Search Climate Insights Directory

The World Resources Institute (WRI) asserts that carbon dioxide capture and sequestration (CCS) is the only viable near-term solution to curb emissions from the expanding use of coal, particularly in the U.S. and China. While energy efficiency, renewables, and nuclear power are important, they cannot currently offset coal use at the necessary scale. WRI argues that a carbon cap and trade regime is a critical first step to incentivize low-carbon investment, though current legislative proposals likely offer carbon prices too low to offset high capture costs. Consequently, the document calls for increased public funding for research, development and demonstration (RD&D) and additional policy tools to address regulatory and public acceptance barriers.

The report argues that to avoid dangerous climate change, the U.S. must reduce emissions by at least 80% below 2000 levels by 2050. This target is derived from a global stabilization goal of 450 ppm CO2eq, which provides a medium chance of limiting global warming to 2°C. The authors calculate a U.S. cumulative emissions budget of 160 to 265 GtCO2eq for 2000–2050 and warn that delaying reductions until 2020 would double the required annual reduction rate from 4% to 8%. An assessment of then-current federal bills found that only the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (S. 309) and the Safe Climate Act (H.R. 1590) were consistent with the upper limit of the proposed U.S. emissions budget.

The document analyzes the impact of climate policy uncertainty on investment decisions, highlighting how different actors—such as oil majors, utilities, technology developers, and banks—respond to CO2 price volatility and regulatory ambiguity. It explores various economic appraisal methods, including real options and risk premiums, to demonstrate how uncertainty can delay investments or bias them toward fossil fuels. The author argues that while governments value policy flexibility, stronger commitments and intermediary targets are necessary to provide the credibility required for private sector investment in low-carbon technologies.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) argues that the MIT "Future of Coal" study relies on outdated data and ignores the commercial availability of carbon capture for IGCC plants. CATF contends that IGCC is a superior alternative to pulverized coal (PC) due to lower emissions of criteria pollutants and a significant cost advantage when 90% carbon capture is implemented. The document highlights that while PC carbon capture remains speculative, IGCC carbon capture is a "commercially proven process." CATF warns that following MIT's recommendation to build efficient PC plants today could lock in high global emissions, particularly in China, and instead advocates for banning new coal combustion plants in favor of rapidly commercializing advanced gasification and geologic storage.

The report examines the GEF's Resource Allocation Framework (RAF), which uses a Benefits Index (GBI) and a Performance Index (GPI) to allocate grants. It concludes that while the RAF generally conforms to COP guidance, it creates significant disparities for small island developing states (SIDS) and least developed countries (LDCs), particularly in the biodiversity focal area, and fails to align with specific priorities of the Cartagena Protocol. The author argues that the GEF is functionally autonomous, leaving COPs with few legal remedies to enforce conformity.

The policy brief asserts that because coal is likely to remain a significant part of the global power supply through 2050, the world must transition from coal combustion to integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology. IGCC is presented as the most viable path to reducing sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury emissions, while providing a more efficient means of carbon capture and storage compared to retrofitting combustion plants. The author calls for a ban on new coal combustion plants, the rapid deployment of commercial IGCC 'reference' plants in the United States to encourage global adoption, and the large-scale demonstration of geologic carbon storage. Additionally, the document advocates for reforming coal mining practices, regulating toxic solid waste, and reducing water consumption.

The document identifies wind power as the most cost-effective near-term option for increasing renewable electricity in New England, noting that the region's onshore wind resources have the technical potential to supply approximately 60 percent of its current electricity use. It frames this within the broader need to transform the energy system to limit global warming, noting that the Northeast United States emits more CO2 than all but six countries globally. While other solutions like energy efficiency and carbon capture are discussed, wind is presented as more viable than solar, bioenergy, or geothermal power in the region due to cost and resource availability. The document states that if all currently proposed wind projects in New England were completed, they would generate over 5,700 gigawatt-hours of CO2-free electricity annually, representing about seven percent of the electricity used in the proposing states.

The document identifies several trade policy levers to address climate change, including the liberalization of trade in low-emission goods, the reinstatement of subsidies for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, the removal of domestic barriers to clean energy investment, the relaxation of intellectual property rights for green technologies, and the reduction of fossil fuel subsidies. It emphasizes that trade policy must be part of a broader suite of complementary fiscal and regulatory measures and suggests that while the WTO is the primary venue for multilateral action, plurilateral or regional agreements may serve as alternatives.

The document asserts that new conventional coal plants are imprudent investments due to the certainty of future U.S. federal CO2 regulations, likely in the form of a cap-and-trade system. It argues that such regulations will significantly raise the cost of coal-fired electricity, making energy efficiency and renewables more competitive. The report urges state regulators to protect ratepayers by either denying the construction of new coal plants or requiring that shareholders, rather than customers, bear the financial risk of future carbon compliance costs.

The document argues that the World Bank's energy investment framework is a continuation of 'more of the same', failing to transition from fossil fuels to renewables. It highlights a contradiction where the Bank acts as a major carbon trader while continuing to fund projects that emit massive amounts of greenhouse gases. The report criticizes the Bank's promotion of 'clean coal', nuclear energy, and large dams, asserting these technologies cause significant environmental and social harm. It calls for a redirection of public finance from the North to the South toward decentralized renewable energy and energy efficiency to meet the needs of the world's poor.

The consultation focused on three primary policy areas: energy and the environment, chemicals management, and tourism and the environment. Participants discussed the role of civil society in engaging with UNEP and worked in parallel groups to draft recommendations for a North American Regional Civil Society Statement. The meeting also served to elect representatives for a global drafting session in Bahrain and the Global Civil Society Forum in Dubai.

AESR and SGR argue for more aggressive domestic emission reductions in the UK, specifically targeting the transport sector through higher fuel duties and a renewable transport fuels obligation. They advocate for redirecting military R&D funding toward sustainable energy, implementing mandatory energy-efficiency ratings for home sales, and expanding the Emissions Trading Scheme to non-energy intensive sectors. The response emphasizes the need for a highly trained workforce for micro-CHP installation and warns against ocean-based carbon storage due to environmental risks.

The paper discusses engineering strategies to mitigate climate change, focusing on energy production shifts, technical efficiency, and social changes, while analyzing the ethical risks of nuclear power and carbon capture.

The report investigates the pervasive influence of the military on UK science, engineering, and technology (SET), noting that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) accounts for approximately 30% of the total public R&D budget. It argues that this involvement drives a narrow, weapons-based approach to security and compromises scientific openness through secrecy and corporate lobbying. The authors advocate for a paradigm shift toward 'global security,' recommending that one-third to one-half of military R&D funds be diverted to address poverty, climate change, and conflict prevention.

The document argues that a lasting global climate solution post-2030 must integrate a cap-and-trade scheme, technology development agreements, and assistance for developing countries. It contrasts a "Cap First" strategy, which prioritizes binding emissions targets, with an "Empower First" strategy, which emphasizes creating an enabling environment through technology and development cooperation. The authors suggest that while the Kyoto Protocol established a market value for carbon, future success depends on overcoming political stalemates, re-engaging the US through flexible compliance mechanisms, and implementing equitable target-setting based on countries' levels of development.

The document emphasizes that scientific uncertainties should not justify delaying preventive actions against climate change. It highlights robust facts, such as the role of greenhouse gases and the delaying effect of aerosols and ocean inertia, to argue for a precautionary approach. The author notes that current efforts, including the Kyoto Protocol, are insufficient to stabilize atmospheric concentrations, and calls for industrial countries to lead emissions reductions to ensure global equity and sustainable development.

The report provides a geospatial analysis of the world's drylands, which cover approximately 40 percent of the global land area and support over two billion people. It evaluates the provision of ecosystem services including forage for livestock, food production, biodiversity conservation, freshwater, carbon storage, and energy. The analysis highlights that while drylands are often perceived as unproductive, they are critical for human survival, though they face significant threats from soil degradation, water scarcity, and human activities such as overgrazing and urbanization.

The document outlines the causes and consequences of global climate change, highlighting the role of greenhouse gas emissions and the influence of the fossil fuel lobby. It categorizes career paths for scientists and engineers into four areas of positive contribution: understanding the problem, technological solutions, economic solutions, and social/political solutions, while warning against the influence of vested interests.

The pilot study, conducted by the University of Siena, surveyed experts in Belgium and France across two waves between December 2023 and December 2024. Findings indicate high expert support for renewable energy, green hydrogen, and energy storage, while support for blue hydrogen, gas, coal, and oil remains low. There is a strong consensus that the economic benefits of clean technology investment outweigh short-term costs. While a majority of experts believe governments should do more to address climate change, the perceived importance of climate change as a top issue for voters decreased over time, particularly in Belgium, as concerns over defense and security increased.

The report examines the digital footprint of 15 major Brazilian companies in the agribusiness, mining, and fossil fuel sectors, finding a wide disparity in the volume of sustainability communications. While all analyzed companies acknowledge climate change, the report identifies significant signs of greenwashing, including the use of vague language and green imagery to mask negative environmental impacts. It highlights a contradiction between corporate narratives—which frame these sectors as 'part of the solution'—and actual records, such as Petrobras, Vale, and Shell being among the top 10 companies most fined by Ibama between 2000 and 2025. Additionally, the report notes the use of targeted Meta advertising and influencer partnerships, particularly by Petrobras, to amplify sustainability messaging to younger audiences.