Search Climate Insights Directory

The report estimates that climate finance mobilised by developed countries for developing countries reached USD 61.8 billion in 2014 and USD 52.2 billion in 2013, with a two-year average of USD 57.0 billion. Public finance remains the dominant source, accounting for 71% of the average total, while mobilised private finance accounts for 26%. The findings highlight a significant increase in bilateral public finance and a substantial rise in outflows from Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) between 2013 and 2014. The report emphasizes that the majority of finance (77%) targets mitigation, with adaptation receiving 16%. It also details the methodological challenges in tracking private finance and the attribution of multilateral flows to developed countries.

The document provides a framework for governments to assess how climate policies affect national budgets, focusing on the production side of fossil fuels and infrastructure. It details a five-step methodology: establishing a base case, developing scenarios, assessing policy impacts, allocating value between consumers and producers, and splitting value between government and commercial entities. The report applies this to Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Egypt, highlighting that oil assets are most sensitive to global demand shifts, while coal and gas are more influenced by regional dynamics and infrastructure. It recommends that governments reduce upfront capital commitments, adapt tax regimes, and diversify into low-carbon technologies to mitigate the risk of stranded assets.

The report finds that EU member states are failing to responsibly govern negative emissions, often relying on vulnerable land-based sinks that are declining due to climate impacts. It highlights a systemic lack of separate, binding targets for permanent CDR and a failure to clearly define 'residual emissions' that CDR is intended to balance. While some countries like Sweden and Germany have initiated research or funding for bio-CCS, the report argues that most plans lack feasibility assessments and conflate permanent removals with fossil-fuel-related carbon capture and storage (CCS).

The report examines the uneven progress of carbon pricing in Asia, contrasting the advanced emissions trading systems (ETS) in Japan and South Korea with the early-stage designs in Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines. It argues that while the EU CBAM poses a financial risk to exporters—particularly in the steel sector—the overall impact is limited and can be mitigated by implementing effective domestic carbon pricing and transitioning to cleaner production technologies. The document provides specific fee estimates for each country and recommends phasing out carbon offsets, implementing absolute emission caps, and shifting toward the auctioning of allowances to drive genuine decarbonisation.

The briefing examines the EU's Carbon Removals Certification Framework (CRCF), specifically criticizing the Delegated Act for permanent removals. It argues that the current methodologies for Direct Air Capture with Storage (DACCS), Biomass with capture and storage (BioCCS), and Biochar fail to account for environmental knock-on effects, lack proper monitoring and liability, and breach the 'Do No Significant Harm' principle. The author warns that these flaws could lead to certified activities increasing atmospheric emissions and undermine the EU's path to climate neutrality, potentially exposing buyers to greenwashing accusations if integrated into the EU Emission Trading System or voluntary markets.

The handbook evaluates six carbon removal methods: BioCCS, afforestation/reforestation, biochar, terrestrial enhanced weathering, DACCS, and soil carbon sequestration. It highlights the trade-offs between permanence, cost, and ecological impact, emphasizing that land-based solutions often conflict with planetary boundaries and food security, while technological solutions like DACCS face high energy and cost barriers. The document recommends prioritizing sustainable feedstocks, rights-based approaches for local communities, and the development of standardized monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) frameworks.

The report argues that deep decarbonisation of EU energy-intensive industries requires a combination of process innovations, product shifts, and business model transformations. For chemicals, this involves transitioning to bio-based feedstocks and enhanced plastics recycling. In steel, the HIsarna process and a shift toward electric arc furnace (EAF) production from scrap are highlighted. For cement, the report emphasizes calcium looping carbon capture and storage (CCS) and clinker substitution. It concludes that public policy, specifically the EU ETS Innovation Fund, is essential to bridge the gap between demonstration and commercialisation of these technologies by 2030.

A coalition of twenty-five environmental and justice organizations argues that the IPPNY petition would improperly subsidize fossil fuel-based technologies that are not truly zero-emissions. The commenters contend that the proposed definition of "zero emissions" contradicts the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), threatens disadvantaged communities with continued pollution, and ignores the recommendations of the Power Generation Advisory Panel. They urge the Commission to focus instead on energy storage and the phase-down of fossil fuel generation.

A coalition of 73 organizations argues that California's 2022 Draft Scoping Plan fails to accelerate climate targets or increase the pace of action beyond existing commitments. The group proposes a comprehensive set of revisions, including phasing out oil extraction by 2035 and refining by 2045, banning new gas-fired power generation immediately, and achieving a zero-carbon electric sector by 2035. They also call for a 30% reduction in vehicle miles traveled by 2035, a phase-out of new gas appliance sales by 2030, and the limitation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to only the most essential, hard-to-decarbonize sectors.

This fact sheet identifies 20 potential sources for hydrogen production and categorizes them by the technical process used to extract or create the gas, ranging from steam methane reforming and gasification to electrolysis and photobiological water splitting.

The document provides a legislative side-by-side analysis of the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program. It details the program's goal of providing loan guarantees up to $250 million for advanced biofuels and bio-based products to reduce fossil fuel reliance. The House version proposes extending discretionary funding authorizations through 2029 and adjusting the availability dates for various renewable energy and biofuel infrastructure appropriations from 2031 or 2034 to 2029.

The research identifies 656 industrial facilities and 174 ethanol plants in the contiguous U.S. as primary opportunities for point-source carbon capture. It focuses exclusively on process emissions, excluding indirect emissions from the electrical grid and stationary combustion. The study employs a technology-agnostic cost model to estimate the cost of CO2 avoided, incorporating capture, compression, transport (via trucking or pipeline), and injection costs. Key sectors analyzed include cement, bioethanol, refining, hydrogen, and ammonia production, with a particular emphasis on the proximity of these facilities to sedimentary basins and existing CO2 pipelines to determine eligibility for the federal 45Q tax credit.

Ember updates its estimate for the subsidies needed to deploy carbon capture at Drax, increasing the average cost per BECCS unit to £591 million in 2023 prices. The methodology utilizes a dual-Contract for Difference (CfD) model covering both electricity (CfDe) and carbon (CfDc), incorporating UK Government projected wholesale electricity prices and carbon market values. The analysis assumes a phased deployment of four units between 2030 and 2045, noting that costs remain uncertain due to a lack of commercial-scale power-BECCS projects.

The California Energy Policy Simulator (EPS) indicates that a 55 percent reduction in emissions by 2030 is achievable without new technologies and would generate significant economic and social benefits. The scenario projects a $55.4 billion increase in state GDP, the creation of 235,000 total jobs, and the avoidance of 1,829 premature deaths by 2030. Achieving this target requires accelerating the deployment of electrification, hydrogen, and carbon capture in industry, as well as reaching 90% clean energy for grid-scale generation by 2030.

The United States aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 50 to 52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, but the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is projected to achieve only a 40 percent reduction. To close this gap, the document recommends stronger federal and state standards for electricity, industry, transportation, and buildings. Modeling indicates that achieving the NDC would significantly increase public health and economic benefits compared to the IRA alone, avoiding 6,800 premature deaths and adding $690 billion per year to GDP.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is projected to help reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, with the majority of reductions occurring in the electricity sector. Modeling suggests the IRA could enable the U.S. to reach 73 to 76 percent clean electricity by 2030, potentially reducing sector emissions by 67 to 78 percent below 2005 levels and creating 1.2 to 1.7 million additional jobs. However, because the IRA is incentive-based and lacks binding emission requirements, the document asserts that state policymakers, public utility commissions (PUCs), and governors must take proactive steps to ensure these benefits are achieved.

The report advocates for the creation of a 'Comanche Energy Park' in Pueblo, Colorado, to replace the retiring Comanche coal plant by 2031. This strategy involves a diversified portfolio of wind, solar, and battery storage paired with 'flexible' industrial technologies like thermal batteries and hydrogen electrolyzers. The goal is to provide a reliable, clean electricity supply while stimulating local economic growth and maintaining property tax revenues without placing the full financial burden on Xcel Energy customers.

The document argues that states can lead the energy transition by attracting clean industrial projects and supporting the electrification of industrial process heat. It highlights the economic risks of the federal OBBBA—projecting $170 billion in higher energy bills and a $1.1 trillion GDP shrink by 2035—and proposes specific state-level policy actions, such as clean heat production tax credits, streamlined permitting for industrial parks, and targeted support for clean hydrogen in heavy industry.

The document presents a framework of values for a proposed Fossil Fuel Treaty, emphasizing a just transition, non-proliferation of fossil fuels, and a fair phase-out. It advocates for centering the public good over private interests, redressing global imbalances through the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC), and protecting human rights and Indigenous self-determination. The text identifies risks such as 'false solutions' and 'dilution of ambition' and proposes operational strategies at national, regional, and global levels to ensure accountability and equity.

A coalition of health professionals, including the World Health Organization, advocates for a global Fossil Fuel Treaty to end the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure and phase out existing production. The statement argues that burning fossil fuels causes millions of premature deaths via air pollution and drives a climate crisis that threatens healthcare systems, food security, and mental health. It emphasizes that these health burdens disproportionately affect the Global South, Indigenous peoples, and marginalized communities, and calls for a just transition supported by high-income countries.