Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of 73 organizations argues that California's 2022 Draft Scoping Plan fails to accelerate climate targets or increase the pace of action beyond existing commitments. The group proposes a comprehensive set of revisions, including phasing out oil extraction by 2035 and refining by 2045, banning new gas-fired power generation immediately, and achieving a zero-carbon electric sector by 2035. They also call for a 30% reduction in vehicle miles traveled by 2035, a phase-out of new gas appliance sales by 2030, and the limitation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to only the most essential, hard-to-decarbonize sectors.

Energy Innovation uses the California Energy Policy Simulator (EPS) to propose a 'Deeper Decarbonization Scenario' for California. This pathway prioritizes mature technologies—such as electric vehicles, renewable energy, and electric appliances—to achieve emissions reductions of 47 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, compared to the state's current Draft Scoping Plan which relies on uncertain carbon dioxide removal. The proposed scenario includes a 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales standard for cars and light-duty trucks by 2030, 100 percent electrification of new appliances by 2030, and a carbon neutral electricity system by 2035. These actions are estimated to add $28 billion to the state's economy and create nearly 170,000 new jobs by 2030, while preventing over 1,300 deaths and 26,600 asthma attacks annually by 2030.

The report argues that 'nature-based solutions' and carbon offsetting schemes promoted by governments and over 1,500 large companies are 'false climate solutions' that risk causing mass land grabbing and dispossession. It highlights that the land requirements for corporate net-zero promises are immense, citing examples from Nestlé and Shell. The document further asserts that these mechanisms benefit agribusiness, fossil fuel, and tech companies while forcing small-scale farmers into intensive practices, ultimately threatening to co-opt and weaken agroecology, which is presented as the genuine transformative alternative for food production and climate cooling.

The report finds that all forecast capital expenditure in new oil and gas fields is incompatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. It warns that relying on unproven carbon capture and removal technologies to justify continued investment increases the risk of a 'disorderly transition' and systemic financial instability, potentially leading to global economic losses of $23 trillion per year if the world fails to transition.

The Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI), the Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering (DSG), and the Degrees Initiative are organizing a three-part workshop series for policymakers in the Americas. The program focuses on solar radiation modification (SRM), specifically stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening (MCB), to address the knowledge gap between the Global North and South. The series includes two virtual workshops and one in-person simulation to help participants develop national and regional positions for international forums like UNEA and the UNFCCC.

The document outlines the increasing likelihood of exceeding the 1.5°C warming threshold and the resulting interest in 'emergency' options like solar radiation modification (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR). It highlights a critical lack of formal international and national governance for SRM, noting a specific instance in Mexico where a private US company conducted unauthorized aerosol experiments. The text details efforts by IAI, CEPAL, and C2G to raise awareness and build regional governance frameworks in Latin America and the Caribbean to manage these climate interventions.

The Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI), in partnership with The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering (DSG) and The Degrees Initiative, is launching a workshop series for policymakers in the Americas. The program focuses on solar radiation modification (SRM), specifically stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening, to address the knowledge gap between the Global North and South. The workshops aim to equip regional actors with the tools to develop national positions and engage in international forums like the UNEA and UNFCCC CoP, emphasizing climate justice, ethical governance, and the potential regional impacts of climate interventions.

The document outlines over 30 design questions and 110 options for creating a government-led Advance Market Commitment (AMC) for carbon removal. It details trade-offs across key operational areas, including market definition, product eligibility, procurement processes, standards, legal structures, and governance models. The guide aims to help governments, industry, and civil society co-create an AMC that fills industry gaps and supports a diverse portfolio of carbon removal technologies.

The document asserts that corporate net-zero targets are fundamentally dependent on the continued function of natural carbon sinks, which are currently declining. It argues that value-chain decarbonization alone is insufficient because significant nature-related emissions occur in informal sectors and many companies lack science-based targets. To address a projected $4.1 trillion finance gap for nature, the briefing proposes that if 1,700 of the world's highest emitters compensated for 10% of their annual emissions through nature-based solutions, they could mobilize 30 Gt of climate solutions by 2030, representing over 10% of the remaining 1.5°C carbon budget.

The document argues that carbon removal is necessary to meet Paris Agreement temperature targets, as emissions reductions alone are insufficient. It advocates for a portfolio-based approach to carbon removal technologies to manage uncertainty and risks, emphasizing the need for effective governance and safeguards to prevent the displacement of food production or ecosystem loss.

The Land Emissions and Removals Navigator (LEARN) is a free, interactive web tool designed to help U.S. cities, counties, and municipalities analyze the greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of forests and trees at a community scale. Developed by the World Resources Institute, ICLEI, and partners, the tool provides automated spatial analysis to support data-driven planning and monitoring of nature-based solutions. It utilizes national datasets from the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Geological Survey to estimate carbon emissions and removals resulting from land cover change, forest disturbances, and changes to tree canopy on non-forest lands. The tool is intended to complement ICLEI's U.S. Community Protocol’s Appendix J: Forests and Trees to assist local leaders in aligning their actions with state and national mitigation targets.

The paper argues that the United States must invest up to $6 billion per year in federal funding over the next decade to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, targeting a removal benchmark of 2 GtCO2 per year. It distinguishes carbon removal—which includes natural methods like tree restoration and high-tech methods like direct air capture—from emissions reduction measures such as CCS with fossil energy. The author asserts that public funding is necessary to bridge the gap between costs and co-benefits for natural pathways, while technological pathways require sustained R&D and commercialization support.

The paper examines the treatment of uncertainty in UNFCCC long-term climate strategies, identifying common sources of uncertainty and evaluating current handling methods. It advocates for a model-assisted quantitative approach to scenario analysis to better identify policy-relevant pathways and reduce the vulnerability of long-term strategies.

The document examines the resource requirements and social implications of Direct Air Capture (DAC) in the U.S., arguing that while onsite emissions are minimal, responsible scaling requires inclusive decision-making and equity-focused policies to ensure benefits, such as job creation, are distributed fairly.

The paper examines the governance of technological carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as countries increasingly integrate these methods into their long-term low-emission development strategies (LTSs). It identifies three primary risks: mitigation deterrence, where CDR focus reduces urgent emissions reductions; equity concerns regarding the distribution of costs and benefits; and a fragmented MRV ecosystem that lacks standardization. The document argues that international collaboration and standardized processes are necessary to ensure the responsible and equitable scale-up of CDR technologies.

The document argues that carbon dioxide removal is a necessary complement to emissions reductions and outlines a strategy for the U.S. to lead the sector. It recommends focusing on research, development, and demonstration (RD&D), building market demand, and establishing governance frameworks to ensure safety, climate impact, and local economic benefits.

The document assesses the capacity of U.S. forests and farms to remove carbon dioxide, estimating the potential at hundreds of millions of metric tons per year. It highlights that while marginal costs are generally below US$50/tCO2, scaling requires overcoming challenges in measurement, monitoring, land-use competition, and funding. The paper distinguishes between practices that may reduce food and fiber supply and those that do not, such as reforestation on nonagricultural lands and improved forest carbon management.

Federal investment of $55 billion annually in the new climate economy could direct nearly $15 billion per year to rural US counties, supporting approximately 260,000 rural jobs annually for at least five years. This investment is estimated to generate $21.7 billion in annual value added to rural economies, with 45 percent of created jobs benefiting economically disadvantaged rural areas.

The paper assesses technological carbon removal options in the United States, specifically bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), direct air capture with storage (DACS), and frontier technologies. It argues that while these technologies are critical for stabilizing global temperatures and meeting Paris Agreement targets, their deployment requires significant policy investment in research, development, and infrastructure. The author emphasizes that carbon pricing or regulatory mandates will be essential for sustained large-scale deployment, as CO2 utilization markets alone are insufficient.

The analysis concludes that biomass is a limited resource that should play a minor role in energy production, with priority given to carbon removal, chemicals production, and next-generation fuels over crop-based biofuels. It warns that demand for biomass could exceed sustainable supply, potentially leading to land use changes that increase greenhouse gas emissions, and recommends accelerating electrification and energy efficiency to reduce biomass demand.