Search Climate Insights Directory

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has allocated $5 billion for the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant (CPRG) to help US states and municipalities implement greenhouse gas reduction strategies. Forty-six states have accepted $3 million each in planning grants, with $4.6 billion remaining for competitive implementation grants in 2024. The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) advises states to use these planning funds to develop broad, economy-wide strategies, tailor messaging to local political contexts, and engage the public early to avoid project delays. Additionally, the briefing suggests using funds to increase agency capacity, optimize the layering of various federal resources (such as the CHIPS and Science Act), and identify workforce needs for a low-carbon economy. To ensure success, states are encouraged to secure contractors early to avoid surges in demand and to communicate implementation barriers quickly to the EPA and the White House.

The text contends that industrial carbon removal is energy-intensive, often counterproductive if powered by renewables, and frequently used for enhanced oil recovery to increase emissions. It further argues that these technologies fail to address the health impacts of fossil fuel pollution and provide a 'PR lifeline' to companies like Occidental Petroleum and Exxon-Mobil to avoid phasing out oil production.

The document highlights the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act and other recent legislation on U.S. climate goals, while identifying specific bipartisan opportunities for further progress. It emphasizes the need for improved nuclear energy regulation via the ADVANCE Act, increased support for industrial decarbonization through the Department of Energy, and the necessity of updating clean energy programs before they expire in 2025.

Ember critiques the TYNDP 2024 storylines for having low electrification levels and unrealistic fossil fuel price projections. The organization argues that the 'Green Ambition' (GA) and 'Distributed Energy' (DE) scenarios are not fully self-consistent and fail to align with 1.5C pathways. Ember recommends introducing a higher-ambition scenario with at least 90% emissions reduction by 2040 and urges the removal of fossil methane from heating and transport by 2050.

The authors suggest that Europe can accelerate its energy transition by adopting four principles from U.S. policies like the Inflation Reduction Act: supporting a diverse technology mix, tailoring support to development stages, addressing non-cost barriers, and providing policy clarity. Specifically, the document recommends expanding support beyond wind and solar to include nuclear, carbon capture, and zero-carbon fuels, while reducing regulatory complexity and permitting delays that currently hinder project deployment.

Reclaim Finance argues that GFANZ's guidance on coal managed phase-outs (MPOs) in Asia Pacific must be significantly strengthened to ensure alignment with a 1.5°C scenario, protect civil society, and avoid 'junk' carbon offsets. The organization recommends that financial institutions end all support for new coal infrastructure and that MPOs prioritize the closure of the oldest plants by 2040, without diverting funds toward retrofits or carbon-intensive alternatives like biomass and ammonia.

The Climate Bonds Initiative's Hydrogen Criteria define the technical and environmental benchmarks required for hydrogen-related financial instruments to be certified as green. The framework focuses on carbon intensity thresholds, decarbonisation measures, and adaptation and resilience requirements across the hydrogen value chain, from production to storage and delivery.

The report outlines the development of certification criteria for hydrogen assets, focusing on carbon intensity benchmarks, life-cycle assessment methodologies, and climate resilience requirements to align investments with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C goal.

The report examines the transition of North Sea oil and gas producers toward net-zero or complete phase-out scenarios. It identifies government as the primary actor responsible for managing these transitions and emphasizes the need for participatory governance to overcome industry resistance. The analysis highlights that while the three countries share a geography, their different levels of economic dependency on fossil fuels lead to divergent transition stages and enabling conditions.

The report details the data sources and estimation techniques used to track G20 financial support for fossil fuels, including subsidies, state-owned enterprise (SOE) investments, and international public finance. It highlights significant data gaps and transparency issues, particularly regarding subnational support and Chinese SOE reporting, and explains the methods used to approximate 2022 subsidy levels during the energy crisis.

The report argues that the coal sector is not aligned with 1.5°C targets and poses significant financial risks, including over US$1.4 trillion in potential stranded assets. It recommends that banks immediately cease financing new coal projects and implement a timed escalation strategy to exit coal exposure by 2030 in OECD and European countries, and by 2040 worldwide. Key requirements for coal companies include the adoption of public, asset-by-asset phase-out plans and just transition strategies for workers and the environment.

The report examines the transition of North Sea oil and gas producers toward net-zero or complete phase-out scenarios. It highlights that while the region shares geography, the three countries are at different stages of transition due to varying economic dependencies on fossil fuels. The authors argue that government must lead these transitions through state intervention, the deployment of clean technologies like offshore wind and CCS, and the creation of participatory governance structures to overcome industry resistance and ensure social equity for workers.

The 2022 French nuclear outages were caused by a confluence of pipe corrosion, workforce shortages, and heat-related river curtailments, rather than inherent flaws in nuclear technology. The author argues that these issues can be mitigated through standardized reactor designs, consistent government policy to maintain a skilled workforce, and technical cooling upgrades. Despite the 2022 dip in availability, the document asserts that nuclear energy provides essential 'clean firm' power necessary for the cost-effective decarbonization of the European electricity grid.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) evaluates Canada's Fossil Fuel Subsidy Framework, noting its alignment with World Trade Organization definitions and its transparency regarding 'inefficiency'. However, the IISD warns that exemptions for 'abated' fossil fuel production, including carbon capture and storage and fossil-derived hydrogen, may allow public funds to continue flowing to the oil and gas sector, undermining climate targets.

The Canadian Climate Institute's analysis indicates that CCS projects in the oilsands sector are economically viable under current and proposed federal and provincial policies, including carbon pricing and investment tax credits. The study finds that these projects can generate substantial private returns, suggesting that additional public subsidies beyond those already announced are unnecessary and could lead to excessive corporate profits. While CCS can improve carbon competitiveness and reduce the risk of stranded assets in a declining global oil market, it does not eliminate long-term transition risks associated with the Paris Agreement goals.

The author argues that Canada's commitments to phase out fossil fuel subsidies conflict with growing public funding for emission reduction technologies like carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS). To manage the risk of stranded assets and inefficient spending, the paper suggests a rigorous framework based on net-zero consistency, economic value relative to alternatives, community vulnerability, and the risk level of the policy tool used. It emphasizes that the burden of proof for public benefit should lie with the companies seeking support.

The Canadian Climate Institute argues that for Canada to meet its net-zero goals, the oil and gas sector requires transformational investment. It proposes a two-tier requirement system for the federal government's Sustainable Finance Action Council (SFAC) climate investment taxonomy: company-level net-zero targets and project-level emissions-intensity benchmarks. Specifically, it argues that "transition" labels should only apply to projects that reduce emissions from existing production, as 1.5°C pathways necessitate "no investments in new production."

The analysis finds that CCS projects in Canadian oil sands are economically viable under current and proposed climate policies, such as carbon pricing and investment tax credits, potentially offering private returns of up to 21%. Consequently, the authors argue that additional public funding beyond what is already announced is unnecessary and could lead to excessive corporate profits. While CCS improves the carbon intensity of oil sands production, it does not eliminate the long-term transition risk associated with declining global oil demand.

A coalition of environmental organizations argues that mature and old-growth (MOG) forests are critical for carbon sequestration and biodiversity, and must be protected from logging via a national BLM rule. The document details the ecological value of MOG, identifies ongoing logging threats on BLM lands, and argues that such protections are consistent with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and Biden administration executive orders.

The report assesses Europe's geological CO2 storage potential, estimating theoretical capacity between 262 and 1520 GtCO2. It compares 'Domestic' (widespread) and 'Export' (limited basins) storage scenarios against 'Prioritised' and 'Technical Potential' demand scenarios. While Europe has sufficient long-term theoretical capacity, current announced projects are insufficient for 2035 demand. The study highlights that widespread domestic storage significantly reduces transport CAPEX compared to export-heavy models, though some countries like Finland and Estonia lack suitable sedimentary basins.