Search Climate Insights Directory

ClientEarth argues that Ofgem's current statutory objectives are outdated and prioritize competition over decarbonisation, hindering long-term climate investments. The submission proposes narrowing Ofgem's principal objective to focus on security of supply and greenhouse gas reduction, introducing sector-specific carbon budgets, and requiring the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) to issue periodic Strategy and Policy Statements. Additionally, ClientEarth highlights a failure to regulate and verify non-carbon dioxide emissions, specifically methane and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), and advocates for a consumption-based emissions accounting approach to include extraterritorial emissions from imported energy.

The report examines framework climate laws in the UK, France, Mexico, Finland, Sweden, and Victoria (Australia), concluding that while such laws provide a critical political signal and a structured pathway for decarbonisation, most have struggled with implementation. Key failures include a lack of binding interim targets, overcomplexity in governance, and insufficient accountability mechanisms. The report recommends that future laws impose clear, enforceable duties on high-level government decision-makers, integrate independent scientific advisory bodies, and combine long-term goals with frequent short-term progress reporting to avoid 'paper tiger' legislation.

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 document warns that African oil and gas producing countries risk committing public funds to stranded assets by basing investment decisions on current price trends rather than energy transition scenarios. It highlights the vulnerability of National Oil Companies (NOCs) and the potential for revenue overestimation, specifically citing risks in countries like Angola, Mozambique, and Senegal. The author advocates for the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) to mandate the disclosure of project viability data and for governments to diversify their economies.

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 warns that 11 major Eurozone banks hold over 530 billion euros in fossil fuel assets, representing 95% of their total equity. It argues that these assets are prone to becoming 'stranded assets' as the world transitions to meet the Paris Agreement, potentially triggering a financial crisis similar to the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis. The authors critique 'green finance' as largely greenwashing and call for the European Central Bank (ECB) to align its monetary policy with climate goals, increase capital requirements for fossil fuel exposure, and establish a public 'bad bank' to manage the phased extinction of these assets.

Reclaim Finance argues that Société Générale's pledge to cease financing new LNG export projects and shale gas extraction in North America is inadequate. The organization highlights that the bank remains involved in the Rio Grande LNG and Driftwood LNG projects and lacks a clear revenue threshold for excluding shale gas companies. The statement asserts that the bank's current strategy contradicts the IEA's net zero scenario and its own goal of carbon neutrality by 2050.

Reclaim Finance criticizes BNP Paribas for continuing to finance the expansion of oil and gas despite a pledge to reduce its exposure by 10% between 2020 and 2025. The organization argues that this target is inadequate given the climate emergency and is undermined by the bank's previous funding surges and the exclusion of equity and bond issuances from the commitment. Furthermore, the document highlights that BNP Paribas remains a top financier for majors like Shell, BP, Eni, and Total, contributing to the growth of high-risk sectors such as oil sands, shale gas, and Arctic drilling.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Société Générale for maintaining high levels of fossil fuel financing despite public pledges to exit coal and reduce oil and gas exposure. The document highlights the bank's continued support for Arctic extraction, shale gas, and liquefied natural gas (LNG), as well as its use of semantic loopholes to fund coal-heavy entities like EPH.

Reclaim Finance calls on the Paris financial center to lead a global transition by ending support for fossil fuel expansion. The letter argues that to limit warming to 1.5°C, oil and gas production must decrease annually, and financial actors should exit non-conventional sectors by 2030 and all oil and gas by 2040 in the OECD and 2050 globally.

The United States aims to reduce carbon pollution to at least 50-52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. RMI asserts that this is achievable by immediately phasing out fossil fuel infrastructure and scaling three primary solutions: renewables (wind, solar, and batteries), electrification (electric vehicles and heat pumps), and holistic efficiency. The document emphasizes that cumulative emissions are the critical metric for limiting warming to 1.5°C and that the transition will provide significant public health benefits, job creation, and social equity, particularly for historically disadvantaged communities.

The report finds that baseline projections for oil, gas, and coal production are significantly higher than the levels required to limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C. It highlights that the largest production increases are projected in the United States, Brazil, Iran, Canada, and Saudi Arabia. The analysis argues that a managed wind-down of production is necessary to avoid inequitable outcomes, as the projected production from high-income and low-dependence countries alone would exceed the 1.5°C-consistent global budget.

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 report identifies a $1 trillion stranded asset risk associated with 212,000 km of planned oil and gas pipeline expansions. It highlights that gas dominates new developments, with 82.7% of pipelines in development carrying gas. The U.S. and China are leading in capacity and length growth, respectively. The document argues that this expansion is incompatible with net-zero commitments and will lock in significant CO2 emissions, while noting a trend of increasing social and legal opposition to such projects.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing groundWork, Earthlife Africa, and the Mining and Environmental Justice Community Network of South Africa, submitted formal objections to the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed Musina-Makhado Special Economic Zone (EMSEZ). The CER argues that the EIA is fatally flawed due to procedural unfairness, inadequate public participation, and significant gaps in specialist studies regarding climate change, water scarcity, air quality, and human health. The document asserts that the project's high negative environmental impacts likely outweigh its projected socio-economic benefits and that an environmental authorisation should be denied.

The report examines the physical and economic consequences of delaying climate action. It argues that because CO2 persists in the atmosphere and natural carbon sinks are saturating, stabilizing concentrations requires emissions to reach nearly zero. Delaying this transition increases the risk of nonlinear 'tipping points,' such as methane release from the Arctic, and leads to higher costs due to the need for more aggressive deployment of clean energy and the premature retirement of polluting assets. Using the Energy Policy Simulator for the U.S., the report finds that delaying action until 2030 increases the net present value of expenditures by 72% compared to starting in 2021.

The report argues that the IDC's investment in MC Mining demonstrates a continued funding of unsustainable, climate-risky projects and highlights critical failures in the IDC's Responsible Investment Policy and due diligence processes. It details the environmental and social risks associated with MC Mining's operations in the Soutpansberg area, including threats to the Mapungubwe World Heritage Site and the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve. The document concludes that the IDC's lack of transparency and failure to integrate sustainability and human rights standards into its decision-making expose public funds to significant risks and undermine South Africa's climate goals.

The document outlines eight key demands from Reclaim Finance and Les Amis de la Terre France addressed to BNP Paribas. It calls for the bank to strictly apply its coal exit policy, cease all support for hydrocarbon development, exit high-risk sectors like the Arctic and unconventional oil and gas by 2030, and vote against Total's climate strategy. Additionally, it urges the bank to withdraw from gas projects in Mozambique, strengthen exclusions on soy-related deforestation in the Cerrado, and formalize a policy to end support for oil drilling in the Amazon.

The document consists of formal inquiries directed at Natixis regarding its climate and environmental policies. The authors challenge the bank's delayed implementation of coal exclusions, its continued support for fossil fuel expansion, and its involvement in high-risk sectors such as Arctic drilling, shale gas, and Amazonian oil extraction. It specifically calls for the bank to oppose Total's climate strategy and cease financing for projects like EACOP and Tilenga, as well as gas developments in Mozambique. Additionally, it demands a 'zero deforestation' policy for imported soy and a detailed plan to end support for oil drilling in the Amazon.