Search Climate Insights Directory

The report identifies a critical gap between current energy policies and the requirements for limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Based on 26 'feasible' IPCC pathways that limit reliance on unproven carbon capture and removal technologies, the authors argue that no new oil and gas fields should be developed and that global production must drop by 30% by 2030. Simultaneously, wind and solar capacity additions must double current forecasts, requiring an annual investment of over USD 830 billion by 2030. The report highlights a USD 450 billion annual investment gap and calls for the redirection of capital away from fossil fuels, noting that current oil and gas industry spending on undeveloped fields is inconsistent with climate goals.

The document details a series of European Commission proposals to meet 'Fit for 55' objectives, including stricter CO2 standards for vehicles, the creation of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), and revisions to the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR). It also describes the Social Climate Fund (SCF) to mitigate social impacts of emissions trading in buildings and transport, and updated LULUCF targets for carbon removals. Finally, it explains the EU's co-decision legislative process involving the Commission, Parliament, and Council.

The European Union is developing a certification mechanism for carbon dioxide removals (CDR) to address the lack of widely accepted standards and reduce risks to the environment and consumer protection. The Clean Air Task Force recommends that the EU adopt a framework based on the IPCC's approach, categorizing methods by removal process and storage timescale rather than the 'natural vs. technological' dichotomy. To ensure integrity, the document proposes that certified removals must be real, measurable, additional, permanent, avoid leakage, and avoid double counting. Additionally, it suggests the creation of EU-level scientific and stakeholder advisory boards to oversee the framework's implementation and its integration into voluntary and compliance markets.

The report argues that while Europe has significant theoretical CO2 storage capacity, actual deployment is hindered by a funding gap, regulatory barriers to cross-border transport, and a lack of coordinated infrastructure. It recommends shifting from project-based funding to system-based approaches, implementing carbon contracts for difference (CCfDs), and establishing a market for low-carbon products. The authors call for a formal EU strategy to set milestone targets and coordinate the development of large-scale, open-access storage sites beyond the North Sea.

The document outlines the synergies between climate mitigation and public health, arguing that immediate action to reduce emissions provides significant health co-benefits across energy, transport, urban planning, and agriculture. It emphasises that climate change is a justice issue, noting that wealthy nations and individuals are the primary polluters while vulnerable populations suffer most. The briefing advocates for systemic transformations, such as shifting to plant-based diets, decarbonising energy systems, and implementing sustainable urban design, to avoid breaching the 1.5°C warming threshold and to improve global health outcomes.

Carbon Market Watch argues that Article 6.2 and 6.4 mechanisms lack a clear definition of "removals," leading to the risk of including "false solutions." The organization proposes four scientific principles for defining real removals: atmospheric GHG removal, permanent storage (at least 200-300 years), comprehensive accounting of process emissions, and a net-positive removal balance. Based on these, the document asserts that nature-based sequestration and point-source CCS do not qualify as permanent removals. It specifically critiques nature-based activities due to the impossibility of guaranteeing monitoring and liability for reversals over centuries, noting that buffer pools are inadequate. Instead, it suggests nature-based activities generate "Paris Agreement Support Units" to channel finance without allowing offset claims.

Carbon Market Watch argues that Parties should prioritize domestic mitigation over carbon credits and recommends strict transparency, science-based definitions for removals, and the establishment of an independent grievance body for Article 6 mechanisms.

The report challenges the "carbon neutral" claim of the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar, finding that the estimated 3.6MtCO2e footprint likely underestimates actual emissions due to flawed accounting of stadium construction. It further argues that the carbon credits provided by the Global Carbon Council lack integrity due to non-additionality and that the event's mitigation measures, such as a desert turf farm, are not durable.

The report critiques the historical failure of technology transfer in clean energy, agriculture, and health, proposing a 'co-development' model to bridge the gap between developed and developing nations.

The document analyzes the resource requirements and potential externalities of direct air capture (DAC) at both a single-plant (1 MtCO2/year) and a system-wide (0.5 GtCO2/year) scale. It finds that while on-site emissions are low, significant impacts arise from energy demand, land use, and the materials supply chain. The authors argue that responsible scaling requires project-specific social and environmental impact assessments, robust community engagement, and the use of legal agreements like Community Benefits Agreements to ensure equitable distribution of benefits, such as job creation.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) argues that carbon dioxide removals (CDR) are essential for the EU to reach climate neutrality by 2050, as current emission reduction policies are insufficient. CATF proposes a certification mechanism based on a 'long-cycle' (geological storage) and 'short-cycle' (terrestrial sinks) categorisation rather than a binary 'natural' vs 'industrial' split. To ensure environmental integrity, CATF recommends seven minimum standards: real, measurable, permanent, additional, avoidance of leakage, avoidance of double counting, and sustainability. The submission emphasizes that credits from short-cycle and long-cycle removals should not be fungible, with long-cycle removals carrying higher value due to their permanence. CATF also suggests a three-step process for integrating innovative CDR methods and a governance structure involving a clear division of responsibilities between public authorities and private certification bodies, supported by a Union-wide registry.

The briefing outlines a strategic framework for G20 nations to integrate forest conservation into climate action. It proposes six key measures: legal commitments to minimize deforestation, a collective goal to plant 1 trillion trees by 2030, food system transformation, safeguarding Indigenous rights, improving non-timber forest product markets, and establishing high-quality nature-based carbon credit policies. The author emphasizes Indonesia's role as a 'carbon superpower' to lead by example through expanded moratoriums, social forestry permits, and robust carbon credit frameworks.

The analysis by CIEL and the Heinrich Boell Foundation argues that the IPCC Working Group III Summary for Policymakers obscures warnings about the dangers of 'overshoot' and reliance on speculative technologies. It asserts that a rapid, equitable fossil fuel phaseout is the only certain path to avoid irreversible harm, whereas current modeled pathways often assume continued fossil fuel use and rely on unproven carbon removal methods due to political pressure from fossil fuel-producing nations.

The briefing contends that the IPCC's mitigation pathways are skewed by economic assumptions in integrated assessment models (IAMs) and political pressures during the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) negotiation process. It argues that avoiding a 1.5°C overshoot is imperative to prevent irreversible harm and that the most feasible, cost-effective path is a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels combined with scaling renewables and reducing energy demand. The document warns that reliance on CCS, BECCS, and DACCS is a dangerous gamble, as these technologies are unproven at scale, costly, and may prolong fossil fuel use while threatening food security and biodiversity.

RMI advocates for a comprehensive transformation of the global economy across ten key fronts to meet the 1.5C climate target. These priorities include increasing political ambition, decarbonizing buildings and transportation, phasing out coal and gas, scaling green hydrogen, and enhancing emissions transparency. The organization emphasizes the need for a three- to six-fold increase in zero-carbon capital investments and the integration of mitigation and adaptation efforts, particularly in the Global South, to ensure an equitable transition.

The document outlines the role of BECCS as a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method, noting its technical potential to remove 0.5-11.3 GtCO2 annually by 2050. However, it warns that large-scale deployment could threaten food security, biodiversity, and Indigenous rights, potentially requiring land areas twice the size of Egypt by 2100 in 1.5°C pathways. The briefing emphasizes that delaying near-term emissions reductions increases reliance on BECCS, thereby escalating land-use pressures.

The briefing highlights that global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, making the Paris Agreement targets of 1.5°C and 2°C increasingly difficult to achieve without significant 'overshoot'. It notes a critical gap in climate finance, where current levels are roughly ten times lower than the estimated USD 6.3 trillion needed annually by 2030. While net-zero commitments and renewable energy deployment have grown substantially, the document warns against an over-reliance on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and emphasizes the need for rapid transformations in energy, agriculture, and urban planning.

The land sector is essential for 1.5°C and 2°C pathways, potentially providing up to 30% of global mitigation. While it offers significant near-term potential at low cost, the IPCC warns that land-based mitigation cannot compensate for delayed emissions reductions in other sectors. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is deemed necessary for net-zero targets, but the IPCC highlights substantial uncertainties, risks, and a massive investment gap, with current annual investment at USD 0.7 billion against a needed USD 400 billion.

The report identifies significant gaps in the monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) infrastructure for carbon dioxide removal (CDR), noting that existing frameworks are primarily designed for emission reductions rather than removals. It highlights inconsistencies in how permanence, system boundaries, and additionality are treated across different voluntary and compliance standards. The authors recommend the development of dedicated methodologies for Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), the adoption of dynamic baselines aligned with Paris Agreement targets, and a standardized approach to defining 'permanent' storage to prevent the overestimation of mitigation results.

The report analyzes urban greenhouse gas emissions, focusing on the transportation and built environment sectors. It evaluates the annual emissions reduction potential of various efficiency-based technologies—such as electric vehicles, LED street lighting, and building retrofits—and explores carbon removal strategies, including artificial technologies and nature-based solutions. The analysis provides a baseline for both global and Swedish emissions to guide municipal policymakers in selecting high-impact decarbonization strategies.