Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is not a viable climate solution and urges the Canadian government to reject its funding and integration into national energy strategies.

The document asserts that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a "dangerous distraction" that prolongs fossil fuel reliance and poses severe risks to marginalized communities. It argues that CCS is economically unsound, fails to meaningfully reduce emissions, and is often used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) to increase oil production. The authors call for the removal of government subsidies, such as the U.S. 45Q tax credit, and a shift toward sustainable infrastructure and renewable energy.

The briefing details advancements in extreme event attribution, updated temperature datasets, and refined climate sensitivity models. It highlights the shrinking carbon budget for the 1.5°C target, the risks of climate tipping points, and the critical role of non-CO2 greenhouse gases like methane. Additionally, it discusses the scientific requirements for net-zero targets and the limitations of carbon dioxide removal and geoengineering.

The report argues that the NGFS's second set of 1.5°C scenarios are not aligned with the Paris Agreement and are unsustainable due to an over-reliance on fossil fuels, biomass, and carbon dioxide removal (CDR). It finds that these scenarios fail to account for the need to end fossil fuel expansion and rely on unproven technologies like Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to justify slower phase-outs of oil, gas, and coal.

Ember's response to the UK government's call for evidence on biomass argues that the assumption of carbon neutrality for biomass power is scientifically unsupported and that such generation is more expensive than alternatives. The organization advocates for tightening sustainability regulations to exclude feedstocks from high-carbon or biodiverse forests and suggests that limited sustainable biomass should be diverted from the power sector toward construction and hard-to-abate industries. Ember also recommends unbundling residual and negative emissions budgets in UK carbon accounting and exploring lower-risk negative emissions routes, such as nature-based solutions and domestic energy crops on degraded land, over large-scale BECCS projects.

The report argues that stopping the expansion of fossil fuels is insufficient to meet the 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement; instead, an active wind-down of existing production is required. It proposes specific annual decline rates for coal (9.5%), oil (8.5%), and gas (3.5%) between 2021 and 2030. The authors conclude that this transition is technically feasible because global solar and wind potential could meet primary energy demand more than 50 times over, ensuring 100% energy access without risking energy security.

The report characterizes "net zero" agendas as a "Great Cheat," asserting that they allow major polluters to continue emissions while relying on unproven technologies and flawed offsetting schemes. It details how these entities use lobbying, financial influence over academia, and corporate capture of international forums like the UNFCCC to displace real emission reductions. The document highlights specific failures in the plans of companies such as Shell, Total SA, and JBS, and calls for a transition to "Real Zero" by 2030 through systemic change and climate justice.

The document analyzes how 'Big Polluters' across various sectors use 'net zero' targets as a form of greenwashing to delay real emission reductions. It identifies critical conceptual flaws in these plans, such as reliance on unproven geoengineering and carbon offsets, and details how these corporations influence political and academic institutions to validate their agendas. Case studies on companies like Shell, Total SA, and JBS illustrate the gap between public commitments and actual business operations, while the report calls for a transition to 'Real Zero' by 2030.

The report claims that "net zero" agendas are a form of greenwashing used by "Big Polluters" to avoid reducing emissions. It identifies these entities as industries responsible for the majority of historical emissions, including fossil fuels, agribusiness, and aviation. The document details how these actors use risky technologies like BECCS and carbon offsets as "dangerous distractions" and employ lobbying, financial contributions, and academic partnerships to shape climate policy in their favor. Case studies on JBS, Shell, and Total SA are used to illustrate how these plans often mask continued pollution and lead to land grabbing in the Global South.

The report contends that "net zero" pledges from "Big Polluters"—including fossil fuel, agribusiness, and tech giants—are deceptive strategies to avoid responsibility for climate change. It identifies "dangerous distractions" such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and carbon offsets, arguing these schemes often lead to human rights abuses and "carbon colonialism." The document details how these corporations influence policy through lobbying, financial contributions to politicians, and the funding of academic research at institutions like Stanford and MIT to validate "net zero" narratives. Case studies of Shell, Total SA, and JBS are used to illustrate how these plans often mask continued production of high-emissions products.

The IEA Net Zero Scenario projects a massive expansion of solar and wind energy, with solar and wind together providing almost 70% of global electricity by 2050. It calls for an immediate end to new oil, gas, and unabated coal investments, forecasting a 90% decline in coal demand and a 275% decline in oil use by 2050. The transition relies heavily on the scaling of currently non-commercially viable technologies, including CCUS, hydrogen, and negative emission technologies (NETs), as well as a 60% increase in bioenergy use.

Ember estimates that Drax's proposed BECCS plant would cost UK energy bill-payers £31.7 billion over a 25-year lifetime, adding approximately £16 annually to each household's energy bill. The report warns that the project's ability to provide negative emissions is highly uncertain due to the carbon neutrality assumptions of woody biomass, which may instead result in net emissions in worst-case scenarios. It argues that relying on BECCS for the UK's net-zero targets constitutes a serious policy risk and recommends tightening biomass regulations and exploring alternative negative emission sources.

The report argues that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) should be treated as a public service, similar to sewage treatment, because most CDR technologies do not generate independent revenue. It identifies a massive implementation gap between projected removal volumes and current policies, noting that while nature-based solutions are cheaper, they lack the permanence of technological options like Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) and Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). The authors recommend a mix of public subsidies for research, design, development and demonstration (RDD&D), carbon pricing, and the use of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to create a credible investment environment. It also highlights the role of voluntary private sector commitments, though it warns of a 'wild west' situation in the voluntary carbon market due to inconsistent monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) standards.

The document emphasizes that because CO2 is cumulative, delays in emission cuts lead to higher peak temperatures and greater ecological damage. It warns that overshooting the 1.5°C target and relying on underdeveloped negative emissions technologies (NETs) poses significant risks to marine ecosystems and biodiversity. The author advocates for transparent, comprehensive greenhouse gas mitigation plans and a 'green recovery' from COVID-19, noting that the economic and public health benefits of rapid decarbonization far outweigh the costs.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and the expansion of carbon markets, distinguishing between 'real zero' (immediate emission cuts) and 'false zero' (reliance on offsets). It asserts that fossil fuel emissions cannot be physically offset by natural ecosystems and warns that the drive for 'nature-based solutions' leads to land grabbing and the financialization of nature. The report calls for a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels and a transition to a just, community-led energy and food system.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and the use of carbon offsetting, distinguishing between 'real zero' (actual emission elimination) and 'false zero' (reliance on offsets). It asserts that carbon markets and 'nature-based solutions' are used as distractions by the fossil fuel industry and financial sectors to maintain the status quo, which risks further land grabbing and the violation of Indigenous and local community rights. The report emphasizes that fossil carbon cannot be simply absorbed by the biosphere and calls for a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels and a transition to a climate-just economy.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and carbon offsetting, distinguishing between 'true zero' (rapidly eliminating fossil fuel emissions) and 'false zero' (relying on offsets). It asserts that fossil carbon cannot be absorbed by natural cycles and that the demand for offsets leads to the financialization of nature and the dispossession of indigenous and local communities.

The document critiques the concept of "net zero," distinguishing between "real zero" (immediate deep emission cuts) and "fake zero" (reliance on offsets). It asserts that carbon offsets do not reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations and that the land required to meet corporate offset demands would be ecologically and socially catastrophic. The report specifically highlights the role of the financial sector and fossil fuel majors in rehabilitating voluntary carbon markets to maintain business-as-usual operations.

Ember challenges the assumption that biomass is carbon neutral, noting that current practices may actually contribute to climate change. The organization argues that the scale of land required for energy crops to support BECCS would cause significant environmental and food security issues. Furthermore, Ember highlights the high public cost of subsidizing bioenergy, suggesting that funds would be more effectively spent on wind, solar, or forest restoration.

The report outlines a framework for 'rights-based climate finance,' emphasizing that funding from developed to developing countries must be ambitious in volume, equitable in distribution, and provided as grants to avoid increasing debt. It advocates for the categorical exclusion of 'false solutions' like large-scale hydropower and geoengineering, while demanding robust social and environmental safeguards, including free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for Indigenous Peoples and independent grievance redress mechanisms to ensure accountability.