Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that while military R&D alone cannot solve the climate challenge due to long equipment lifecycles, a comprehensive approach combining innovation, policy changes, and procurement can significantly reduce emissions. It highlights the transition to low-carbon technologies in operations (such as sustainable aviation fuels and hybrid vehicles), the decarbonization of fixed infrastructure through microgrids and small modular reactors, and the need to address Scope 3 emissions within the defense industrial supply chain. The authors emphasize that procurement is the most powerful tool for militaries to catalyze clean energy markets and steer the defense industry toward net-zero goals.

The report examines the use of environmental attribute certificates (EACs) via a book and claim model to scale lower-carbon steel and concrete. It argues that this mechanism allows organizations to fund upstream decarbonization even when they cannot directly procure low-carbon materials. The authors identify critical infrastructure needs—including certification schemes, standards, registries, and reporting guidelines—and share lessons from a Microsoft pilot, noting that the market is currently in early stages with a lack of fit-for-purpose accounting methods.

The Rocky Mountain region (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) possesses the feedstocks, industrial infrastructure, and legislative support necessary to develop a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) industry, yet it currently lacks substantial production. This roadmap examines regional feedstock availability and policy mechanisms to align the region with the US SAF Grand Challenge and outlines actions for short-, medium-, and long-term SAF development.

The report assesses decarbonisation strategies for refineries across four major regions, focusing on Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. It evaluates technologies such as carbon capture, blue and green hydrogen, and the transition to biorefineries (specifically the HEFA process) or clean fuels facilities. Regional analysis shows that while the US and GCC benefit from cheap natural gas for blue hydrogen, Europe is trending toward green hydrogen imports and biorefinery revamps. Singapore's strategy is heavily influenced by its status as a global trading hub and its lack of domestic natural gas or carbon storage resources. The report concludes that energy efficiency projects are generally the most immediate and viable, while large-scale carbon capture and hydrogen transitions require significant policy support and infrastructure development to be economically feasible.

The document assesses the current state of bioeconomy strategies across G20 nations, identifying three primary thematic axes: biotechnology (R&D&I), bioresources (sustainable use of biodiversity), and bio-ecology (sustainable development). It highlights the significant economic potential of the sector, citing estimates that its value could reach US$30 trillion by 2050. The report emphasizes the necessity of integrating indigenous and local knowledge, ensuring social equity, and aligning bioeconomy growth with biodiversity conservation and climate action. It further examines policy enablers such as Green Public Procurement and carbon pricing, and discusses financing mechanisms including nature markets and sustainability-linked bonds. The report concludes by proposing five key themes for the G20 Initiative on Bioeconomy's program of work: integration into growth plans, livelihoods and equity, enabling finance, facilitating biotrade, and measurement methodologies.

The report argues that achieving net-zero aviation emissions by 2050 requires a multi-fuel approach because sustainable biofuels alone cannot meet projected energy demands. It examines synthetic fuels (e-fuels) as a scalable drop-in solution, though currently expensive, and analyzes the potential of hydrogen and ammonia for regional and domestic flights. While electrification is limited to niche urban air mobility, the report suggests a 2050 fuel mix comprising 86% bio- and synthetic SAF and 14% zero-carbon fuels (hydrogen and ammonia) as a plausible path to decarbonization, provided there is massive scale-up of low-carbon hydrogen production and supportive policy frameworks.

The document argues that Poland, as Europe's third largest hydrogen producer, must transition from carbon-intensive production to a clean hydrogen economy to decarbonise its industrial and transportation sectors. It recommends prioritising 'no regrets' sectors, adopting a technology-neutral production approach, and carefully planning imports via pipelines or ammonia to manage limited domestic resources.

The document provides a detailed update on the climate trajectories of China and the U.S., highlighting China's rapid expansion of non-fossil energy capacity and the U.S.'s implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). It details specific national policies, such as China's '1+N' system and the U.S.'s EPA rules on power plants and vehicles, while analyzing the diplomatic dynamics following the Sunnylands Statement and the transition of key climate envoys.

The Clean Air Task Force asserts that including soil organic carbon (SOC) in the GREET model for section 40B SAF tax credit eligibility contradicts the requirement for a methodology similar to CORSIA, which does not credit SOC. The author argues that SOC sequestration is too variable and impermanent to be reliably verified, noting that the Treasury would need to establish complex regional baselines and implement novel claw-back provisions to prevent tax credits from being awarded for emissions reductions that are later reversed.

The policy brief contends that the GREET model's outdated assumptions regarding land displacement and forest impacts lead to a significant underestimation of indirect land use change (ILUC) emissions for sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). This discrepancy allows high-emissions fuels, particularly land-intensive soy and corn biofuels, to qualify for the section 40B tax credit, which the author argues distorts the market against waste-based and synthetic SAF and contradicts congressional intent. The document advocates for updating GREET to a methodology similar to the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), which incorporates a broader range of ILUC values to better reflect global market impacts.

The report argues that Occidental Petroleum's (Oxy) climate strategy is misaligned with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. It finds that Oxy's net-zero targets are inadequate, focusing primarily on scope 1 and 2 emissions while ignoring the vast majority of its carbon footprint in scope 3. The analysis highlights a heavy overreliance on unproven direct air capture (DAC) technology, which the report claims is used as a 'licence to pollute' and a mechanism to prolong oil and gas extraction through enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The report further asserts that Oxy's 'net-zero oil' claims are scientifically invalid and that its lobbying efforts for government subsidies for carbon removals contradict its public climate commitments.

The report evaluates the Paris 2024 climate strategy, noting that while efforts in construction and food supply are robust, other sectors like transport and energy lack transparency and detailed methodology. It criticizes the evolution of public claims from 'carbon neutrality' to 'climate positive' as misleading and highlights a lack of transparency in carbon credit purchases. The authors argue that future games must downscale or decentralize to align with the 1.5°C goal and should avoid partnering with companies whose climate pathways are incompatible with the Paris Agreement.

The report finds that Eni's investment strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over renewable energy, leading to projected 2030 production levels that significantly exceed NZE requirements. While Eni is diversifying into renewables and bioenergy, these remain marginal compared to its fossil fuel core, and its decarbonization plan relies heavily on unproven carbon capture and offset technologies.

Reclaim Finance finds that Shell's investment strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over renewable energy, leading to production levels and LNG capacities that significantly exceed NZE requirements by 2030. The report notes that Shell has reduced its carbon intensity targets and relies heavily on unproven carbon capture and offsets, while its renewable energy growth remains marginal compared to its fossil fuel output.

The report concludes that TotalEnergies' strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over the energy transition. It finds that the company's 2030 production targets and LNG capacity expansions significantly overshoot NZE limits, while its renewable energy growth relies primarily on acquisitions rather than organic development. Furthermore, the report argues that TotalEnergies' diversification into gas power, blue hydrogen, and bioenergy is unsustainable and that its emissions targets rely heavily on unproven carbon capture and offset technologies.

The report argues that the EU is not on track to meet its 2030 and 2050 climate goals and must shift to an 'option-based' approach that integrates a broad range of low- and zero-carbon technologies. Key recommendations include scaling up carbon capture and storage (CCS), diversifying the energy mix with small modular reactors (SMRs), superhot rock geothermal, and fusion energy, and implementing a rigorous methane import standard. It emphasizes the need for a comprehensive green industrial strategy, a dedicated climate fund to replace the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and international cooperation to set global clean-tech standards.

The report argues that the UK is currently off track to meet its 2030 NDC and sixth carbon budget, necessitating a shift toward 'accountability and implementation'. It advocates for a systems-based approach that complements electrification with carbon capture and storage (CCS), low-carbon hydrogen, nuclear energy, and aggressive methane mitigation. Key recommendations include establishing a Methane Action Plan, creating a 'producer responsibility' policy for CO2 storage, and prioritising low-carbon hydrogen for 'no-regrets' industrial sectors like refining and ammonia production. The document also emphasises the need for international collaboration, particularly with the EU and emerging economies, to scale these technologies and maintain the UK's global climate leadership.

The report provides a detailed market assessment of the refining industry in four key regions, analyzing the transition from traditional crude-based products to low-carbon alternatives like SAF, green ammonia, and e-methanol, while evaluating the impact of regional climate policies.

The Clean Air Task Force and Pacific Environment argue that proposed LCFS amendments, including strengthened carbon intensity targets and the inclusion of intrastate aviation fuel, risk driving up demand for crop-based biofuels. They warn this could lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions from land use changes and disruptions to food markets. The authors recommend volume limits on first-generation vegetable oil-based fuels, annual market impact assessments, and extending sustainability requirements to used cooking oil and waste oils.

The policy brief examines how Low-Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) can complement federal hydrogen investments by directing clean hydrogen toward high-priority sectors. It analyzes existing programs in California, Oregon, and Washington, providing four lessons for other states: regulating intrastate aviation fuel to move beyond biogenic feedstocks, phasing in maritime fuel regulation, managing biogenic feedstock demand to prevent indirect land use change, and implementing rigorous emissions accounting to avoid loopholes for blue and grey hydrogen.