Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of climate and accountability organisations argues that Shell's 2021 strategy update is insufficient to limit global warming to 1.5°C. They claim the company relies on intensity-based targets rather than absolute reductions, continues heavy investment in upstream oil and gas, and depends on unrealistic carbon capture and offset projections. The authors call on investors to support a resolution requiring Shell to set quantitative, Paris-aligned targets for Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.

The brief warns that funding for blue hydrogen may conflict with Canada's goals to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 and reach net-zero by 2050. It recommends that subsidies for hydrogen based on natural gas without significant carbon capture and storage be ineligible for assistance, and that blue hydrogen only receive support if it matches the environmental performance and cost of green hydrogen.

The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) published climate scenarios in June 2020 to help manage financial climate risks. However, analysis by Oil Change International and Reclaim Finance suggests these scenarios have dangerous shortcomings, specifically by prioritizing 2°C targets over 1.5°C and relying on unrealistic levels of carbon capture. These assumptions create a bias in favor of continued fossil fuel production and investment, potentially slowing the global fight against climate change.

Reclaim Finance and Oil Change International critique the NGFS's initial climate scenarios for focusing on 2°C targets rather than 1.5°C and for relying on unrealistic levels of carbon capture. The authors contend that these choices create a bias in favor of fossil fuels, with some scenarios allowing coal use beyond 2050 and only modest reductions in fossil fuel investments. They call for a revised framework that centers a 1.5°C scenario and encourages financial regulators to end support for the fossil fuel sector.

The report finds that Minnesota's business-as-usual scenario would only reduce emissions by 8% by 2050, failing to meet state goals or 1.5°C targets. While a proposed 100% clean electricity standard by 2040 could reduce emissions by 19% below the reference scenario, a more comprehensive '1.5°C Scenario'—incorporating aggressive electrification of buildings and transport, industrial fuel switching, and land management—could cut statewide emissions by over 75% by 2050. This deep decarbonization pathway is projected to add $11 billion annually to the state's economy and create 39,000 additional job-years by 2050, while avoiding 700 premature deaths and 20,000 asthma incidents annually.

The document examines Canada's approach to the hydrogen economy, specifically the tension between supporting 'blue hydrogen' (fossil fuel-based with carbon capture) and 'green hydrogen' (renewable-based). It argues that blue hydrogen is less environmentally effective due to methane leaks and high costs of carbon capture and storage (CCS), and is likely to be out-competed by green hydrogen by 2030. The author contends that subsidies for blue hydrogen constitute fossil fuel subsidies that undermine Canada's climate goals and net-zero 2050 target, recommending strict environmental and cost criteria for any public funding.

The document argues that Total SE's carbon neutrality ambitions are 'window dressing' because they exclude global Scope 3 emissions and forecast increased hydrocarbon production. It highlights the contradiction between the climate pledges of major French banks and insurers and their continued financing of Total SE, including controversial projects like the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

The document analyzes the gap between Total SE's public climate ambitions and its actual business strategy, which continues to prioritize fossil fuel expansion. It highlights the role of French banks and investors in supporting this model and calls for a shift toward absolute emission reductions and the cessation of new fossil fuel projects.

The document argues that while climate and energy scenarios are essential for target setting, they often rely on legacy modeling that can constrain imagination and overlook non-linear transformations. It distinguishes between scenarios (future snapshots), pathways (adaptive courses), and roadmaps (deterministic methods), and advises decision-makers to use a combination of top-down models and bottom-up assessments to identify a broader 'opportunity space'. The author highlights critical gaps in current scenarios, including a lack of stakeholder diversity, neglect of equity and non-emissions benefits, and a failure to account for learning curves in technological innovation and demand-side efficiency.

The document provides an update on The Geological Society's financial ties to fossil fuel and arms corporations. While it acknowledges a new responsible investment policy from September 2020 that excludes certain arms and high-emissions fossil fuels, it highlights a significant decrease in investment transparency between 2015 and 2019. The report details extensive corporate sponsorship from oil and gas companies and argues that these ties, along with investments in companies like Shell and Total, are incompatible with the Paris Agreement's temperature goals.

The study identifies mining, logging, dam construction, and agriculture as the primary threats to biodiversity in the Chindwin River Basin. Using a GIS-based Multi-Criteria Decision Making approach and the InVEST model, the research found that 87% of Key Biodiversity Areas provide a high degree of ecosystem services, with the highest levels occurring in the forested northern region of the basin.

The Clean Air Task Force asserts that the EU's draft TEN-E regulation neglects geologic storage, which is essential for decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors and achieving negative emissions. The author calls for the regulation to cover the full carbon capture and storage value chain, including various transport modes like ships and trucks, and to ensure non-discriminatory third-party access to infrastructure.

The Clean Air Task Force proposes that the Biden-Harris Administration should increase domestic carbon reduction commitments to reach net-zero by mid-century, fully utilize Department of Energy funding for advanced technologies, implement a 24-7 clean electricity procurement strategy for federal facilities, and establish rigorous EPA regulations for power plants and methane emissions.

Ember challenges the assumption that biomass is carbon neutral, noting that current practices may actually contribute to climate change. The organization argues that the scale of land required for energy crops to support BECCS would cause significant environmental and food security issues. Furthermore, Ember highlights the high public cost of subsidizing bioenergy, suggesting that funds would be more effectively spent on wind, solar, or forest restoration.

ClientEarth argues that EU State aid rules must be transformed into sustainability instruments that prohibit support for fossil fuels and harmful biomass, while prioritizing energy efficiency and renewable energy. The document calls for the strict application of the 'Energy Efficiency First' principle, the exclusion of low-carbon (fossil gas-based) hydrogen from subsidies, and the removal of aid for high-efficiency combined heat and power (CHP) plants. It further recommends increasing support for energy communities, zero-emission vehicles, and energy efficiency in buildings, while introducing a 'greenwashing test' to ensure the environmental integrity of aid beneficiaries.

The document examines five major industrial clusters in Belgium and the Netherlands, highlighting their economic significance and high greenhouse gas emissions. It argues that because each cluster's governance and industrial makeup differ, 'tailor-made policy' is required rather than generic instruments. The brief identifies the Antwerp-Rotterdam-Rhine-Ruhr Area (ARRRA) as a critical meta-cluster connected by extensive pipeline infrastructure. It recommends a multi-level governance approach where cluster authorities handle local planning and implementation, while national and EU bodies provide high-level coordination, regulatory frameworks, and the bulk of the financing for the transition to net-zero by 2050.

The Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) is projected to nearly eliminate power sector emissions and reduce economy-wide emissions by 35% by 2050 compared to business-as-usual. However, to meet a 1.5°C warming pathway, the document argues that Virginia must implement further policies across transportation, buildings, industry, and land use. A proposed '1.5°C Pathway Scenario' involving aggressive electrification and clean energy standards could achieve net-zero emissions before 2050, while generating over 11,000 job-years and increasing annual GDP by more than $2.6 billion by 2050.

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 provides a comprehensive overview of European CO2 storage capacity, highlighting the North Sea Basin and the Norwegian shelf as the most prospective areas. It details storage potentials in saline aquifers, hydrocarbon fields, and storage reservoirs across various European regions, while also mapping stationary emission sources, noting that power generation is the dominant emitting sector.

The report outlines a framework for 'rights-based climate finance,' emphasizing that funding from developed to developing countries must be ambitious in volume, equitable in distribution, and provided as grants to avoid increasing debt. It advocates for the categorical exclusion of 'false solutions' like large-scale hydropower and geoengineering, while demanding robust social and environmental safeguards, including free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for Indigenous Peoples and independent grievance redress mechanisms to ensure accountability.