Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that current G20 commitments put the world on a trajectory for 2.4°C of warming by 2100. While announced but non-formalised pledges could lower this to 2.1°C, only an 'enhanced ambition' scenario—where all G20 members align 2030 targets with 1.5°C pathways and commit to mid-century net zero—could limit warming to 1.7°C. The authors argue that G20 countries, accounting for 75% of global emissions, are uniquely positioned to close three-quarters of the temperature gap, provided they accelerate near-term action and developed nations ramp up financial support to developing countries.

California is projected to fall 125 million metric tons of CO2 short of its 2045 targets, necessitating the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to address hard-to-abate industrial emissions and achieve net-negative emissions. The state possesses vast geologic storage potential, particularly in Central Valley saline aquifers, estimated at 30-417 gigatonnes of CO2. Beyond emissions, these technologies are presented as means to improve air quality by reducing sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, and to support workforce stability during the clean energy transition.

Reclaim Finance argues that the NGFS's June 2021 climate scenarios are unrealistic and risky because they rely too heavily on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and fail to mandate an end to fossil fuel investments. The document warns that these scenarios, which are used by European and British regulators, could lead financial institutions to fund stranded assets and non-sustainable biomass, ultimately pushing global warming beyond 1.5°C. It calls for the NGFS to align with IEA recommendations by requiring an immediate stop to new coal, oil, and gas projects.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the NGFS's June 2021 climate scenarios for failing to provide realistic 1.5°C pathways. The organization argues that the scenarios rely too heavily on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and fail to mandate an end to fossil fuel investments, which could lead to stranded assets and global warming overshoot. Reclaim Finance recommends that the NGFS align its forecasts with an immediate end to new fossil fuel projects and adopt a precautionary approach to biomass and carbon dioxide removal.

The briefing details advancements in extreme event attribution, updated temperature datasets, and refined climate sensitivity models. It highlights the shrinking carbon budget for the 1.5°C target, the risks of climate tipping points, and the critical role of non-CO2 greenhouse gases like methane. Additionally, it discusses the scientific requirements for net-zero targets and the limitations of carbon dioxide removal and geoengineering.

The report argues that the NGFS's second set of 1.5°C scenarios are not aligned with the Paris Agreement and are unsustainable due to an over-reliance on fossil fuels, biomass, and carbon dioxide removal (CDR). It finds that these scenarios fail to account for the need to end fossil fuel expansion and rely on unproven technologies like Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to justify slower phase-outs of oil, gas, and coal.

The guide argues that public understanding of net-zero is currently limited and that governments must adopt evidence-based, tangible, and inclusive communication strategies to mobilize society. It recommends avoiding technical jargon, using positive imagery, and focusing on local realities and immediate actions to build public confidence and support for climate targets.

The statement asserts that while protecting and restoring ecosystems is essential to meeting the 1.5-degree Celsius goal of the Paris Agreement, natural climate solutions must not be used as a substitute for rapid decarbonization. It calls for strict guardrails on offsets and encourages investors to demand transparency regarding corporate transition plans and the specifics of carbon credit sourcing.

The report identifies five key technical solutions for net-zero—energy efficiency, electrification, low-carbon fuels, heavy industry decarbonization, and carbon removal—and five strategic recommendations for Canada, including the creation of industry consortia, Indigenous leadership, a whole-of-government approach, a just transition for workers, and a transparent framework for carbon offsets.

Carbon Market Watch argues against the use of 'net' targets in the EU Climate Law, asserting that carbon removals from forests cannot replace the need for gross emission reductions. The organization advocates for a 65% reduction in emissions by 2030 and the exclusion of carbon removals from the EU carbon market to prevent big emitters from using offsets to avoid cutting pollution.

A coalition of U.S.-based businesses and investors calls on the Biden administration to set a 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of at least 50% below 2005 levels. The signatories argue that such a target is necessary to catalyze a zero-emissions future, drive economic recovery, and restore U.S. global leadership in climate action.

The letter urges EU officials to adopt gross greenhouse gas reduction targets and separate carbon removal targets to ensure that forest restoration does not serve as a 'smoke screen' for climate inaction in the energy, transport, and industrial sectors. It argues that fossil carbon and atmospheric carbon pools are distinct and that forest sinks are too impermanent and uncertain to justify market-based offsets.

The document serves as an introductory resource for policymakers to design domestic carbon crediting mechanisms. It outlines the framework for recognizing emission reductions and carbon removals, identifies policy design options, and discusses the trade-offs associated with different design features to help jurisdictions align these mechanisms with their specific policy objectives.

The report argues that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) should be treated as a public service, similar to sewage treatment, because most CDR technologies do not generate independent revenue. It identifies a massive implementation gap between projected removal volumes and current policies, noting that while nature-based solutions are cheaper, they lack the permanence of technological options like Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) and Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). The authors recommend a mix of public subsidies for research, design, development and demonstration (RDD&D), carbon pricing, and the use of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to create a credible investment environment. It also highlights the role of voluntary private sector commitments, though it warns of a 'wild west' situation in the voluntary carbon market due to inconsistent monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) standards.

The document emphasizes that because CO2 is cumulative, delays in emission cuts lead to higher peak temperatures and greater ecological damage. It warns that overshooting the 1.5°C target and relying on underdeveloped negative emissions technologies (NETs) poses significant risks to marine ecosystems and biodiversity. The author advocates for transparent, comprehensive greenhouse gas mitigation plans and a 'green recovery' from COVID-19, noting that the economic and public health benefits of rapid decarbonization far outweigh the costs.

The World Resources Institute recommends that the US target a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. This target is presented as achievable through an "All-in" strategy combining federal and local action, with the power sector providing over 60% of the necessary reductions. The briefing asserts that this transition would create millions of jobs, with renewable energy investments generating more than twice the jobs of fossil fuel spending. Furthermore, it argues that such a target is essential for the US to regain international credibility and inspire other major emitters ahead of COP26.

Carbon Market Watch recommends strengthening the EU ETS by increasing the Linear Reduction Factor to 5.8% (or 3.1% with a cap reduction), raising the Market Stability Reserve intake rate to 36%, and ending free allowances for aviation and energy-intensive industries. The organization advocates for the inclusion of international maritime transport and waste incineration, while opposing the inclusion of road transport, buildings, and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) credits.

The document examines the role of nature-based solutions (NBS) in corporate net-zero strategies, emphasizing that while NBS can provide critical finance for conservation and significant co-benefits for biodiversity, they must not substitute for direct fossil fuel abatement. It details 'demand-side' risks, such as the potential for offsets to dilute corporate ambition, and 'supply-side' risks, including leakage, permanence, and additionality. The authors advocate for a 'both/and' approach combining aggressive internal decarbonization with high-quality NBS credits, preferably shifting from project-based to jurisdictional-scale crediting to improve integrity.

The policy brief positions carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as a public good and service, similar to wastewater treatment, because most approaches do not generate independent revenues and are avoided by commercial finance. It recommends that governments implement specific absolute volume targets for CDR within Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), provide dedicated subsidies, and eliminate regulatory barriers such as underground storage permitting. To ensure long-term scalability, the brief advocates for a universal carbon price, the integration of CDR into Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, and the development of robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) methodologies to maintain environmental integrity.

The document argues that the financial system's current inertia and short-term bias prevent the redirection of private capital toward net-zero, climate-resilient economies. It emphasizes that limiting warming to 1.5°C is technically feasible but requires a dramatic scale-up of investment in energy, land, urban, and industrial systems. The report advocates for a dual approach of 'market fixing' (carbon pricing and risk disclosure) and 'market shaping' (de-risking and policy support) to overcome investment barriers. In the context of Covid-19, it highlights the risk of 'colourless' recovery packages entrenching fossil fuel dependence and proposes integrating NDCs into investment plans, alleviating debt through climate swaps, utilizing multi-sovereign guarantee funds, and expanding green bond markets to support developing nations.