Search Climate Insights Directory

Ember updates its estimate for the subsidies needed to deploy carbon capture at Drax, increasing the average cost per BECCS unit to £591 million in 2023 prices. The methodology utilizes a dual-Contract for Difference (CfD) model covering both electricity (CfDe) and carbon (CfDc), incorporating UK Government projected wholesale electricity prices and carbon market values. The analysis assumes a phased deployment of four units between 2030 and 2045, noting that costs remain uncertain due to a lack of commercial-scale power-BECCS projects.

Ember argues that the UK can achieve clean power by 2030 to combat inflation and energy price volatility. The organization identifies planning delays as a primary barrier and criticizes the economic efficiency and sustainability of biomass and BECCS subsidies.

The document details the third pillar of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, focusing on a global just transition. It advocates for decentralized, people-centered renewable energy systems and the economic diversification of fossil-fuel-dependent nations. The text emphasizes that a successful transition requires wealthy nations to provide financial support and a 'fair share' of effort, while rejecting 'dangerous distractions' like carbon offsets and geoengineering. It calls for a fundamental shift from GDP-driven growth to 'well-being economies' to address the systemic root causes of the climate crisis.

The document outlines the dangers of BECCS, highlighting its potential to cause massive deforestation, land grabbing, and food insecurity. It argues that the technology is inefficient, carries risks of CO2 leakage, and serves as a justification for continued fossil fuel use through carbon offsetting. The authors advocate for a systemic shift toward agroecology, community-managed ecosystems, and a just energy transition based on renewable sources like wind and solar.

The document provides a comprehensive list of requirements for a successful Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). It advocates for a rights-based approach, the adoption of a 'Whole Government Approach' to mainstreaming, and the prohibition of destructive activities like deep-sea mining and fracking. It argues against voluntary commitments, biodiversity offsetting, and the use of high-risk technologies such as geoengineering and synthetic biology, while calling for public finance from developed countries to support biodiversity conservation in developing nations.

The document argues that the Global Biodiversity Framework must be based on binding norms rather than voluntary commitments and must address the structural economic drivers of biodiversity loss. It advocates for a rights-based approach that protects indigenous peoples and environmental defenders, the elimination of harmful subsidies, and the prohibition of high-impact industrial activities like deep-sea mining and Arctic oil extraction. The text explicitly rejects the commodification of nature, biodiversity offsets, and the use of geoengineering or synthetic biology as solutions to the environmental crisis.

The document provides a comprehensive guide for the Global Biodiversity Framework, emphasizing the need for binding rules over voluntary commitments and the integration of human rights, especially for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. It argues that biodiversity loss is driven by the current economic system and unsustainable consumption, calling for a 'Whole Government Approach' to integrate biodiversity across all sectors. Key recommendations include the elimination of harmful subsidies for industrial farming and aquaculture, the prohibition of high-risk technologies like geoengineering, and the rejection of biodiversity offsetting and market-based solutions. The text stresses that conservation must prioritize existing habitats and be supported by public funding, particularly from developed nations to developing ones.

Friends of the Earth International opposes BECCS, describing it as a 'dangerous distraction' from urgent emissions reductions. The document argues that the land requirements for BECCS at scale—up to 3,000 million hectares—would cause widespread deforestation, land-grabbing, and increased global hunger. It further contends that the technology is technically unproven, energy-inefficient, and carries significant risks of CO2 leakage, while potentially enabling corrupt carbon offsetting practices that allow polluters to avoid real emissions cuts.

The report finds that all forecast capital expenditure in new oil and gas fields is incompatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. It warns that relying on unproven carbon capture and removal technologies to justify continued investment increases the risk of a 'disorderly transition' and systemic financial instability, potentially leading to global economic losses of $23 trillion per year if the world fails to transition.

The Barbados Energy Transition and Investment Plan (ETIP) identifies a net-zero emissions (NZE) target by 2035 as the most feasible pathway for the nation. Achieving this goal requires a total capital investment of BBD 19 billion by 2040, with the transport sector accounting for approximately BBD 17.3 billion of this total. The transition is expected to be driven by the widespread adoption of electric vehicles (EVs), onshore wind, solar PV, and blue hydrogen, while utilizing bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in the industry sector to offset residual emissions. The plan projects that NZE 2035 will result in fuel cost savings of BBD 15.6 billion and create approximately 1,500 new jobs above business-as-usual levels by 2035. Key policy recommendations include implementing mandatory building energy codes, establishing a national electric mobility roadmap, and developing a governance structure featuring an Energy Transition Office to coordinate cross-ministerial implementation.

Ghana aims to reach net-zero emissions by 2060, a transition requiring approximately USD 550 billion in capital investment. The plan identifies a shift toward solar PV, electric vehicles, and clean cooking as primary abatement drivers, while noting that without action, emissions could rise from 28 Mt CO2e in 2021 to over 140 Mt by 2050. The strategy emphasizes the need for de-risking instruments to attract private capital and the establishment of an Energy Transition Office to coordinate implementation.

The report outlines a pathway for Lao PDR to reach net zero emissions by 2050, utilizing LEAP and NEMO modelling to compare a Baseline Scenario with a transformative Net Zero Scenario. Key findings highlight the necessity of diversifying the energy mix beyond hydropower, electrifying transport and cooking, and implementing carbon removal technologies. The analysis emphasizes that while hydropower remains dominant, the country must scale up solar, wind, and biomass to ensure resilience against climate-induced droughts. Achieving the target requires significant infrastructure upgrades, including grid modernization and the deployment of direct air capture (DAC) to offset residual industrial and agricultural emissions. The report also addresses critical economic challenges, such as high public debt and currency depreciation, and recommends strengthening regional cooperation through the ASEAN Power Grid and the APAEC framework.

The document details five modeling scenarios for US decarbonization, comparing a business-as-usual reference case against pathways aiming for net zero emissions by 2050. It provides quantitative data on emissions, energy supply, and technology deployment, specifically highlighting the roles of electrification, renewable energy, and carbon capture.

The paper assesses technological carbon removal options in the United States, specifically bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), direct air capture with storage (DACS), and frontier technologies. It argues that while these technologies are critical for stabilizing global temperatures and meeting Paris Agreement targets, their deployment requires significant policy investment in research, development, and infrastructure. The author emphasizes that carbon pricing or regulatory mandates will be essential for sustained large-scale deployment, as CO2 utilization markets alone are insufficient.

The document presents a comparative analysis of multiple carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies and nature-based solutions, detailing their Technology Readiness Levels (TRL), estimated costs per tonne of CO2, and annual mitigation potentials. It highlights that while some methods like afforestation and BECCS have substantial contributions in Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), others such as biochar and soil carbon sequestration are still in development or not yet incorporated into these global pathways. The analysis also weighs the co-benefits, such as improved biodiversity and soil health, against risks including land competition with food production and potential carbon reversal.