer a necessary 'bridge fuel' because renewables are often cheaper and more effective for power, cooking, and industry. The document recommends that international financial institutions end support for gas and instead scale up clean energy finance, focusing on grid integration, technology transfer, and a just transition for workers.

The report finds that international public financing for gas projects in low- and middle-income countries is four times higher than for wind or solar, creating a 'lock-in effect' that threatens climate goals. It argues that gas is no longer a necessary 'bridge technology' because renewables are often cheaper and more effective for energy access. The document recommends that international financial institutions cease all support for gas infrastructure and instead fund grid integration, technology transfer, and a just transition for affected workers.

The report finds that international public finance for gas projects in low- and middle-income countries averaged nearly USD 16 billion per year from 2017 to 2019, which is four times the amount provided for wind or solar. It argues that the 'bridge fuel' concept is obsolete due to the urgency of the climate crisis, methane leakage, and the falling costs of renewables. The document recommends that international public finance institutions end all support for gas exploration, production, and long-lived infrastructure, instead scaling up finance for grid integration, technology transfer, and universal clean energy access. Case studies of Argentina, Egypt, and India illustrate risks such as high subsidies, dependence on volatile export markets, and the creation of redundant parallel infrastructures for gas and electric vehicles.

The report finds that international public finance disproportionately supports natural gas in low- and middle-income countries, often exceeding support for wind and solar by four times. It argues that the 'bridge fuel' narrative is obsolete due to the falling costs of renewables and the risks of stranded assets and methane leaks. The document recommends that international financial institutions cease funding gas infrastructure and instead support clean energy integration, technology transfer, and a just transition, particularly for the poorest nations.

The report finds that international public finance disproportionately supports natural gas over renewables in the Global South, creating risks of stranded assets and carbon lock-in. It argues that renewables are now cost-competitive for most gas uses and recommends that public financial institutions cease support for gas infrastructure to prioritize clean energy transitions.

The report analyzes the impact of three US federal tax subsidies—the expensing of intangible drilling costs (IDC), percentage depletion, and accelerated amortization of geological and geophysical (G&G) expenses—on the profitability of oil and gas projects from 1998 to 2019. Using a financial model of 2,450 fields, the authors find that these subsidies increased the expected net present value of projects by billions of dollars annually, often exceeding $20 billion in high-price years. The benefits were heavily concentrated in unconventional shale developments in regions such as the Permian Basin and Appalachia, and disproportionately benefited independent firms over integrated ones. While subsidies provided 'super normal' profits during high-price periods (2007-2014) without significantly altering drilling decisions, they were critical for the viability of marginal projects during price drops, such as in 2016 for oil and 2010-2012 for gas in Appalachia.

The report analyzes government energy-related spending during the COVID-19 pandemic, finding that a significant portion of recovery funds still supports fossil fuel-intensive sectors. It proposes five core principles for a 'fossil-free recovery': ending public funding for fossil fuel production, reforming fossil fuel subsidies and taxes to raise revenue, 'swapping' those funds into clean energy (access, efficiency, transport, and power), incentivizing private investment in clean electricity, and ensuring a just transition for affected workers and communities.