Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines the IPCC Working Group II report, emphasizing that temperature overshoot beyond 1.5°C leads to permanent ecological and human loss. It critiques the reliance on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation modification (SRM) as ineffective and hazardous alternatives to immediate emissions reductions. Finally, it asserts that climate adaptation and mitigation must be grounded in social justice, equity, and Indigenous knowledge to be effective.

The authors argue that any climate compatibility checkpoint for UK oil and gas licensing must be based on a rapid wind-down of production consistent with 1.5°C pathways. They highlight that while different IPCC scenarios vary in their assumptions regarding carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and methane reductions, all require production to peak by 2020 for oil and 2025 for gas. The authors suggest that as a high-income country with low revenue dependence on fossil fuels, the UK should adopt a precautionary approach and potentially decrease production faster than the global average to ensure an equitable transition. They further refute the claim that reducing UK production would not impact global emissions, citing empirical evidence that supply reductions increase prices and lower global consumption.

The briefing explains that limiting global warming to 1.5°C requires no new oil and gas field development after 2021, as existing production declines at a rate similar to the required drop in consumption. It argues that this conclusion is supported by IPCC scenarios and suggests the IEA's scenario may be conservative due to its reliance on carbon capture and storage (CCS), which faces significant commercialization challenges.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2022 finds that most of the 25 major global companies assessed have net-zero pledges that lack integrity, with aggregate emissions targeted for reduction by only 40% at most. While 15 companies report interim targets for 2030, the average reduction commitment for full value chain emissions is only 23%. Scope 3 emissions average 87% of total emissions, yet only 8 companies provide moderate detail on addressing them. The report notes a heavy reliance on unbundled renewable energy certificates (RECs) and contentious offsetting plans, particularly nature-based solutions, while suggesting that 'climate contributions' without neutrality claims are an emerging alternative.

The report documents a series of virtual workshops held in 2021 by Climate Action Network Canada (CAN-Rac) involving approximately 30 civil society groups. The discussions focused on the technical, moral, and ethical challenges of achieving net-zero, emphasizing the need for social justice, equity, and inclusion. Key areas of focus included the energy transition, the definition of 'net' in net-zero, and the distinction between incremental and systems change to inform future advocacy and policy asks.

The report outlines a consensus among approximately 30 Canadian civil society organizations to prioritize absolute emissions reductions over carbon removals and offsets. Key recommendations include establishing a firm fossil fuel phase-out date, ending subsidies for nuclear and carbon capture technologies, and integrating Indigenous reconciliation and just transition principles into climate policy. The document highlights a tension between incremental government targets and the systemic change required to align with a 1.5°C warming limit.

The document argues that carbon offsetting is often used to justify continued emissions and delay the necessary phase-out of fossil fuels. It distinguishes between 'avoidance offsets', which are deemed incompatible with net zero goals, and 'removal offsets', which face significant challenges regarding permanence, additionality, and scale. The authors contend that the current carbon market reproduces global inequalities and risks negative social outcomes, particularly in land-based projects. They recommend that governments and businesses eliminate avoidance offsets, prioritize direct emission reductions, and fund necessary carbon removals through non-market mechanisms such as public financing or mandates.

The research evaluates the risk of 'mitigation deterrence,' where the pursuit of greenhouse gas removal (GGR) technologies may discourage urgent emissions reductions. Through nine deliberative workshops, the authors analyzed the political and economic mechanisms of this 'attraction of delay' and identified discursive strategies used by GGR advocates to deflect these concerns. The paper concludes that mitigation deterrence is a significant issue that must be recognized in climate policy and suggests governance frameworks to ensure GGR does not replace carbon reduction.

A coalition of environmental organizations warns the European Commission that the Sustainable Carbon Cycles Communication risks undermining climate ambition if it allows carbon removals to be used as offsets for emissions. While supporting the Carbon Removal Certification Mechanism and improved climate accounting by 2028, the authors argue that removals should not be treated as tonne-for-tonne equivalents to emissions reductions. They specifically oppose the inclusion of removal offsets in the EU ETS, ESR, and LULUCF regulations, and call for a strict definition of storage permanence to distinguish real removals from short-term carbon stores.

The report establishes four core principles for verifying 'real' carbon dioxide removals: sourcing carbon from the atmosphere, ensuring permanent storage (at least 200-300 years), conducting comprehensive life cycle assessments of all associated emissions, and ensuring net-negative results. It argues against the 'false equivalency' that one tonne emitted equals one tonne removed, noting that removals may only undo up to 90% of an emission's impact and cannot reverse certain climate damages like sea-level rise. The author emphasizes that CDR should supplement, not replace, deep decarbonization to prevent 'mitigation deterrence,' where the promise of future removals slows current emission cuts.

The report analyzes the IEA's Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE) scenario, highlighting its call for an immediate end to new fossil fuel supply projects and a 75% reduction in methane emissions by 2030. While acknowledging the NZE as a benchmark for 1.5C alignment, the author criticizes its heavy reliance on carbon capture and storage (CCS), carbon dioxide removal (CDR), and biomass, which the report argues could prolong fossil fuel use and cause land-use conflicts. It further notes that the IEA underestimates the cost-competitiveness of renewables and the risks associated with nuclear energy. The document recommends that financial institutions immediately cease support for new fossil fuel and LNG projects and that the IEA adopt a more precautionary approach to unproven technologies.

CATF Executive Director Armond Cohen outlines the organization's efforts at COP26 to prioritize methane emissions reductions and the deployment of next-generation carbon-free technologies. Key achievements include the launch of the Global Methane Pledge and the inclusion of methane and coal 'phase down' language in the final COP26 text. The document emphasizes that meeting net-zero targets requires an expanded suite of technologies beyond renewables, including carbon capture, hydrogen, and advanced nuclear energy.

The analysis of G20 climate policies between 2000 and 2019 reveals that while the number of mitigation policies has increased, significant adoption gaps persist across all sectors. Approximately half of the 50 identified key policy options are not widely adopted, leaving at least one-tenth of G20 emissions completely uncovered by policy.

Carbon Market Watch contends that the EU's 'Fit for 55' package lacks the urgency required for the climate crisis. The authors argue for increasing the 2030 emissions reduction target to 65% and advancing the carbon neutrality goal to 2040. While welcoming the inclusion of shipping in the Emissions Trading System (ETS) and the proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), the document criticises the continued use of free allowances and the lack of exemptions for low-income countries within the CBAM framework.

The statement criticizes the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance (AOA) for its 'The Net in Net Zero' paper, which encourages asset owners to scale investment in offsets and negative emissions technologies. The author contends that this focus shifts attention away from the necessary deep decarbonization and the phase-down of fossil fuel production. The text highlights the failure of previous offsetting schemes, such as the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and argues that current efforts by the AOA and the Task Force on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) will replicate these flaws. It concludes that asset owners should follow the International Energy Agency's (IEA) 'Net Zero by 2050' report by stopping investments in new oil and gas projects.

The document critiques the 'net zero' narrative promoted by the UK presidency of COP26, arguing that it ignores historical responsibility and relies on scientifically flawed assumptions about carbon removal. It warns that 'net zero' acts as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering and allows polluters to use carbon offsets to maintain business-as-usual emissions. The author calls for a shift toward 'real zero' targets, absolute emission reductions by the Global North, and the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26.

The briefing note critiques the 'net zero' agenda promoted by the UK presidency at COP26, arguing that the concept allows governments and corporations to maintain fossil fuel pathways through deceptive accounting and unproven technologies. It contends that net zero ignores historical responsibility, is inequitable to the global South, and relies on the physical impossibility of natural sinks absorbing all combusted fossil carbon. The author warns that the confusion between carbon removals and offsets is being exploited to create a carbon market potentially worth US$50-100 billion by 2030, which diverts investment from systemic transformation. Friends of the Earth International demands a focus on 'real zero', absolute emissions reductions by 2030, the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26, and the fulfillment of climate finance obligations by Northern countries.

The document critiques the 'net zero' framework promoted by the UK presidency and the 'Race to Zero' initiative for COP26. It asserts that net zero ignores historical responsibility, relies on physically impossible natural carbon sinks, and serves as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering. The author distinguishes between 'removals' and 'offsets', arguing that the latter maintain the status quo and divert investment from systemic transformation. Friends of the Earth International demands a shift toward 'real zero' (absolute emissions reductions), the exclusion of polluting companies from COP26, and the fulfillment of climate finance obligations by Northern countries to support the Global South.

Carbon Market Watch criticises a proposal by fifteen Members of the European Parliament to incentivise CCS and CCU within the EU carbon market. The organisation distinguishes between carbon removals, which physically remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and CCS/CCU, which typically only capture emissions from industrial sources. It warns that promoting CCS/CCU could lead to greenwashing, stranded assets, and delayed emissions, particularly in the power sector. The document specifically highlights the risks of BECCS and waste-to-energy CCS, citing deforestation linked to the Drax power plant. It concludes that the EU carbon market must focus on reducing emissions at the source and that public funding should only support mature, transparently assessed carbon removal technologies.

The September 2021 Global Update by the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) finds that global climate action continues to lag behind the requirements for limiting warming to 1.5°C. While some countries have updated their NDCs, the 2030 emissions gap remains significant, estimated at 20 to 23 GtCO2e. The report introduces a new rating system that integrates targets, policies, and climate finance, revealing that only The Gambia is overall 1.5°C Paris Agreement compatible. Most net zero targets are rated as poor or incomplete, and developed countries are failing to provide sufficient international climate finance or implement policies that align with their fair share of global mitigation efforts.