Search Climate Insights Directory

The document critiques TotalEnergies' plan to issue Sustainability-Linked Bonds (SLBs), asserting that the company's climate targets and overall corporate strategy are misaligned with the Paris Agreement. It highlights flaws in the company's KPIs, specifically regarding scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, and points to a projected 50% growth in hydrocarbon production by 2030 as evidence of a strategy at odds with climate science. The briefing concludes that these bonds serve as a marketing tool to secure funding for oil and gas expansion rather than a genuine mechanism for energy transition.

The paper surveys 29 long-term climate strategies (LTSs) submitted to the UNFCCC, representing 42 countries and 28% of global emissions. It finds a growing trend toward net-zero targets, an increasing focus on the fundamental economic and societal shifts required for transition, and a reliance on both natural and technological carbon removals. The analysis highlights that while most strategies include midcentury goals and modeling, the level of detail regarding adaptation and just transition varies, and some parties acknowledge gaps between their most ambitious scenarios and their final targets.

California is projected to fall 125 million metric tons of CO2 short of its 2045 targets, necessitating the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to address hard-to-abate industrial emissions and achieve net-negative emissions. The state possesses vast geologic storage potential, particularly in Central Valley saline aquifers, estimated at 30-417 gigatonnes of CO2. Beyond emissions, these technologies are presented as means to improve air quality by reducing sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, and to support workforce stability during the clean energy transition.

Reclaim Finance argues that the NGFS's June 2021 climate scenarios are unrealistic and risky because they rely too heavily on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and fail to mandate an end to fossil fuel investments. The document warns that these scenarios, which are used by European and British regulators, could lead financial institutions to fund stranded assets and non-sustainable biomass, ultimately pushing global warming beyond 1.5°C. It calls for the NGFS to align with IEA recommendations by requiring an immediate stop to new coal, oil, and gas projects.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the NGFS's June 2021 climate scenarios for failing to provide realistic 1.5°C pathways. The organization argues that the scenarios rely too heavily on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and fail to mandate an end to fossil fuel investments, which could lead to stranded assets and global warming overshoot. Reclaim Finance recommends that the NGFS align its forecasts with an immediate end to new fossil fuel projects and adopt a precautionary approach to biomass and carbon dioxide removal.

The report analyzes the role of hydrogen in the energy transition, contrasting 'green hydrogen' (produced via renewable-powered electrolysis) with the current industry standard of steam methane reformation (SMR) from fossil fuels. It warns that the oil and gas industry uses hydrogen rhetoric to justify continued fossil fuel infrastructure and delay electrification. The authors argue that green hydrogen should be reserved for 'hard-to-electrify' sectors like maritime shipping and high-heat industrial processes, while being rejected for use in passenger vehicles, home appliances, and gas-fired power plants due to energy inefficiency, high costs, and pollution risks.

The report examines the role of nuclear energy in producing zero-carbon fuels (ZCFs) to decarbonize the marine shipping industry, which accounted for 2.6% of global CO2 emissions in 2018. It identifies ammonia as a particularly promising fuel due to its energy density and compatibility with existing engine technology. The authors argue that nuclear energy is well-suited for ZCF production because of its high capacity factor, low land-use requirements, and ability to provide high-temperature steam for electrolysis. The document proposes using the U.S. Jones Act and other federal programs to incentivize the construction of ZCF-powered vessels and the development of regional production hubs, specifically suggesting the Houston region as a potential case study.

ClientEarth argues that the draft CEEAG contains political compromises that undermine environmental ambitions, specifically criticizing the continued support for fossil gas, low-carbon hydrogen, and biomass. The organization advocates for the strict integration of the 'Energy Efficiency First' principle, the 'energy solidarity principle', and more rigorous safeguards to prevent 'carbon lock-in'. Key recommendations include limiting hydrogen aid to renewable sources, phasing out support for high-efficient cogeneration and small hydropower, and implementing stricter conditions for the closure of coal activities to ensure they occur by 2030.

The testimony advocates for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) as a vital tool for Pennsylvania to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. It identifies Western Pennsylvania as the most geologically favorable region for CO2 storage, estimating a potential capacity of 75.6 gigatonnes in deep saline formations, though it notes this figure may be overly optimistic. The author suggests that initial CCS projects should target 15 identified steel, cement, and power plants in the west to minimize transport costs, proposing a 'hub' model to achieve economies of scale. The testimony also highlights the potential for Pennsylvania to use its natural gas resources to produce clean hydrogen via reforming with CCS. To enable this transition, the author calls for federal policy support, specifically the enhancement of 45Q tax credits to $85 per metric ton and the passage of the SCALE Act, as well as the adoption of a state-level Clean Energy Standard.

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.

A group of 27 leaders from industry, academia, and civil society argue that the TEN-E Regulation must be expanded to include geological CO2 storage and multiple transport modalities—such as rail, ship, barge, and truck—to effectively support the development of European CO2 networks. They state that without including storage, the regulation supports "pipelines to nowhere" and fails to align with the European Green Deal's climate targets.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework is criticized for cutting up to a trillion dollars in climate and clean energy spending compared to the American Jobs Plan. Key omissions include large-scale electric vehicle incentives, building energy efficiency retrofits, direct renewable energy deployment, and industrial decarbonization. The author contends these gaps make it impossible for the U.S. to reach its 2030 greenhouse gas reduction goals and suggests using budget reconciliation to restore these investments.

The report argues that deep decarbonization of transportation requires a diverse set of solutions across technology, policy, and behavior, as no single technology can address all subsectors. Key strategies include the deployment of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) for light-duty and short-haul freight, hydrogen and ammonia for heavy-duty and marine transport, and sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) for aircraft. The authors emphasize that efficiency improvements are a critical near-term tool across all modes. A central policy recommendation is the adoption of a performance-based, adaptive framework, specifically a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) transitioning to a Zero-Carbon Fuel Standard (ZCFS) by 2050, to allow various fuels and vehicles to compete while reducing overall carbon intensity. The report also highlights the daunting nature of infrastructure transitions and the uncertainty of consumer behavior and automated vehicle impacts.

The document compares natural gas-based hydrogen production methods, finding that ATR with carbon capture and storage (CCS) can achieve significantly higher carbon reduction rates (96-98%) than standard SMR (50-65%), though it requires more power for oxygen production. It estimates the cost of ATR-produced hydrogen at approximately $1.38/kg based on a US Gulf Coast scenario.

The report argues that the 2019 IRP's goal of adding 1500 MW of new coal generation is technically and environmentally problematic. It concludes that 'clean coal' is a myth, as even high-efficiency, low-emission (HELE) technologies cannot eliminate significant air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The author finds that advanced ultra-supercritical plants and carbon capture technologies are currently unproven or cost-prohibitive at scale, making them unlikely to be implemented. Furthermore, the report asserts that the 2023 timeline for the first 750 MW is unrealistic and that new plants would inevitably cause harm to human and environmental health through emissions of toxic organic compounds, trace metals, and acid gases, as well as impacts from the broader coal supply chain.

The document details U.S. fossil fuel subsidies, estimated at $20.5 billion in direct annual costs and $649 billion when including externalities. It outlines administrative efforts under President Biden to eliminate these subsidies through the repeal of 13 tax preferences, the pausing of new public land leases, and the redirection of Department of Energy R&D funding toward climate-centric activities. Additionally, it lists several bills from the 117th Congress aimed at reforming tax subsidies and updating royalty rates.

A meta-analysis of eight recent studies indicates that the United States can achieve approximately 80% clean electricity by 2030 at minimal cost. The findings suggest that such a transition would drive 500,000 to 1 million net new jobs, avoid up to $3 trillion in health and climate damages by 2050, and is essential for meeting the Biden administration's GHG emissions reduction targets. The analysis concludes that a strong national clean electricity standard (CES) is the most effective policy mechanism, primarily driving the deployment of wind, solar, and battery storage.

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.

The report examines how the EU sustainable taxonomy, originally designed to be science-based, has been influenced by industry lobbying to potentially include fossil gas and nuclear energy. It argues that gas is not a sustainable transition fuel due to methane leaks and carbon lock-in, and that nuclear energy fails the 'do no significant harm' (DNSH) principle due to waste and safety risks. The document details the scale of lobbying efforts, identifying hundreds of meetings between EU officials and industry representatives, and criticizes the EU Commission for deferring decisions on these technologies to future legislation and relying on flawed technical reports.