Search Climate Insights Directory

The report presents the Industrial Zero Emissions Calculator (IZEC), an open-source Excel tool that allows stakeholders to visualize the electricity, hydrogen, bioenergy, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) needs required to achieve zero-emission industry. Focusing on U.S. scenario results, the report argues that direct electrification is the most energy-efficient pathway for industrial heat, while green hydrogen should be reserved for high-value feedstocks and steelmaking due to its inefficiency when burned. It highlights that heavy reliance on bioenergy or fossil-based CCS leads to prohibitive land use or capital costs, respectively. The authors emphasize that combining these technologies with energy and material efficiency improvements is critical to making industrial decarbonization feasible and cost-effective.

The report provides a 'Bank of Evidence' detailing the failures and risks of geoengineering, categorized into carbon removal and solar radiation management. It highlights specific project failures in carbon capture and storage (CCS) in Australia, the UAE, and Canada, and critiques the ecological risks of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air capture (DAC). The document also examines speculative solar radiation management (SRM) experiments in the US, UK, and Mexico, and various marine geoengineering attempts, asserting that these 'false solutions' often benefit the fossil fuel industry while threatening biodiversity and human rights.

The report documents the negative impacts and risks associated with various geoengineering 'false solutions,' including carbon capture and storage (CCS), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), direct air capture (DAC), solar radiation management (SRM), and marine geoengineering. It provides specific examples of project failures, environmental hazards, and social injustices across Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, and Latin America, asserting that these technologies often perpetuate the fossil fuel economy rather than solving the climate crisis.

The document provides a comprehensive critique of geoengineering, categorizing it into carbon removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). It details specific failures and risks of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS/CCUS), Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), Direct Air Capture (DAC), and marine geoengineering across various global regions, emphasizing that these 'false solutions' often facilitate continued fossil fuel extraction through Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) and pose significant ecological and social threats.

The report finds that while international public finance for fossil fuels from CETP signatories has decreased significantly, there has not been a corresponding increase in clean energy finance. Many signatories lack quantitative targets or comprehensive policies to prioritize clean energy, and some high-income countries continue to violate the pledge by financing fossil fuel projects.

The report argues that offshore carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an ineffective and risky strategy that prolongs fossil fuel dependence. It highlights that proposed 'hubs' in the Gulf of Mexico and North Sea face significant technical challenges, such as pressure management and leakage from legacy wells, while relying heavily on public subsidies. The document concludes that CCS often covers for expanded fossil fuel production and calls for a halt to these projects to protect marine ecosystems and accelerate a just energy transition.

The report finds that Canadian institutions provided between CAD 7.6 billion and CAD 13.5 billion annually to the fossil fuel sector from 2020 to 2022, while providing only CAD 147 million annually for domestic renewable energy. It identifies Export Development Canada (EDC) as the primary provider of this finance and highlights a critical lack of transparency in reporting. The authors recommend a comprehensive policy that covers the entire fossil fuel life cycle, includes existing investments like the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion, and precludes funding for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and blue hydrogen. The report suggests redirecting these funds toward clean electricity and Indigenous-led generation to support Canada's energy transition.

The report assesses decarbonisation strategies for refineries across four major regions, focusing on Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. It evaluates technologies such as carbon capture, blue and green hydrogen, and the transition to biorefineries (specifically the HEFA process) or clean fuels facilities. Regional analysis shows that while the US and GCC benefit from cheap natural gas for blue hydrogen, Europe is trending toward green hydrogen imports and biorefinery revamps. Singapore's strategy is heavily influenced by its status as a global trading hub and its lack of domestic natural gas or carbon storage resources. The report concludes that energy efficiency projects are generally the most immediate and viable, while large-scale carbon capture and hydrogen transitions require significant policy support and infrastructure development to be economically feasible.

The report concludes that ExxonMobil's strategy prioritizes fossil fuel expansion and shareholder returns over sustainable energy investments. It finds that the company's 2030 production targets and LNG capacity expansions significantly exceed the limits required to align with a 1.5°C pathway. Furthermore, the report highlights a lack of scope 3 emissions targets and a diversification strategy that relies on unsustainable energies like blue hydrogen and biofuels.

The report argues that achieving net-zero aviation emissions by 2050 requires a multi-fuel approach because sustainable biofuels alone cannot meet projected energy demands. It examines synthetic fuels (e-fuels) as a scalable drop-in solution, though currently expensive, and analyzes the potential of hydrogen and ammonia for regional and domestic flights. While electrification is limited to niche urban air mobility, the report suggests a 2050 fuel mix comprising 86% bio- and synthetic SAF and 14% zero-carbon fuels (hydrogen and ammonia) as a plausible path to decarbonization, provided there is massive scale-up of low-carbon hydrogen production and supportive policy frameworks.

The report finds that Eni's investment strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over renewable energy, leading to projected 2030 production levels that significantly exceed NZE requirements. While Eni is diversifying into renewables and bioenergy, these remain marginal compared to its fossil fuel core, and its decarbonization plan relies heavily on unproven carbon capture and offset technologies.

The report concludes that TotalEnergies' strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over the energy transition. It finds that the company's 2030 production targets and LNG capacity expansions significantly overshoot NZE limits, while its renewable energy growth relies primarily on acquisitions rather than organic development. Furthermore, the report argues that TotalEnergies' diversification into gas power, blue hydrogen, and bioenergy is unsustainable and that its emissions targets rely heavily on unproven carbon capture and offset technologies.

The report outlines Colombia's energy transition pathways through 2052, evaluating five scenarios: Actualization, Modernization, Inflexion, Innovation, and Energy Transition (TE). It details the shift from coal and hydrocarbons toward non-conventional renewable energy sources (FNCER), including solar, wind, and hydrogen. The analysis covers demand-side efficiency in residential, industrial, and transport sectors, as well as the strategic role of critical minerals like copper and nickel. Economic evaluations using benefit-cost ratios indicate that while residential and tertiary efficiency measures are highly beneficial, industrial transformation requires significant capital investment and state support due to high private costs.

The PEN 2022-2052 is a long-term planning exercise by Colombia's UPME to transition the national energy matrix toward sustainability and decarbonization. It analyzes five scenarios—Actualization, Modernization, Inflexion, Innovation, and Energy Transition—ranging from conservative technological updates to ambitious transformations. Key focus areas include the electrification of transport, the integration of non-conventional renewable energy sources (FNCER), the development of a hydrogen economy, and the potential introduction of Small Modular Reactors (SMR). The report emphasizes that while Colombia has the capacity for carbon neutrality, current trajectories may not meet the 2030 NDC goal of a 51% emission reduction without accelerated implementation of efficiency and substitution measures.

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.

Reclaim Finance argues that Barclays' updated climate policies are insufficient and misleading, claiming the bank continues to support oil and gas expansion through corporate finance and vague frameworks. The analysis asserts that the bank's Transition Finance Framework includes problematic technologies like 'blue' hydrogen and CCUS, while failing to set specific, science-based financing targets for sustainable power.

The policy brief examines how Low-Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) can complement federal hydrogen investments by directing clean hydrogen toward high-priority sectors. It analyzes existing programs in California, Oregon, and Washington, providing four lessons for other states: regulating intrastate aviation fuel to move beyond biogenic feedstocks, phasing in maritime fuel regulation, managing biogenic feedstock demand to prevent indirect land use change, and implementing rigorous emissions accounting to avoid loopholes for blue and grey hydrogen.

The document argues that clean hydrogen should be treated as a 'precious molecule' and prioritised for 'no regrets' hard-to-abate industrial sectors rather than being deployed indiscriminately. It recommends that EU Member States move beyond a sole focus on renewable ('green') hydrogen to include other low-carbon pathways, such as nuclear ('pink') and natural gas with carbon capture ('blue'), to avoid resource constraints. The guide emphasises locating production close to end-users to minimise transport inefficiencies and suggests that hydrogen in transport be limited to heavy-duty trucking, aviation, and shipping, while light-duty vehicles should prioritise electrification. Finally, it advises leveraging EU and national support mechanisms to fund 'champion' projects across the entire value chain.

Russia's steel industry remains dominated by emissions-intensive coal-based blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) technology, which accounts for 60.9% of its 88,400 ttpa operating capacity. Despite pressures from the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and corporate sustainability reporting rules in the EU and US, Russian companies are refurbishing old blast furnaces and planning new ones rather than transitioning to low-emissions electric arc furnace (EAF) or hydrogen-based direct reduced iron (DRI) production. While Russia aims to produce 550 thousand tonnes of hydrogen per annum, it lacks domestic demand and faces challenges in DRI-EAF deployment due to the exit of key Western suppliers like Midrex, Danieli, and Primetals. The report suggests that redirecting investments from blast furnace relinings to hydrogen-based DRI could stimulate the domestic hydrogen market and align Russian steel with global decarbonization standards.

The report concludes that the EU's demand for fossil gas and oil is in a long-term structural decline, making new production projects—especially in the Arctic—unnecessary and incompatible with 1.5°C warming limits. Analysis shows that existing production and current contracts will likely exceed EU demand by the 2030s in net-zero aligned scenarios, creating a risk of oversupply and stranded assets.