Search Climate Insights Directory

The authors argue that any climate compatibility checkpoint for UK oil and gas licensing must be based on a rapid wind-down of production consistent with 1.5°C pathways. They highlight that while different IPCC scenarios vary in their assumptions regarding carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and methane reductions, all require production to peak by 2020 for oil and 2025 for gas. The authors suggest that as a high-income country with low revenue dependence on fossil fuels, the UK should adopt a precautionary approach and potentially decrease production faster than the global average to ensure an equitable transition. They further refute the claim that reducing UK production would not impact global emissions, citing empirical evidence that supply reductions increase prices and lower global consumption.

The document argues that carbon offsetting is often used to justify continued emissions and delay the necessary phase-out of fossil fuels. It distinguishes between 'avoidance offsets', which are deemed incompatible with net zero goals, and 'removal offsets', which face significant challenges regarding permanence, additionality, and scale. The authors contend that the current carbon market reproduces global inequalities and risks negative social outcomes, particularly in land-based projects. They recommend that governments and businesses eliminate avoidance offsets, prioritize direct emission reductions, and fund necessary carbon removals through non-market mechanisms such as public financing or mandates.

The report establishes four core principles for verifying 'real' carbon dioxide removals: sourcing carbon from the atmosphere, ensuring permanent storage (at least 200-300 years), conducting comprehensive life cycle assessments of all associated emissions, and ensuring net-negative results. It argues against the 'false equivalency' that one tonne emitted equals one tonne removed, noting that removals may only undo up to 90% of an emission's impact and cannot reverse certain climate damages like sea-level rise. The author emphasizes that CDR should supplement, not replace, deep decarbonization to prevent 'mitigation deterrence,' where the promise of future removals slows current emission cuts.

The report analyzes the IEA's Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE) scenario, highlighting its call for an immediate end to new fossil fuel supply projects and a 75% reduction in methane emissions by 2030. While acknowledging the NZE as a benchmark for 1.5C alignment, the author criticizes its heavy reliance on carbon capture and storage (CCS), carbon dioxide removal (CDR), and biomass, which the report argues could prolong fossil fuel use and cause land-use conflicts. It further notes that the IEA underestimates the cost-competitiveness of renewables and the risks associated with nuclear energy. The document recommends that financial institutions immediately cease support for new fossil fuel and LNG projects and that the IEA adopt a more precautionary approach to unproven technologies.

The paper evaluates four scenarios—a Reference Scenario and three increasing levels of policy ambition—to determine the effectiveness of tax credits, infrastructure spending, and performance standards in decarbonizing the U.S. economy. It finds that while tax credits and spending drive early adoption, sector-specific performance standards and negative emissions technologies are essential to reach net-zero by 2050. The analysis concludes that decarbonization is economically feasible, with potential net savings of 0.3 percent of U.S. GDP by 2050 under reference oil prices.

The report critiques the GFANZ network, noting that while it represents over a third of the world's investable capital, its guidelines are riddled with loopholes. Key failures include the lack of mandatory absolute emission targets, the omission of fossil fuel restrictions in the Race to Zero criteria, and a reliance on 'analysis paralysis' through complex financed emissions accounting. The author recommends that alliances mandate the cessation of financial services for new fossil fuel supply and require clients to adopt robust phase-out plans for coal, oil, and gas.

Ember expresses concern that the mainstream model of BECCS—adding carbon capture to biomass power plants—may not generate negative emissions because burning wood for power is increasingly viewed as a net emitter of CO2. The submission highlights the high risk associated with the Drax power station project, noting it could cost UK energy bill payers over £30bn while potentially failing to deliver negative emissions. Ember recommends that the UK’s Biomass Strategy 2022 prioritize scientific research and independent monitoring of supply chains over the premature promotion of BECCS projects.

The fact sheet details how six major corporate players—BP, Microsoft, Drax, IETA, BlackRock, and Shell—employ 'net zero' agendas to maintain business-as-usual operations. It contends that these entities promote 'false solutions' such as carbon offsets, BECCS, and hydrogen to delay emissions cuts at the source. The document further highlights the influence of these corporations on COP26 through sponsorship, lobbying, and participation in industry-led initiatives like the Race to Zero and the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets.

The document critiques the 'net zero' narrative promoted by the UK presidency of COP26, arguing that it ignores historical responsibility and relies on scientifically flawed assumptions about carbon removal. It warns that 'net zero' acts as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering and allows polluters to use carbon offsets to maintain business-as-usual emissions. The author calls for a shift toward 'real zero' targets, absolute emission reductions by the Global North, and the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26.

The briefing note critiques the 'net zero' agenda promoted by the UK presidency at COP26, arguing that the concept allows governments and corporations to maintain fossil fuel pathways through deceptive accounting and unproven technologies. It contends that net zero ignores historical responsibility, is inequitable to the global South, and relies on the physical impossibility of natural sinks absorbing all combusted fossil carbon. The author warns that the confusion between carbon removals and offsets is being exploited to create a carbon market potentially worth US$50-100 billion by 2030, which diverts investment from systemic transformation. Friends of the Earth International demands a focus on 'real zero', absolute emissions reductions by 2030, the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26, and the fulfillment of climate finance obligations by Northern countries.

The document critiques the 'net zero' framework promoted by the UK presidency and the 'Race to Zero' initiative for COP26. It asserts that net zero ignores historical responsibility, relies on physically impossible natural carbon sinks, and serves as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering. The author distinguishes between 'removals' and 'offsets', arguing that the latter maintain the status quo and divert investment from systemic transformation. Friends of the Earth International demands a shift toward 'real zero' (absolute emissions reductions), the exclusion of polluting companies from COP26, and the fulfillment of climate finance obligations by Northern countries to support the Global South.

Ember argues that the assumption that biomass burning is carbon neutral is problematic and that the resulting reliance on BECCS for negative emissions in National Grid's FES scenarios is subject to high uncertainty. The organization advocates for BECCS to be treated as a 'technology of last resort' and requests that FES2022 include at least one net-zero scenario with very low or no BECCS deployment to better quantify trade-offs with nature-based solutions and behavior changes.

Carbon Market Watch criticises a proposal by fifteen Members of the European Parliament to incentivise CCS and CCU within the EU carbon market. The organisation distinguishes between carbon removals, which physically remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and CCS/CCU, which typically only capture emissions from industrial sources. It warns that promoting CCS/CCU could lead to greenwashing, stranded assets, and delayed emissions, particularly in the power sector. The document specifically highlights the risks of BECCS and waste-to-energy CCS, citing deforestation linked to the Drax power plant. It concludes that the EU carbon market must focus on reducing emissions at the source and that public funding should only support mature, transparently assessed carbon removal technologies.

The briefing analyzes pathways from the Climate Change Committee (CCC), National Grid, and Energy Systems Catapult (ESC) to demonstrate that the UK power sector can be nearly fossil-free by 2035. It argues that phasing out unabated gas will reduce reliance on expensive imports, lower electricity bills, and stimulate a green industrial revolution. While the models differ on the roles of nuclear and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), they agree on the centrality of wind and solar power and the need for increased energy storage and hydrogen capacity.

The paper surveys 29 long-term climate strategies (LTSs) submitted to the UNFCCC, representing 42 countries and 28% of global emissions. It finds a growing trend toward net-zero targets, an increasing focus on the fundamental economic and societal shifts required for transition, and a reliance on both natural and technological carbon removals. The analysis highlights that while most strategies include midcentury goals and modeling, the level of detail regarding adaptation and just transition varies, and some parties acknowledge gaps between their most ambitious scenarios and their final targets.

Reclaim Finance argues that the NGFS's June 2021 climate scenarios are unrealistic and risky because they rely too heavily on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and fail to mandate an end to fossil fuel investments. The document warns that these scenarios, which are used by European and British regulators, could lead financial institutions to fund stranded assets and non-sustainable biomass, ultimately pushing global warming beyond 1.5°C. It calls for the NGFS to align with IEA recommendations by requiring an immediate stop to new coal, oil, and gas projects.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the NGFS's June 2021 climate scenarios for failing to provide realistic 1.5°C pathways. The organization argues that the scenarios rely too heavily on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and fail to mandate an end to fossil fuel investments, which could lead to stranded assets and global warming overshoot. Reclaim Finance recommends that the NGFS align its forecasts with an immediate end to new fossil fuel projects and adopt a precautionary approach to biomass and carbon dioxide removal.

Friends of the Earth International proposes a revised Target 8 for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The briefing argues that the target should focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and deforestation, ensuring mitigation measures do not harm biodiversity, and prioritizing ecosystem-based approaches. It specifically calls for the removal of a quantitative carbon sequestration goal of 10 GtCO2-e per year, arguing that carbon accounting is an imprecise metric for biodiversity and risks promoting monoculture plantations or the commodification of nature.

The briefing recommends that Target 8 focus on reducing biodiversity threats from climate change and ensuring mitigation efforts do not harm ecosystems. It specifically argues for the removal of a 10 Gt CO2-e annual mitigation target, asserting that carbon is an inappropriate metric for biodiversity and could incentivize the destruction of species-rich ecosystems in favor of monoculture plantations or BECCS projects.

The briefing note proposes that Target 8 should focus on reducing biodiversity threats from climate change and ensuring that mitigation efforts do not harm ecosystems. It specifically argues for the removal of a target to contribute '10 Gt CO2-e per year', asserting that carbon is an inappropriate metric for biodiversity and could incentivize the destruction of species-rich ecosystems in favor of monoculture plantations or BECCS projects.