Search Climate Insights Directory

The 2019 Production Gap Report reveals that global fossil fuel production plans are significantly incompatible with the Paris Agreement goals. By 2030, planned production is projected to be 50% higher than consistent with a 2°C pathway and 120% higher than a 1.5°C pathway, with the largest gap occurring in coal. The report identifies that this gap is wider than the global emissions gap because governments continue to support production through subsidies, direct investment, and ambitious national targets. It examines 10 key producer countries and suggests 'supply-side' policies—such as extraction bans, subsidy reform, and just transition plans—to close the gap. The report emphasizes that international cooperation through the UN climate process and financial institutions is essential to manage an equitable decline in fossil fuel extraction.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) emphasizes that the IPCC Special Report on 1.5C confirms the necessity of limiting global warming to 1.5C to avoid irreversible impacts on ecosystems and human communities. CIEL argues that the difference between 1.5C and 2C of warming will be measured in human lives and rights, particularly for marginalized populations. To achieve the 1.5C goal, CIEL highlights the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly half by 2030 and reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 through a complete economic transformation away from fossil fuels. Furthermore, CIEL rejects 'overshoot and return' scenarios that rely on hypothetical carbon dioxide removal, labeling such strategies as dangerous and immoral.

The report examines how Carbon Removal and Solar Geoengineering might interact with the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. It finds that at least 13 of the 17 SDGs would be affected by these technologies, with at least 9 facing significant risks. While these interventions could mitigate some climate-driven threats to development, they introduce novel physical, socio-economic, and political risks, including land-use conflicts, water scarcity, and international political tensions. The authors emphasize substantial knowledge gaps and call for transdisciplinary, geographically diverse research and robust global governance to ensure such technologies do not hinder sustainable development.

The agriculture and land sectors (AFOLU) contribute approximately 24% of total GHG emissions, but also sequester about one third of annual anthropogenic emissions. While technical potentials for mitigation are high—with some estimates suggesting up to 23.8 GtCO2e yr-1 through conservation and restoration—significant uncertainties remain regarding the persistence of carbon sinks and the practical implementation of large-scale removals. Achieving Paris Agreement goals requires a combination of reducing deforestation, sustainable land intensification, and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, though these are often hindered by institutional, economic, and socio-cultural barriers rather than just technical limitations.

The document argues that current NDCs are insufficient to limit warming to 1.5°C and calls for transformative systemic change across all sectors. It provides a framework for governments to conduct national gap analyses, align their short-term plans with long-term global requirements, and implement disruptive innovations and governance reforms. Key recommendations include the urgent withdrawal of financial support for fossil fuels and the integration of climate-resilient planning into mainstream development and Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) strategies.

The authors critique current integrated assessment modelling (IAM), specifically as used in the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15), for being biased toward market-based policies and global cost-optimization while ignoring local priorities and institutional barriers. They propose a 'fit-for-purpose' paradigm where models are selected based on stakeholder-defined questions and indicators, rather than fitting questions to existing models. This bottom-up approach is presented as essential for creating inclusive, voluntary low-carbon transitions, particularly in complex environments like cities and coastal areas. The brief suggests that this shift in process—not necessarily in the models themselves—is required for future IPCC reports and the Paris Agreement's Global Stocktake.

The document outlines the severe risks facing the Arctic as global temperatures rise, noting that a 2°C global increase could lead to a 4-5°C increase in the Arctic. It calls for immediate global decarbonization, the scaling of carbon dioxide removal, and urgent support for Arctic community adaptation and relocation.

The document argues that the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the globe and will experience a temperature increase of 3.75C to nearly 5C even if the Paris Agreement targets are met. This amplification leads to critical global feedbacks, including sea level rise from the Greenland ice sheet and the release of carbon from thawing permafrost. The authors call for an immediate scale-up of decarbonization, the development of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, and the establishment of a strategic, stakeholder-driven adaptation program for Arctic societies. It also emphasizes the need for a coordinated Arctic Observing System with early warning components to track rapid changes and the creation of a unified Arctic coalition to influence global climate policy.

The letter advocates for raising the EU's non-ETS emission reduction target from -30% to beyond -45% by 2030. It proposes that the starting point for the instrument be based on actual 2016-2018 emissions to avoid 850 million tons of CO2, and argues that carbon removals from land use and forestry (LULUCF) should supplement, rather than replace, emission reductions in existing sectors.

Carbon Market Watch and partners argue that the proposed 30% emission reduction target for the 2021-2030 Effort Sharing Decision (ESD) is insufficient to meet Paris Agreement goals. They warn that specific loopholes—including the use of forest carbon removals, EU ETS surplus allowances, and the carry-over of unused permits—could lead to an additional 4.7 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions. The authors call for a minimum 45% reduction in ESD sectors by 2030, a target of -95% by 2050, and the implementation of an automatic mechanism to accelerate emission cuts every five years based on science and technology.

Carbon Market Watch and a coalition of NGOs advocate for a revised 2030 Effort Sharing Decision (ESD) that aligns with the Paris Agreement. They propose seven key reforms: increasing ambition to reach 95% emission reductions by 2050, implementing 5-yearly review and ratchet-up mechanisms, strengthening governance with annual targets, basing 2021 allowances on actual emission levels, banning the use of EU ETS surplus allowances for ESD compliance, treating carbon removals in a separate LULUCF pillar, and prioritizing energy efficiency through synergies with existing EU legislation.

The document outlines two primary categories of geoengineering: carbon geoengineering (CO2 removal) and solar geoengineering (solar radiation management). It details a four-stage research progression from theory to large-scale testing and highlights critical ethical, political, and social risks, including moral hazard and equity for vulnerable populations. The authors argue for the urgent development of a transparent international governance framework to manage these technologies responsibly.

The pilot study, conducted by the University of Siena, surveyed experts in Belgium and France across two waves between December 2023 and December 2024. Findings indicate high expert support for renewable energy, green hydrogen, and energy storage, while support for blue hydrogen, gas, coal, and oil remains low. There is a strong consensus that the economic benefits of clean technology investment outweigh short-term costs. While a majority of experts believe governments should do more to address climate change, the perceived importance of climate change as a top issue for voters decreased over time, particularly in Belgium, as concerns over defense and security increased.

The report details how fossil fuel companies use paid advertising and 'organic' content on platforms like TikTok, Meta, Google, and X/Twitter to control the narrative around carbon capture and storage (CCS). It highlights Chevron's use of a 'low-budget' aesthetic and diverse ambassadors on TikTok to target Gen-Z, and the prevalence of industry-sponsored results at the top of Google searches for 'carbon capture'. The analysis also notes a trend where organic opposition to CCS on social media is sometimes driven by conspiracy theories, such as those involving 'The Great Reset' or vaccines, alongside good-faith scientific criticism.

The document examines BECCS as a tool for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and energy production, detailing the interactions between biomass feedstocks, conversion technologies, and system outputs. It highlights the potential for BECCS to mitigate emissions from forest thinnings and agrifood wastes, while warning against land-use changes that compromise carbon sinks. The authors emphasize that BECCS cannot be categorically labeled as beneficial or detrimental, as lifecycle impacts vary based on the supply chain and technology used.

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 enhances the 45Q tax credit to make carbon capture and storage more accessible for hard-to-abate industries and direct air capture. Key changes include increased credit values, an extended construction window until 2033, the introduction of direct payment options, and lower capture thresholds for qualifying facilities.

The Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act (IIJA) allocates $12.1 billion toward carbon management, representing the largest single investment in the sector since 1997. The funding is distributed across four primary areas: carbon capture, utilization & storage (CCUS) research, development, and demonstration (RD&D); carbon transport and storage infrastructure and permitting; carbon utilization market development; and carbon removal priorities. Key allocations include $3.5 billion for four regional direct air capture (DAC) hubs and $2.5 billion for the CO2 Storage Commercialization Program. The document notes that IIJA provides the necessary RD&D and infrastructure, while the proposed Build Back Better Act (BBBA) was intended to provide the market incentives via 45Q tax credit enhancements.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) seeks $20 million over three years to accelerate the global deployment of carbon management technologies by 2050. The organization focuses on establishing government-funded innovation and commercialization programs in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia. CATF argues that carbon capture is essential for decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like cement, steel, and aviation, and for achieving negative emissions. Current deployment is hindered by cost barriers, technology risks, and a lack of infrastructure and pollution standards. In the U.S., CATF leverages the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, while in Europe, it advocates for a comprehensive EU policy framework to scale up the approximately 70 planned projects. The strategy involves using first-mover nations to drive cost reductions and learning, which will then facilitate technology transfer to emerging markets in Asia and other regions.

The document outlines a policy package comprising 45Q tax credit enhancements, the SCALE Act for infrastructure, and the appropriation of the Energy Act of 2020, which together could increase US carbon management capacity 13-fold by the mid-2030s.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) argues that while the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) are projected to reduce U.S. emissions by just over 40% by 2030 relative to 2005 levels, additional federal policy is required to reach net-zero emissions by midcentury. CATF is advocating for several specific policy interventions, including a zero-carbon fuel standard, revised siting and permitting for clean energy infrastructure, and a federal electricity procurement model requiring 24-7 zero-emission clean electricity. The organization is also focusing on supporting advanced nuclear supply chains, reducing methane from oil, gas, and agriculture, and developing regulatory structures for hydrogen infrastructure. To implement these strategies and expand its policy expertise, CATF seeks $25 million in funding over the next five years.