Search Climate Insights Directory

The Union of Concerned Scientists interviewed 19 legal experts to identify critical research gaps in climate litigation. The report categorizes these into three priority areas—attribution science, human health, and economic modeling—and five strategic areas, including greenwashing and emissions accounting. A central cross-cutting theme is the need for research on losses and damages. The authors emphasize that while IPCC reports provide a foundation, litigation requires more granular, geographically specific data and better communication between scientists and legal teams to overcome barriers such as differing timelines and data gaps in the Global South.

Sweden adopted a net-zero target in 2017 with a broad scope, limited offsets, and interim targets for 2020, 2030, and 2040. To ensure durability, the country passed the Climate Act, which mandates a climate action plan every four years, annual budget alignment, and oversight by an independent Climate Policy Council. While emissions have generally declined since the 1990s and the 2020 interim target was met, recent political changes—including the removal of a dedicated Ministry for Climate and Environment and a reduction in biofuels requirements—have led to concerns about the deprioritization of near-term action in the December 2023 Climate Action Plan.

The document supports the SEC's climate-related disclosure rule, specifically the requirements for companies to report the use of carbon offsets when they are a material part of achieving climate goals. It argues that because the voluntary carbon market lacks standardization and is often flooded with low-quality credits, investors need project-level transparency to assess a company's actual risk exposure. The brief highlights that reliance on flawed offsets can lead to 'greenwashing' litigation and financial instability as demand shifts toward more expensive, high-integrity credits.

The report provides a 'Bank of Evidence' detailing the failures and risks of geoengineering, categorized into carbon removal and solar radiation management. It highlights specific project failures in carbon capture and storage (CCS) in Australia, the UAE, and Canada, and critiques the ecological risks of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air capture (DAC). The document also examines speculative solar radiation management (SRM) experiments in the US, UK, and Mexico, and various marine geoengineering attempts, asserting that these 'false solutions' often benefit the fossil fuel industry while threatening biodiversity and human rights.

The document provides a comprehensive critique of geoengineering, categorizing it into carbon removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). It details specific failures and risks of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS/CCUS), Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), Direct Air Capture (DAC), and marine geoengineering across various global regions, emphasizing that these 'false solutions' often facilitate continued fossil fuel extraction through Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) and pose significant ecological and social threats.

The report summarizes a survey of 699 CDR researchers, finding that while experts predict multi-gigaton-scale removal by 2050, they identify market costs and policy gaps as primary barriers. Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and forest-based methods are expected to provide the largest shares of removal by 2075, with forest-based removal being the most cost-effective. Despite predicting a need for over 12 Gt of CDR to reach net-zero by 2075, respondents project actual removal levels to be significantly lower, suggesting a gap between necessity and expected implementation.

The document introduces "climate-beneficial bioenergy," a concept developed by the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) to distinguish modern, climate-positive bioenergy from conventional systems that may cause deforestation or disrupt food supplies. To be climate-beneficial, systems must couple biomass with engineered processes to permanently store carbon, potentially achieving net carbon dioxide removal (CDR). The author argues these systems are essential for hard-to-decarbonize sectors and for counterbalancing residual emissions in sectors like agriculture. Key attributes include using waste streams, non-food crops on marginal land, or forest thinnings, and employing technologies such as gasification or pyrolysis with carbon capture and storage (CCS). The document emphasizes the need for lifecycle assessments and policy safeguards to prevent detrimental environmental and social impacts.

The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) requires companies in power, heavy industry, aviation, and shipping to purchase emission allowances via auctions, with revenues distributed to 30 covered countries. While the 2023 reform mandates that revenues be spent on climate-related activities, historical data from 2013-2021 shows €25 billion was not spent on climate action and €12 billion went to projects that were not climate-sensible or could have increased emissions. The system utilizes a mix of auctioning and free allocations to prevent carbon leakage, though free allocations for aviation will end in 2026 and for heavy industry by 2034. Key funding mechanisms supported by these revenues include the Innovation Fund, expected to raise over €57 billion by 2030, and the Modernisation Fund, expected to invest €69.5 billion in 13 lower-income member states between 2021 and 2030.

The document contends that carbon offsetting provides a 'social license' for high-emitting activities to continue and fails to address the root cause of climate change. It highlights systemic quality issues in carbon crediting, such as lack of additionality and non-permanent removals, and argues that the limited supply of high-quality credits cannot meet demand. The authors call for voluntary and regulatory frameworks to exclude offsetting from interim emission reduction targets, citing the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and UN HLEG recommendations as models for maintaining ambition.

The report concludes that no single technology can achieve California's 2045 net-zero goal, requiring a diversified portfolio of electrification, carbon capture and storage (CCS), biofuels, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Key findings highlight a massive required grid expansion of 130–460 GW and the critical role of Direct Air Capture (DAC) to offset hard-to-abate emissions. The analysis suggests that while a 100% carbon-free grid is the current goal, a slightly lower constraint (e.g., 99%) could significantly reduce costs and overbuilding by allowing the use of clean dispatchable power like NGCCS.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) asserts that current draft National energy and climate plans (NECPs) are insufficient for meeting the EU's 2030 targets. The organization calls for Member States to adopt technology-neutral strategies, increase financial transparency, and provide detailed roadmaps for carbon capture, methane mitigation, and nuclear energy before the June 30, 2024, submission deadline.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) proposes 'ecosystem carbon management' to encompass both conventional biological carbon storage and novel technological approaches. Conventional methods, such as sustainable forestry and agricultural practices, provide immediate mitigation potential but face risks of reversal. Novel approaches, including enhanced rock weathering, ocean alkalinity enhancement, and biochar, aim for permanent storage over centuries or millennia. The document argues for a balanced deployment of these tools and the development of policy structures to provide financial incentives and safeguards for these emerging technologies.

The Climate Action Tracker (CAT) argues that current 2030 climate targets and policies are insufficient, projecting end-of-century warming of 2.5°C to 2.7°C. To maintain the 1.5°C goal, the document asserts that governments must enter 'emergency mode,' peaking global emissions before 2025 and halving them by 2030. It outlines four essential elements for 2035 NDCs: ambition based on sectoral benchmarks, scaled-up climate finance for developing nations, credibility through the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies and exploration, and transparency via absolute economy-wide targets that separate land-use sinks and carbon removals from domestic reductions.

The document asserts that nature loss is a "macro-critical" threat to financial stability, with potential global economic costs of $5 trillion over five years. It details how policy, legal, reputational, and physical risks are already impacting corporate balance sheets, citing examples such as Tesla's Gigafactory delays and significant financial losses from mishandled nature interactions. The briefing identifies five priority themes for investors through 2025: framework alignment (e.g., TNFD), leveraging AI for deforestation data, managing ocean-related impacts in the blue economy, pursuing 'nature alpha' for financial returns, and active policy engagement to reverse biodiversity loss.

The document examines the three mechanisms of Article 6 (A6.2, A6.4, and A6.8) of the Paris Agreement, highlighting the tension between rapid operationalisation and the need for high-integrity standards to prevent greenwashing and human rights abuses. It details the specific sticking points for COP29, including transparency in bilateral trading (A6.2), the role of the Supervisory Body in the global market (A6.4), and the potential for non-market approaches (A6.8) to provide alternative climate finance. The briefing also analyzes the influence of these UN rules on the voluntary carbon market (VCM) and the controversies surrounding REDD+ credits and land-use offsets.

The report asserts that limiting global warming to 1.5°C requires a drastic reduction in oil and gas production, potentially between 58% and 99% by 2050. It highlights a significant 'production gap,' noting that current government plans for 2030 exceed 1.5°C-consistent levels by 29% for oil and 82% for gas. The document advocates for a 'just transition' that prioritizes phase-outs in developed and low-dependency economies while providing financial and technical support to the Global South. Key recommendations include ending new field development, reforming fossil fuel subsidies, and transforming national oil companies into clean energy entities.

The document outlines a detailed schedule of EU ETS and CBAM milestones from 2024 to 2034. Key developments include a shrinking emissions cap, the phase-out of free allowances for aviation, the gradual integration of shipping and municipal waste incineration, and the phased implementation of CBAM. It also details the rollout of the ETS for buildings and road transport (ETS2) and the associated Social Climate Fund, alongside various European Commission reviews of the ETS Directive and Market Stability Reserve.

Carbon Market Watch (CMW) argues for increased stringency in the Article 6.4 mechanism, specifically regarding the permanence of carbon removals and the accountability of project participants. CMW proposes a minimum 100-year monitoring period for removals, the removal of options to cease monitoring based on vague evidence, and the implementation of a reversal risk assessment tool grounded in peer-reviewed science. The response also suggests a fee-based system to fund long-term monitoring and the ability to permanently ban participants who violate human rights or repeatedly cause avoidable reversals.

The 2024 Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor finds that while the ambition of 51 major global companies has improved, their 2030 targets—with a median absolute emission reduction of 30% for full value chain emissions—remain insufficient to limit warming to 1.5°C. The report highlights a reliance on 'false solutions' like CCUS and carbon removals over actual emission reductions, and criticizes the leniency of validation practices by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). It argues that the current voluntary accountability system is impaired by corporate influence and must transition to formal accountability.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2024 finds that the median absolute emissions reduction commitment for 51 assessed companies is only 30% by 2030, falling short of the 43%-48% reduction required by the IPCC. The report criticizes the heavy reliance on 'questionable solutions' such as carbon offsets, insetting, and Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to mask a lack of genuine decarbonization. It specifically highlights a 'Scope 3 loophole' in the VCMI framework that could allow companies to use credits for up to 50% of their annual Scope 3 emissions. The document advocates for 'beyond value chain mitigation' (BVCM) and calls for the European Union to ban all compensation claims and for the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) to prohibit the use of carbon credits to meet targets.