Search Climate Insights Directory

The document presents a series of expert suggestions for UK government climate policy, focusing on the need for deep emission reductions, a shift toward renewable energy, and the removal of fossil fuel subsidies. Key proposals include the creation of a major infrastructure fund for energy saving and storage, the implementation of strict emission limits for new electricity generation (50gCO2/kWh), and the adoption of stringent, annually tightening emission standards for CO2 sources such as cars.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) examines the Institution of Engineers Australia's (EA) financial transparency and climate alignment. While SGR notes the EA's sustainability policies and public support for climate action, it highlights a lack of transparency regarding A$16.3 million in investments managed by Morgan Stanley, making it impossible to verify if the funds include fossil fuel companies. SGR argues that any such indirect investments would contradict the EA's public commitment to decarbonization and the goals of the Paris Agreement.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) examines the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE), noting that while the organization has committed to net zero operations by 2025 and alignment with climate goals, it maintains 'gold corporate partners' including BP, ExxonMobil, and Shell. SGR criticizes IChemE for a lack of transparency regarding its £6.09m investment portfolio and urges the institution to divest from fossil fuel companies to align with the 1.5°C warming limit and avoid financial and reputational risks.

The document defends the findings of an SGR/CIEH report on shale gas, arguing that unconventional gas extraction is more invasive than conventional gas and risks exceeding global carbon budgets. It highlights regulatory resource shortages in the UK, the potential for fracking to trigger seismic events that damage wellbore integrity, and the risk of air and water contamination. The authors argue that shale gas is not a 'key component' of IPCC mitigation strategies and suggest that the UK could reduce its dependence on natural gas through energy conservation, biogas, and a transition to electric heating.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) examines the American Astronomical Society's (AAS) financial ties and sustainability policies. While the AAS has a Sustainability Committee and a LEED-certified building, SGR highlights a lack of transparency regarding $14.5 million in publicly traded securities and the acceptance of sponsorships from arms manufacturers such as Northrop Grumman, L3Harris, and Ball Technologies.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) evaluates the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), noting that while the organization promotes sustainability and climate change mitigation through policy statements and committees, it lacks transparency regarding its $55.4 million in publicly traded securities. SGR expresses concern that the absence of an ethical investment policy may mean ASCE holds funds in the fossil fuel industry, which would contradict its climate goals. Additionally, the report identifies Boeing, an arms manufacturer, as a partner of the ASCE since 2006.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) examines the Geological Society of America's (GSA) financial relationships with fossil fuel companies and its lack of investment transparency. While acknowledging GSA's public support for climate action, SGR highlights contradictions between GSA's position statements and its acceptance of sponsorships from companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron, which do not align with 2°C warming limits. SGR argues that GSA's failure to disclose specific investments and its reliance on fossil fuel funding undermine its role as a scientific thought-leader and calls for divestment to support a transition to renewable energy.

The document provides a detailed analysis of Law 2099 of 2021, which aims to modernize Colombia's energy transition. It examines the expansion of public utility declarations for renewable energy projects, the modification of tax incentives to include hydrogen and geothermal energy, and the consolidation of energy funds into FONENERGÍA. The report highlights significant risks, including the promotion of 'blue hydrogen' from fossil fuels, the potential for environmental degradation due to streamlined licensing, and the risk of displacing populations lacking formal land titles. It also discusses the specific challenges of geothermal development in páramo ecosystems and the government's continued reliance on combustible gas as a transition bridge.

The document outlines a strategy for a just energy transition in Barrancabermeja, Colombia, a city where 70% of the economy is linked to the petroleum industry. It identifies key risks, such as employment loss and environmental preservation, and proposes diversifying the local economy through regenerative agriculture, nature tourism, renewable energy (solar and agrivoltaics), and the production of renewable fuels like green diesel and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).

The document outlines a framework for a just energy transition in Indonesia, advocating for a shift from extractive, centralized energy systems to regenerative, democratic ones. It demands transparency in funding mechanisms like JETP, the protection of human rights and indigenous land sovereignty, and the phased closure of all coal-fired power plants (PLTU) by 2040. The authors call for the rejection of 'false solutions' such as gas, nuclear energy, and carbon capture, while urging the government to implement inclusive green jobs and a bottom-up approach to renewable energy infrastructure.

The document presents a framework for a just energy transition in Indonesia, demanding a shift from extractive, centralistic energy patterns to regenerative, democratic ones. It calls for the gradual closure of all coal-fired power plants by 2040, the rejection of 'false solutions' like fossil gas and nuclear power, and the establishment of a transparent, multi-stakeholder management organ to oversee the process. Central to these demands are the protection of human rights, the inclusion of vulnerable groups in decision-making, and the ensuring of energy affordability and ownership for local communities.

The document argues that the World Bank's Paris Alignment (WB PA) framework is scientifically flawed and provides loopholes for continued investment in high-carbon technologies. It specifically criticizes the classification of fossil gas as a transition fuel and the use of 'expert judgement' over science-based criteria to justify emissions-intensive projects. The coalition calls for an urgent revision to exclude all fossil fuels, prioritize renewable energy, and increase transparency and civil society consultation.

The report argues that MDBs fail to deliver genuine climate finance due to flawed accounting methodologies that allow fossil fuel-related projects, such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) and waste-to-energy incineration, to be counted as climate action. It highlights a systemic bias toward mitigation over adaptation and a preference for loans over grants, which exacerbates debt in the Global South. Specific analysis of the AIIB and ADB reveals transparency gaps, the inclusion of high-emitting projects in climate portfolios, and a failure to integrate gender equality and human rights into climate finance principles.

The document provides the technical and financial basis for LCOE ranges for electricity generation technologies. It specifies that all technologies are assumed to be online in 2015, with costs expressed in real 2010 dollars over a 20-year recovery period. The analysis incorporates overnight capital costs, fixed charge rates, O&M costs, and fuel price assumptions, while accounting for federal tax credits, loan guarantees for nuclear power, and future carbon prices.

This report outlines a national strategy for the United States to transition to a clean energy economy to mitigate global warming. It proposes a combination of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and a cap-and-trade program to achieve significant emissions reductions. The analysis emphasizes the necessity of meeting specific targets by 2020 and 2030 to avoid the most severe climate impacts, while highlighting the potential for these transitions to spur economic growth and job creation.

The Union of Concerned Scientists developed the Climate 2030 Blueprint using a modified version of the National Energy Modeling System (UCS-NEMS) to evaluate a 'Blueprint case' against a 'Reference case'. The Blueprint case centers on a cap-and-trade program starting in 2011, designed to reduce U.S. emissions to 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 56 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. This cap is supported by complementary policies in energy efficiency, electricity generation, and transportation to lower the overall cost of compliance. The analysis incorporates supplemental data on building and industrial efficiency from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy and biomass supply curves from the University of Tennessee and Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

The report argues that the United States can significantly reduce its reliance on fossil fuels by deploying a diverse mix of renewable energy sources, which have the technical potential to meet current electricity needs many times over. It highlights wind, solar, geothermal, bioenergy, and hydropower as key resources, noting that wind and geothermal are already competitive with new coal and natural gas plants in some cases. The document identifies critical barriers to this transition, including the need for a modernized transmission grid, streamlined siting processes, and sustainable biomass harvesting. It proposes a policy package featuring a national renewable electricity standard (RES) ramping up to 40% by 2030, extended tax credits, and increased R&D funding. While discussing carbon capture and storage (CCS) and advanced nuclear power as potential low-carbon supplements, the report notes significant cost uncertainties, infrastructure requirements, and safety risks associated with these technologies.

The Climate 2030 Blueprint proposes a combination of a cap-and-trade program and sector-specific complementary policies to reduce U.S. heat-trapping emissions. The analysis indicates that by 2030, the Blueprint could achieve a 56 percent drop in emissions from 2005 levels while generating net annual savings of $464 billion for consumers and businesses. The electricity sector is identified as the primary driver of these reductions, with significant contributions from energy efficiency and renewable energy. The report also highlights improvements in energy security through reduced oil imports and the potential for carbon sequestration in U.S. forests and farmlands.

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated Royal Dutch Shell across four metrics: renouncing disinformation, planning for a carbon-free world, supporting climate policies, and disclosing climate risks. While Shell was praised for acknowledging climate science and leaving the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), it was criticized for maintaining ties to trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) that spread disinformation. The report also notes that Shell lacks a company-wide emissions reduction plan aligned with specific temperature goals and provides poor disclosure of physical climate risks.

The document outlines modifications to the EIA's AEO 2008 NEMS model to better reflect actual construction costs, updated tax credits, and state renewable electricity standards. It provides detailed capital cost and performance assumptions for various energy technologies, including wind, solar, geothermal, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. The authors argue that EIA costs often underestimate actual project expenses, particularly for nuclear and coal plants. The text also defines a 'Blueprint Case' featuring a national renewable electricity standard ramping up to 40% by 2030 and a federal demonstration program for coal with carbon capture and storage. Finally, it assesses the technical potential of various renewable resources across the U.S.