Search Climate Insights Directory

The report establishes a framework for certifying electrical utilities and their debt instruments based on their alignment with a 1.5-degree warming scenario. It defines a global emission intensity transition pathway based on IEA Net Zero (NZE) 2023 data, requiring utilities to reduce carbon intensity from 460 gCO2/kWh in 2025 to 0 by 2050. The criteria distinguish between existing capacity, which may be retrofitted with carbon capture or low-carbon co-firing, and new capacity, for which no new fossil fuel investments are eligible. It also sets specific non-combustion emission thresholds for hydropower, geothermal, and bioenergy, and incorporates EU Taxonomy standards for CO2 transport and methane leakages.

The document argues that treating wood burning as renewable energy has led to forest degradation, high CO2 emissions, and public health risks. It outlines the legal requirements of RED III and urges Member States to use their discretion to phase out biomass subsidies, implement the cascading principle, and adopt stricter sustainability criteria to protect European forests and the climate.

The briefing examines the role of carbon capture and storage (CCS), noting that the majority of the world's 41 operational projects are linked to the oil and gas industry, specifically for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). It highlights a history of 'unmet expectations' and slow deployment, with capture rates often falling short of targets. While CCS is proposed for hard-to-abate sectors like cement and steel, the document argues it is often less cost-effective than electrification or energy efficiency. It further details how CCS projects in Norway, Canada, and Australia have been used to maintain the financial viability of fossil fuel extraction.

The EU Industrial Carbon Management Strategy aims to scale up CO2 capture, utilisation, and storage to meet 2040 climate targets, specifically targeting an annual injection capacity of at least 250 million tonnes in the European Economic Area by 2040. To achieve this, the Commission plans to address current imbalances in storage—which is currently concentrated in the North Sea—by establishing transparent permitting processes by 2025 and creating an investment atlas of potential storage sites. The strategy also envisions a vast transport network, potentially reaching 19,000 km by 2040, and proposes a regulatory package for CO2 transport and a demand aggregation platform by 2026. Financial mechanisms discussed include the Innovation Fund, Connecting Europe Facility, and a possible Important Project of Common European Interest for transport and storage. Additionally, the strategy emphasizes industrial carbon removals (such as BECCS and DACCS) to help reach a target of removing 400 million tonnes of CO2 per year by 2040.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) argues that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is indispensable for Austria to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors like cement, lime, and steel. The document recommends that Austria set specific deployment targets, remove legal barriers to geological CO2 storage, and develop a strategic plan for operationalising storage sites by 2035. To address the 'chicken and egg' problem of infrastructure investment, CATF suggests 'oversizing' transport networks and establishing an aggregation platform to match CO2 sources with sinks. Financially, the document proposes the use of carbon contracts for difference (CCfDs) to bridge the gap between EU ETS prices and decarbonisation costs, while advocating for long-term market demand through near-zero carbon product standards. Finally, it emphasizes the need for proactive public engagement and inclusive stakeholder dialogues to build political and social support for CCS.

The paper examines the current state and future potential of land-based mitigation technologies (LMTs) in China, noting that while forestry is well-integrated into policy, other sectors like agriculture, grasslands, and wetlands remain underexploited. It argues that land-based sequestration has not been prioritized as much as energy or industry and suggests that reaching net-zero by 2060 will require improved policy frameworks, standardized procedures, and enhanced technical capacity.

The document argues that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is essential for Europe to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, particularly for hard-to-abate industrial sectors like cement and steel. It details the technical processes of capture and geological storage, asserts that leakage risks are extremely low, and outlines current project developments in the North Sea region and across the EU. The text also addresses the economic viability of CCS, noting that while costs vary by industry, the technology is often the lowest-cost path for specific industrial decarbonisation and carbon dioxide removal (CDR).

The report finds that while China has significant potential for land-based climate mitigation, efforts have historically focused on energy and industry, with forestry being the only land sector with comprehensive targets. Agriculture, grasslands, and wetlands remain underexploited, hampered by a lack of standardized methodologies and a prioritization of food security over carbon sequestration. The relaunch of the China Certified Emission Reduction (CCER) scheme in 2023 offers a potential funding mechanism, though it is currently limited to forestry.

The report argues that CCS is essential for the EU to reach climate neutrality by 2050, noting that current deployment rates are far below required levels and that no operational CO2 storage sites currently exist within the EU. It recommends setting clear deployment targets for CCS, DACCS, and BECCS, and establishing a strategic plan to distribute storage basins across the region by 2035 to avoid over-reliance on the North Sea. To address financial barriers, the author suggests coordinating funding, using carbon contracts for difference (CfDs), and creating a dedicated tender for capture capacity. The report also emphasizes the need for a common regulatory framework for cross-border CO2 transport, the creation of an aggregation platform to match CO2 sources with sinks, and the development of market demand for near-zero carbon products. Finally, it advocates for the prioritization of permanent industrial carbon removals (DACCS and BECCS) and their gradual integration into compliance markets like the EU ETS, provided robust standards and monitoring are in place.

The document explores the role of advanced bioenergy systems in decarbonizing agriculture, emphasizing a 'carbon-negative circular bioeconomy' that combines emissions reductions with permanent carbon dioxide removal (CDR). It identifies opportunities such as utilizing biogenic point sources, growing perennials on underutilized land, and replacing synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. However, it warns of risks including methane leakage from anaerobic digesters, detrimental land-use changes, and environmental justice concerns. The report argues for policy shifts that prioritize CDR over simple energy production and calls for increased research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) to scale cellulosic bioenergy technologies.

The document examines the ecological and human rights risks of various geoengineering approaches, asserting that these speculative technologies could lead to ecosystem collapse and perpetuate neocolonialism.

The report argues that current carbon dioxide removal (CDR) governance systems are flawed because they often treat carbon removal as equivalent to emission reductions, leading to 'mitigation deterrence'. It examines regulatory tools like emissions trading systems (ETS), tax credits, and public auctions, as well as voluntary carbon markets (VCMs). The authors conclude that CDR must be a complementary tool, not a substitute for decarbonization. They propose a policy framework based on three principles: precaution, 'do no significant harm' (DNSH), and the primacy of emission reductions. Key recommendations include separating emission reduction targets from CDR and land-based sequestration targets, implementing rigorous measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems, and shifting from offsetting models to 'contributive approaches' or public procurement like reverse auctions.

The document argues that current carbon dioxide removal (CDR) policies often encourage 'mitigation deterrence' by treating removals as equivalent to emission reductions. It reviews various mechanisms—including emissions trading systems, tax credits, and voluntary markets—and concludes that most fail to ensure environmental integrity or permanence. The authors propose a 'blueprint' for sensible policy that strictly separates emission reduction targets from removal targets, mandates robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), and prioritizes the 'Do No Significant Harm' principle. It suggests that funding for CDR should come from carbon pricing revenues or dedicated procurement schemes rather than offsetting mechanisms.

The document is a curated list of resources published between 2005 and 2023 that challenge the validity and ethics of various climate mitigation strategies. It categorizes these resources into reports and briefings, blogs, articles, press releases, and other media. The listed materials focus on the perceived dangers of carbon markets, geoengineering, and corporate-led 'net zero' strategies, often framing them as 'false solutions' that may facilitate continued fossil fuel use or result in 'green colonialism'.

The document is a resource list compiled by Friends of the Earth International, cataloguing various publications that challenge the legitimacy of 'false climate solutions'. It highlights materials focusing on the risks of net-zero targets, nature-based solutions, carbon markets, and geoengineering, often linking these mechanisms to land grabbing and corporate greenwashing.

The document details the technical methodology used by the Union of Concerned Scientists to model US energy system transitions. It outlines targets for reducing energy and industrial CO2 emissions by 47.5% by 2030 and 100% by 2050, alongside specific targets for non-CO2 gases. The analysis employs seven scenarios, including reference cases and various net-zero pathways, incorporating the impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Key assumptions include the total retirement of coal generation by 2030 in net-zero scenarios and 100% zero emissions vehicle sales by 2035.

The Canadian Climate Institute and Clean Energy Canada propose adjustments to the Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) to ensure they are achievable and cost-effective. Key recommendations include raising the performance standard to 60 tonnes of CO2 per GWh, increasing the capacity factor for peaker plants to 15%, and introducing interim standards for facilities commissioned after 2025. To complement the CER, the authors argue for reforming the Output-based Pricing System (OBPS) to apply full carbon pricing to the electricity sector, federally procuring negative emissions via DAC-CCS and BECCS to offset residual emissions, and increasing support for demand-side management and distributed energy resources.

The Asia Pacific Regional Biomass Working Group urges the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to cease support for wood bioenergy and the 'repurposing' of coal plants, arguing that biomass co-firing extends the life of coal infrastructure and causes severe ecological and social harm. The group highlights that in Indonesia, PT PLN's co-firing strategy could require 2.33 million hectares of energy plantations, potentially leading to 2.1 million hectares of deforestation annually. The letter demands that ADB recognize bioenergy as contradictory to coal phase-out goals, divest from wood biomass projects, and identify the sector as high-risk.

The authors provide a classification of land-based mitigation technologies and practices (LMTs), identifying afforestation, reforestation, and forest management as having high potential worldwide. While bioenergy with carbon capture and storage and biochar are more viable in higher-income countries due to funding and technology, the broader deployment of LMTs is hindered by insufficient financing and limited implementation knowledge. The text emphasizes that large-scale deployment must account for gender and the rights of Indigenous Peoples and marginalised groups to avoid increasing inequalities.

The research identifies 'understanding', 'awareness', and 'economic/finance' as the primary capacity gaps for land-based mitigation technologies and practices (LMTs) across five global regions. The authors suggest that addressing knowledge and understanding gaps is a critical first step to increase stakeholder attraction to LMTs. To support scaling, the paper recommends that policymakers develop dedicated support policies and regulatory frameworks, build markets, utilize carbon markets, and collaborate with local and Indigenous Peoples using bottom-up implementation plans and traditional knowledge.