Search Climate Insights Directory

The document critiques the reliance on 'net zero' frameworks, carbon offsets, and technological fixes, asserting that these mechanisms allow polluters to continue emissions while risking land grabbing and violating indigenous rights. It specifically analyzes the implications of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and the promotion of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) and geoengineering, calling instead for a systemic shift toward energy sovereignty and the phased elimination of fossil fuels.

The document critiques the 'net zero' framework and the expansion of carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, labeling them as 'false solutions' used by the fossil fuel industry to avoid drastic emission cuts. It specifically warns that 'nature-based solutions' (NBS) lead to land grabbing and that geo-engineering technologies are unproven and risky. The briefing outlines the outcomes of COP26 and the expected agenda for COP27, advocating instead for a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels, support for agroecology, and the recognition of indigenous land sovereignty.

The document critiques the 'net zero' narrative, asserting that it relies on unproven carbon removals and offsets that allow polluters to continue emissions. It specifically highlights the risks of 'Nature Based Solutions' (NBS) leading to land grabbing in the Global South and the dangers of techno-fixes like BECCS and DACCS. The briefing details how the Article 6 'Rulebook' agreed at COP26 facilitates global carbon markets and warns that COP27 may further entrench these mechanisms. It concludes by advocating for 'real solutions' centered on a coordinated fossil fuel phase-out, food sovereignty, and Indigenous rights.

The document describes CCS as an integrated infrastructure for capturing, transporting, and storing CO2. It notes a history of failure, with only 10% of projects between 1995 and 2018 being completed, but highlights a recent surge in investment and project pipelines, particularly in North America and Europe. The author argues that CCS is currently only truly essential for the cement sector, as renewables outperform it in power generation and green hydrogen is expected to undercut blue hydrogen by 2030. It warns against carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) due to high energy requirements and the risk of increasing net emissions.

The Union of Concerned Scientists finds that the United States can achieve a 98 percent reduction in transportation emissions by 2050 through rapid vehicle electrification, strengthened efficiency standards, and a transition to renewable electricity. The proposed 'Core scenario' involves ending sales of passenger cars and light trucks by 2035 and medium- and heavy-duty trucks by 2040, reducing liquid fuel use by 84 percent by midcentury. These pathways are deemed economically viable, with net energy costs estimated at less than 1 percent of GDP. The report emphasizes that this transition must be coupled with a power grid shift to 97 percent zero-carbon sources by 2050 and a focus on environmental justice for overburdened communities.

The report argues that the US can achieve a 98% reduction in transportation CO2 emissions by 2050 through a combination of rapid vehicle electrification, improved energy efficiency, and the use of low-carbon liquid fuels for hard-to-decarbonize sectors. It presents a 'Core' scenario where all new light-duty vehicles are zero-emission by 2035 and medium- and heavy-duty vehicles by 2040. The analysis emphasizes that while technological shifts are necessary, a truly equitable transition requires behavioral changes to reduce overall energy demand, such as increased use of public transit and active transportation. The report concludes that these pathways are economically viable, with net costs of less than 1% of GDP, and would yield significant public health and climate benefits.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that 'net zero' is a global scientific concept that should not be applied to individual entities, as doing so encourages the use of ineffective offsets and speculative technologies. CIEL recommends that standards for non-state entities require absolute emissions reductions, the inclusion of Scope 3 emissions, and a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels. The document specifically criticizes the fossil fuel industry for using net-zero pledges to mask continued production and warns that reliance on Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) and technological Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is risky and unproven. It advocates for mandatory regulation, transparent reporting, and the integration of human rights and climate justice into all net-zero frameworks.

The policy brief outlines a proposed framework for a German national carbon management strategy, emphasizing the necessity of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and direct air capture (DAC) to meet 2045 climate goals. It suggests five pillars: setting clear quantitative targets, prioritizing hard-to-abate sectors like cement and refineries, engaging civil society, developing shared CO2 transport infrastructure, and fostering international cooperation, particularly within the EU and with countries like Norway and Denmark.

The report critiques the 'net zero' framework and the expansion of carbon offset markets, asserting that they create a false equivalence between carbon removals and avoided emissions. It argues that these mechanisms serve as a 'house of cards' designed to protect stranded fossil fuel assets by providing a veneer of climate action while allowing ongoing emissions. The document specifically highlights the efforts of the Task Force on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) and the Architecture for REDD+ Transactions (ART-TREES) to standardize and commodify different types of carbon credits to increase market volume. It concludes that the only viable path to limiting warming to 1.5°C is a rapid, just transition to renewable energy and the immediate phase-out of fossil fuels, rather than reliance on speculative carbon removal technologies or flawed offsetting schemes.

The document critiques the 'fossil bet on the future,' claiming that carbon offsets and net-zero goals serve as a 'house of cards' to maintain fossil fuel dependence. It specifically targets the amalgamation of carbon capture, emission reductions, and avoided emissions into single, fungible credit units, arguing that such mechanisms do not actually reduce atmospheric CO2 and may lead to increased warming. The report highlights the role of the Task Force on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) and ART-TREES in standardizing these credits to facilitate financial speculation and the 're-floating' of stranded assets.

The report identifies a critical gap between current energy policies and the requirements for limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Based on 26 'feasible' IPCC pathways that limit reliance on unproven carbon capture and removal technologies, the authors argue that no new oil and gas fields should be developed and that global production must drop by 30% by 2030. Simultaneously, wind and solar capacity additions must double current forecasts, requiring an annual investment of over USD 830 billion by 2030. The report highlights a USD 450 billion annual investment gap and calls for the redirection of capital away from fossil fuels, noting that current oil and gas industry spending on undeveloped fields is inconsistent with climate goals.

The report finds that neither the scale of capital investment nor access to financing are primary obstacles to Sweden's green industrial transition. Instead, the most critical barriers are the lack of market demand for more expensive green products, insufficient infrastructure (particularly renewable electricity), and slow permitting processes. The authors recommend that policymakers focus on market formation through carbon pricing and the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), while continuing direct support for R&D and demonstration projects through programs like Industriklivet.

The report argues that while Europe has significant theoretical CO2 storage capacity, actual deployment is hindered by a funding gap, regulatory barriers to cross-border transport, and a lack of coordinated infrastructure. It recommends shifting from project-based funding to system-based approaches, implementing carbon contracts for difference (CCfDs), and establishing a market for low-carbon products. The authors call for a formal EU strategy to set milestone targets and coordinate the development of large-scale, open-access storage sites beyond the North Sea.

The briefing contends that the IPCC's mitigation pathways are skewed by economic assumptions in integrated assessment models (IAMs) and political pressures during the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) negotiation process. It argues that avoiding a 1.5°C overshoot is imperative to prevent irreversible harm and that the most feasible, cost-effective path is a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels combined with scaling renewables and reducing energy demand. The document warns that reliance on CCS, BECCS, and DACCS is a dangerous gamble, as these technologies are unproven at scale, costly, and may prolong fossil fuel use while threatening food security and biodiversity.

The document outlines the role of BECCS as a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method, noting its technical potential to remove 0.5-11.3 GtCO2 annually by 2050. However, it warns that large-scale deployment could threaten food security, biodiversity, and Indigenous rights, potentially requiring land areas twice the size of Egypt by 2100 in 1.5°C pathways. The briefing emphasizes that delaying near-term emissions reductions increases reliance on BECCS, thereby escalating land-use pressures.

The briefing highlights that global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, making the Paris Agreement targets of 1.5°C and 2°C increasingly difficult to achieve without significant 'overshoot'. It notes a critical gap in climate finance, where current levels are roughly ten times lower than the estimated USD 6.3 trillion needed annually by 2030. While net-zero commitments and renewable energy deployment have grown substantially, the document warns against an over-reliance on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and emphasizes the need for rapid transformations in energy, agriculture, and urban planning.

The land sector is essential for 1.5°C and 2°C pathways, potentially providing up to 30% of global mitigation. While it offers significant near-term potential at low cost, the IPCC warns that land-based mitigation cannot compensate for delayed emissions reductions in other sectors. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is deemed necessary for net-zero targets, but the IPCC highlights substantial uncertainties, risks, and a massive investment gap, with current annual investment at USD 0.7 billion against a needed USD 400 billion.

The policy brief contends that Germany cannot achieve climate neutrality by 2045 without carbon management technologies, including carbon capture and storage (CCS), direct air capture (DAC), and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). It highlights that current industrial emissions reductions are insufficient and that a lack of CO2 transport infrastructure and storage sites within Germany necessitates a strategy to connect to regional hubs in Northern Europe. The document further argues that carbon management is essential for decarbonizing the hydrogen economy—specifically through the use of blue hydrogen—and for producing the low-carbon industrial materials required for the renewable energy transition.

The report identifies significant gaps in the monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) infrastructure for carbon dioxide removal (CDR), noting that existing frameworks are primarily designed for emission reductions rather than removals. It highlights inconsistencies in how permanence, system boundaries, and additionality are treated across different voluntary and compliance standards. The authors recommend the development of dedicated methodologies for Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), the adoption of dynamic baselines aligned with Paris Agreement targets, and a standardized approach to defining 'permanent' storage to prevent the overestimation of mitigation results.

The report analyzes urban greenhouse gas emissions, focusing on the transportation and built environment sectors. It evaluates the annual emissions reduction potential of various efficiency-based technologies—such as electric vehicles, LED street lighting, and building retrofits—and explores carbon removal strategies, including artificial technologies and nature-based solutions. The analysis provides a baseline for both global and Swedish emissions to guide municipal policymakers in selecting high-impact decarbonization strategies.