Search Climate Insights Directory

The document critiques the 'fossil bet on the future,' claiming that carbon offsets and net-zero goals serve as a 'house of cards' to maintain fossil fuel dependence. It specifically targets the amalgamation of carbon capture, emission reductions, and avoided emissions into single, fungible credit units, arguing that such mechanisms do not actually reduce atmospheric CO2 and may lead to increased warming. The report highlights the role of the Task Force on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) and ART-TREES in standardizing these credits to facilitate financial speculation and the 're-floating' of stranded assets.

The report identifies a critical gap between current energy policies and the requirements for limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Based on 26 'feasible' IPCC pathways that limit reliance on unproven carbon capture and removal technologies, the authors argue that no new oil and gas fields should be developed and that global production must drop by 30% by 2030. Simultaneously, wind and solar capacity additions must double current forecasts, requiring an annual investment of over USD 830 billion by 2030. The report highlights a USD 450 billion annual investment gap and calls for the redirection of capital away from fossil fuels, noting that current oil and gas industry spending on undeveloped fields is inconsistent with climate goals.

The report analyzes the international public finance (IPF) trends of high-income signatories of the Glasgow Statement, evaluating their fossil fuel exclusion policies and clean energy strategies. It finds that while some robust practices exist, many signatories lack transparent policies, particularly regarding gas exclusions and concrete clean energy targets. The document highlights the potential to shift USD 28 billion annually from fossil fuels to clean energy and uses case studies from Ethiopia and Sri Lanka to demonstrate how this shift can prevent fossil fuel lock-in and support just transitions in low- and middle-income countries.

The report argues that governments are reacting to the energy crisis by prioritizing short-term fossil fuel security over long-term decarbonization, risking a 'gold rush' for new gas infrastructure and domestic production. While some progress in renewables and green hydrogen is noted, the authors highlight a prevalence of 'bad practices' such as fossil fuel subsidies, tax cuts for petrol, and the expansion of LNG facilities. The document provides a framework of 'do's and don'ts', urging governments to instead focus on energy efficiency, electrification, behavioral changes, and the reinvestment of fossil fuel windfall profits into clean energy to avoid stranded assets and irreversible warming.

The global construction and buildings value chain is a primary driver of resource extraction and greenhouse gas emissions, with significant impacts often outsourced from high-income to lower-income regions. The document argues that sustainability depends on decisions made at early stages—planning and finance—rather than later construction phases. Key challenges include the high cost of low-carbon materials and the difficulty of decarbonizing steel and cement. To address this, the brief recommends a combination of transparent data, material innovation, green public procurement, sustainable urban planning, and expanded retrofitting.

The report finds that neither the scale of capital investment nor access to financing are primary obstacles to Sweden's green industrial transition. Instead, the most critical barriers are the lack of market demand for more expensive green products, insufficient infrastructure (particularly renewable electricity), and slow permitting processes. The authors recommend that policymakers focus on market formation through carbon pricing and the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), while continuing direct support for R&D and demonstration projects through programs like Industriklivet.

The report examines the economic opportunities of transitioning to net-zero emissions by 2050 across several major economies. It argues that public investment can drive innovation and growth through signalling, crowding-in private capital, and reducing unit costs. While fossil fuel-exporting nations like the US, Canada, and Indonesia may face long-term GDP losses as global demand for hydrocarbons falls, the report finds that most subject economies—including the EU, UK, India, Japan, and South Africa—experience net gains in GDP and employment. The transition is predicted to significantly reduce household expenditure on fossil fuels, improve public health by reducing pollution, and enhance energy security, particularly for the EU in the context of reducing dependence on Russian gas.

The European Union is developing a certification mechanism for carbon dioxide removals (CDR) to address the lack of widely accepted standards and reduce risks to the environment and consumer protection. The Clean Air Task Force recommends that the EU adopt a framework based on the IPCC's approach, categorizing methods by removal process and storage timescale rather than the 'natural vs. technological' dichotomy. To ensure integrity, the document proposes that certified removals must be real, measurable, additional, permanent, avoid leakage, and avoid double counting. Additionally, it suggests the creation of EU-level scientific and stakeholder advisory boards to oversee the framework's implementation and its integration into voluntary and compliance markets.

The report analyzes BP's decarbonization targets and investment strategies, claiming they are insufficient to meet 1.5°C goals. It highlights that BP's scope 3 emission targets cover only a fraction of total emissions and that the company continues to invest in new oil and gas fields, including unconventional sources. The author recommends that shareholders vote against BP's advisory 'Say on Climate' vote, support a shareholder resolution for Paris-aligned targets, and vote against the reelection of the Board of Directors.

Reclaim Finance asserts that Shell's climate strategy is fundamentally flawed, predicting the company will overshoot its 1.5°C carbon budget by 40.9% by 2050 and exhaust it entirely by 2034. The organization criticizes Shell's reliance on carbon intensity metrics, nature-based offsets, and continued expansion into new oil and gas fields, including unconventional sectors like the Arctic and fracking. Consequently, it recommends that shareholders vote against the company's climate resolution, support a shareholder-led resolution for Paris-aligned targets, and vote against the reelection of 10 Board Directors.

The document asserts that hydrogen is a viable tool for decarbonization, potentially reducing US yearly carbon dioxide emissions by roughly 15 percent. It argues that while leaked hydrogen acts as an indirect greenhouse gas, its warming impact is significantly lower than that of methane from natural gas supply chains, especially when accounting for hydrogen's higher energy density. The text emphasizes that green hydrogen offers the most certain climate benefit and suggests that focusing deployment on industrial and transport hubs can further minimize leakage risks by reducing the need for extensive distribution networks.

The briefing examines ENEL's climate commitments, noting that while the utility has announced a coal phase-out by 2027 and a gas exit by 2040, it continues to plan new gas projects and the potential revival of an LNG terminal in Sicily. It urges shareholders to use the upcoming Annual General Meeting to demand a more robust transition plan that avoids selling or converting coal assets and accelerates the gas exit in EU/OECD countries to 2035.

The report argues that while Europe has significant theoretical CO2 storage capacity, actual deployment is hindered by a funding gap, regulatory barriers to cross-border transport, and a lack of coordinated infrastructure. It recommends shifting from project-based funding to system-based approaches, implementing carbon contracts for difference (CCfDs), and establishing a market for low-carbon products. The authors call for a formal EU strategy to set milestone targets and coordinate the development of large-scale, open-access storage sites beyond the North Sea.

The report contends that fossil gas cannot be considered a transition fuel due to significant methane leakage and the need for rapid decarbonisation by 2030. It argues that the EU's Complementary Delegated Act threatens the credibility of the EU Taxonomy by allowing fossil gas as a transitional activity. The document advocates for a rapid shift to low-carbon hydrogen, prioritised for hard-to-abate sectors, and warns against 'gas blending' as an inefficient decarbonisation strategy. It recommends the use of additionality requirements for electrolysers to prevent them from cannibalising renewable energy growth and suggests various financial mechanisms, including Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfDs) and green public procurement, to mobilise investment. The report also emphasizes the need for a Just Transition to protect workers and low-income households from the regressive effects of carbon pricing.

Carbon Market Watch argues that Article 6.2 and 6.4 mechanisms lack a clear definition of "removals," leading to the risk of including "false solutions." The organization proposes four scientific principles for defining real removals: atmospheric GHG removal, permanent storage (at least 200-300 years), comprehensive accounting of process emissions, and a net-positive removal balance. Based on these, the document asserts that nature-based sequestration and point-source CCS do not qualify as permanent removals. It specifically critiques nature-based activities due to the impossibility of guaranteeing monitoring and liability for reversals over centuries, noting that buffer pools are inadequate. Instead, it suggests nature-based activities generate "Paris Agreement Support Units" to channel finance without allowing offset claims.

Carbon Market Watch argues that Parties should prioritize domestic mitigation over carbon credits and recommends strict transparency, science-based definitions for removals, and the establishment of an independent grievance body for Article 6 mechanisms.

The briefing concludes that BP is not on track for the 1.5°C goal, as its projected emissions will exceed its allocated carbon budget by 2033. Despite pledges to reach Net Zero by 2050, the analysis finds that BP's short-to-medium term carbon intensity remains too high and its capital expenditure continues to favor fossil fuels over renewables.

The briefing concludes that ENI is not on track for the 1.5°C climate goal, as its cumulative greenhouse gas emissions are projected to exceed its allocated carbon budget by at least 13.6% by 2050. The analysis finds that ENI's short-to-medium term plans are incompatible with 1.5°C because the company continues to invest in oil and gas expansion, with production expected to grow until 2025. Furthermore, the report argues that ENI relies unsustainably on carbon offsets and Carbon Capture Use and Storage (CCUS) to meet its targets, while its capital expenditure remains heavily focused on fossil fuels despite claims of diversification.

The briefing concludes that Shell's strategy is not on track to meet the 1.5°C climate goal, predicting the company will exceed its allocated carbon budget by 2034. Despite a net-zero ambition for 2050, the analysis finds that Shell's short-term plans rely on unrealistic offsets and continued investment in oil and gas expansion. The report highlights that Shell remains a top global hydrocarbon developer, with approximately 90% of its 2022 CAPEX allocated to fossil fuels, which contradicts the deep emission cuts required for 1.5°C alignment.

The report examines the global and regional context of oil and gas transitions, focusing on the North Sea region. It identifies a significant 'ambition gap' between national net-zero targets and actual industrial strategies in the UK and Norway, while noting Denmark as a first-mover with a 2050 phase-out date. Using a scorecard analysis based on seven just transition principles, the report finds that while Scotland leads in support for workers and communities, the UK and Norway struggle with carbon lock-in due to continued licensing and a lack of comprehensive regional support policies.