Search Climate Insights Directory

The signatories argue that including rail, ship, barge, and truck transport for CO2 in the TEN-T regulation is essential for decarbonising industrial sectors and reducing investor risk.

The EU steel sector, which contributes 5% of the region's annual CO2 emissions, faces significant technical and economic hurdles in its transition to net zero. While hydrogen-based DRI is a prominent pathway, its scalability is limited by the massive requirements for renewable electricity and low-carbon hydrogen. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is presented as a complementary, potentially lower-cost near-term solution for both blast furnace and DRI plants. The report concludes that a portfolio of technologies is necessary to mitigate risks and ensure the industry's survival, supported by carbon pricing, border adjustments, and demand-side policies.

The authors contend that while international UNFCCC negotiations move slowly, rapid progress in domestic climate legislation—particularly in emerging economies—is shifting the center of gravity of the climate debate. They argue that national actions driven by self-interest and co-benefits, such as energy security and resource efficiency, are prerequisites for an effective international treaty.

The document highlights South Asia's vulnerability to climate change and criticizes developed nations for attempting to shift the burden of mitigation through offsets and Carbon Capture and Storage. It details India's eight national climate missions, including ambitious solar power targets and energy efficiency schemes, while noting that India's dependency on coal could be reduced from a 'business as usual' projection of 69.5% to 57.7% under a low-carbon strategy. The author emphasizes that after 2020, India will exhaust 'low hanging' options, necessitating revolutionary technology and drastic emission reductions in industrialized countries based on the principle of equity.

The report assesses the 2019 Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity (IRP) proposal to add 1500 MW of new coal generation in South Africa. It finds that high-efficiency, low-emission (HELE) technologies cannot eliminate significant greenhouse gas emissions or air pollution. Specifically, ultra-supercritical efficiency is the highest feasible thermal cycle efficiency given IRP requirements, while carbon capture (CC) and gasification technologies (IGCC and UGCC) are deemed unproven and cost-prohibitive at scale. The report highlights that circulating fluidized bed technology emits two to ten times more nitrous oxide than pulverized coal technologies. Beyond plant emissions, the coal supply chain—including mining, transport, and ash disposal—creates unavoidable air, water, and waste impacts. Finally, the report asserts that bringing new coal generation online by 2023 is unreasonable due to the time required for design and procurement.

The toolkit critiques the draft IRP 2023, arguing that it deviates from 'least cost' energy pathways by favoring fossil fuels over renewables and failing to adequately address air quality, health impacts, and climate commitments. It provides a framework for the public to challenge the DMRE's modelling assumptions, the premature timing of the plan relative to the Integrated Energy Plan and Sectoral Emission Targets, and the lack of transparency in public participation.

The Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (LEDET) has granted environmental authorisation for the establishment of the Musina-Makhado Special Economic Zone (MMSEZ) South Site. The authorisation specifically covers the clearance of indigenous vegetation, installation of bulk services infrastructure, and fencing for a metallurgical cluster, reducing the project footprint to 3,862 hectares.

The document asserts that "clean coal" is impossible, as the entire coal cycle—from mining to combustion—causes severe damage to health, water, and the climate. It critiques three specific technologies: High Efficiency, Low Emissions (HELE) plants, which only reduce CO2 by up to 20% while increasing costs; Circulating Fluidised Bed (CFB) systems, which increase solid waste and N2O emissions; and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), which remains unproven in South Africa and faces high costs and geological transport challenges. The text highlights that Eskom and Sasol are primary coal users in South Africa, and that wind and solar power are cleaner, cheaper alternatives.

The document argues that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an ineffective and dangerous technology that serves the interests of polluters rather than the climate. It claims CCS is more expensive and energy-intensive than renewable alternatives, fails to significantly reduce CO2 emissions, and poses health and safety risks to frontline communities through increased toxic pollutants and pipeline hazards. The authors assert that nearly 80% of captured carbon is used for enhanced oil recovery and urge leaders in the US and Canada to shift public funding toward phasing out fossil fuels and investing in energy efficiency and natural carbon sinks.

The document argues that NDCs must be guided by human rights obligations to be both legally compliant and more effective. It provides a comprehensive checklist for evaluating NDCs across nine key areas, including mitigation ambition, participatory planning, gender justice, and the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The guide emphasizes that NDCs should include an urgent phase-out of fossil fuels, avoid reliance on carbon offsets or technological 'false solutions' like CCS, and ensure a just transition that protects labor rights and prevents mining-related human rights violations.

The document argues that human rights-based climate action is a legal obligation under the Paris Agreement and is more effective, as confirmed by the IPCC. It provides a comprehensive checklist for NDCs, emphasizing the need for a 1.5°C warming limit, the phase-out of fossil fuels, and the exclusion of carbon offsets and 'false technological solutions' like carbon capture and storage (CCS). The checklist details requirements for inclusive public participation, gender equality, the protection of indigenous peoples' rights—specifically free, prior and informed consent—and the implementation of a just transition. It also calls for debt-free international climate finance and robust monitoring systems that use disaggregated data by gender, age, and disability.

The document argues that human rights-based climate action is more effective and a legal obligation for all Parties to the Paris Agreement. It provides a comprehensive checklist for the preparation and evaluation of NDCs, covering mitigation ambition, participatory planning, gender justice, indigenous rights, just transition, adaptation, and accountability mechanisms.

The document contends that plastic production and incineration are significant climate threats, projected to emit 2.8 gigatons of CO2e annually by 2050 and consume up to 13% of the global 1.5C carbon budget. It systematically debunks five industry 'myths' regarding net zero: that clean energy and carbon capture and storage (CCS) can make production emissions-free, that plastic waste is a carbon-free fuel, that plastics can be carbon sinks, that offset schemes are viable, and that bioplastics solve the problem. The author concludes that these narratives are delay tactics and that 'real zero'—reducing production—is the only solution.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) submits that the Article 6.4 mechanism must focus on near-term emissions reductions and the phase-out of fossil fuels rather than carbon removals. CIEL warns that relying on removals risks temperature overshoot beyond 1.5°C, which could lead to irreversible tipping points. The submission critiques land-based removals for their impermanence and limited capacity, and describes engineered removals like BECCS and DACCS as speculative technologies that threaten food sovereignty, land rights, and biodiversity. It further argues that Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) primarily serves to prolong fossil fuel reliance and has a history of underperformance. Finally, CIEL calls for the establishment of robust human rights safeguards and an independent grievance redress mechanism for all Article 6.4 activities.

The report analyzes 118 planned petrochemical projects in the US, finding that they could add 153.8 MMT of annual CO2e emissions, equivalent to nearly 40 coal plants. It highlights that a small number of megaprojects drive the majority of these emissions, with ammonia production being a primary contributor. The document argues that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an ineffective solution used to justify fossil-fuel-based expansion, often supported by federal subsidies. It also notes that the buildout is concentrated in disadvantaged communities in the Gulf Coast and Appalachia, worsening environmental racism.

The document argues that the petrochemical industry's expansion is unsustainable and harmful, urging financial institutions to stop financing petrochemical expansion, require client transition plans, and adopt environmental justice policies. It highlights the severe health and environmental impacts in US 'sacrifice zones' and the financial risks of stranded assets.

The report details the financial mechanisms supporting over 100 planned petrochemical projects in the US, primarily in the Gulf South. It finds that a small number of global banks and asset managers provide the majority of this capital, despite mounting market overcapacity, litigation risks, and environmental harms. The document calls for immediate divestment and the adoption of strict climate-aligned policies by financial institutions.

The report 'Toxic Accounts' by Clean Creatives examines how BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell shifted their marketing strategies from 2020 to 2024. The analysis finds that these companies moved away from net-zero ambitions and 'greenwashing' toward a strategy of 'fossil fuel dominance,' emphasizing energy security and the indispensability of oil and gas. The document details the use of 'false solutions'—such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), blue/gray hydrogen, and certain biofuels—to justify continued fossil fuel production. It highlights specific campaign evolutions, such as BP's shift from 'greening companies' to 'energy security' and ExxonMobil's 'Breaking Free' anti-EV campaign, arguing that these narratives delay the clean energy transition to prioritize short-term shareholder returns.

The document details the Climate Bonds Initiative's (CBI) voluntary labelling scheme designed to align agricultural debt instruments with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. It provides a three-step certification process (pre-issuance, issuance, and post-issuance) and defines eligible agriculture projects across three categories: whole production units, interventions within production units (mitigation and adaptation), and supporting activities. The guide highlights Brazil as a key market, noting that while land use is the second largest green bond category there, crop-specific issuance is growing, citing three certified cases: Rizoma Agro, Solinftec, and Produzindo Certo.

The Bioenergy Criteria Background document outlines the framework for certifying bioenergy projects as climate-aligned. It establishes a temporal declining trajectory for life-cycle GHG emissions, aiming for near-zero emissions by 2050. The document defines eligible biomass feedstocks—categorized into agricultural, forestry, processing waste, and aquatic biomass—and sets strict sustainability requirements to prevent negative impacts on biodiversity, food security, and carbon stocks. Special emphasis is placed on mitigating methane emissions in the biogas and biomethane value chain through the adoption of 'best-practice' scenarios and leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs. Additionally, it provides a framework for assessing the adaptation and resilience of bioenergy assets against climate-related hazards.