Search Climate Insights Directory

The document explains the difference between cap-and-trade systems and offsetting mechanisms, detailing the failures of the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the risks associated with the Paris Agreement's Article 6. It highlights issues such as 'hot air' credits, double counting, and the lack of local safeguards. It also assesses the CORSIA aviation scheme and the voluntary carbon market, arguing that the global community must move beyond offsetting toward direct climate finance to achieve net-zero emissions.

The document explores 'solar for coal swaps,' where third-party investors and developers purchase and retire a utility's coal assets in exchange for contracts to provide new solar power. This model aims to bypass utility inertia and high costs, particularly for municipal and cooperative utilities. The brief highlights that by 2025, 22.5 GW of such plants will be uneconomic compared to local solar. Case studies from New Mexico and Colorado, involving Kit Carson Cooperative, Holy Cross Energy, and Delta Montrose Electric Association, demonstrate how these swaps can reduce consumer rates and promote local economic development despite resistance from wholesale providers like Tri State Generation and Transmission Cooperative.

The document outlines a framework for countries to develop comprehensive net-zero targets, emphasizing the need for deep decarbonization, the use of carbon removals, and the importance of just transitions. It argues that targets should cover all greenhouse gases and sectors, be legally binding where possible, and be supported by transparent communication and stakeholder engagement to drive near- and midterm climate action.

As of July 2020, 19 countries and the European Union have adopted net-zero targets. The document compares these targets across several dimensions: the coverage of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and domestic sectors, the target year for achievement, whether separate emissions reduction targets exist, the use of international GHG mitigation, and the legal status of the targets.

The report outlines a methodology for calculating the biogenic carbon footprint of harvested wood products, moving away from the common assumption of carbon neutrality. It introduces the GWPbio approach, which accounts for the time lag between carbon emissions from harvesting and the subsequent sequestration during forest regrowth. The framework separates the impact into the 'forest carbon gap' (GWPbio, forest) and the benefits of delayed emissions through product storage (GWPbio, product), while also incorporating fossil carbon footprints. The methodology utilizes the Bern carbon cycle model to simulate atmospheric CO2 decay and provides specific growth and decomposition parameters for boreal forest (Norway spruce), Douglas fir, and Loblolly pine.

The statement argues that AXA and Amundi/Crédit Agricole are acting hypocritically by maintaining public commitments to the Paris Agreement and the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance while voting against a climate resolution for Total. It highlights that Total's current plans include increasing hydrocarbon production by 12% between 2018 and 2030 and allocating 80% of its capex to fossil fuels by 2030, which contradicts the 1.5°C warming limit.

Reclaim Finance highlights a contradiction between the public climate pledges of AXA and Amundi/Crédit Agricole and their decision to vote against a shareholder resolution calling for Total to improve its climate actions. The document argues that Total's current strategy—which includes increasing hydrocarbon production and maintaining high fossil fuel capex—is not aligned with a 1.5°C trajectory, making the investors' opposition to the resolution hypocritical given their stated goals of carbon neutrality and Paris Agreement alignment.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) supports the European Commission's goal of at least 55% emissions reductions by 2030 and argues that achieving carbon neutrality by mid-century requires a diverse portfolio of advanced technologies beyond wind and solar. CATF recommends optimizing the EU ETS to fund commercial-scale demonstrations of carbon capture and hydrogen, implementing mandatory leak detection and repair for oil and gas systems, and using the EU's purchasing power to pressure major gas suppliers like Russia and Qatar to reduce methane emissions.

The report analyzes climate accountability frameworks—systems that break long-term greenhouse gas targets into interim milestones—using case studies from jurisdictions like the UK, Aotearoa/New Zealand, British Columbia, and Manitoba. It identifies six common elements and associated best practices, such as legislating targets, ensuring independent expert advice, and using cumulative carbon budgets. For Canada, the authors recommend a national framework with legally binding milestones set only at the national level to avoid regional burden-sharing conflicts, while encouraging subnational governments to implement their own complementary frameworks. The report emphasizes a collaborative approach where the federal government provides policy backstops and financial incentives to ensure a resilient, multi-jurisdictional response to climate change.

The report examines the financial and environmental impact of the UK's carbon tax exemption for biomass power plants, specifically focusing on Drax, Lynemouth, and MGT Teesside. It argues that biomass is not inherently carbon neutral and that the current tax break diverts funds from other low-carbon renewables. The author estimates that the government could forgo up to £6.4 billion in carbon taxes by 2027 based on high-end emission scenarios. The report recommends removing the tax break, tightening sustainability criteria, and requiring full life cycle assessments for Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) projects.

The document establishes a framework for evaluating 'high-quality' carbon credits across six quality objectives: robust GHG impact determination, avoidance of double counting, addressing non-permanence, facilitating the transition to net zero, strong institutional arrangements, and positive environmental and social impacts. It details specific criteria for each, such as additionality, corresponding adjustments under the Paris Agreement, and the avoidance of carbon lock-in, to guide buyers in a complex market.

The text advocates for a 'green' economic recovery following the Covid-19 pandemic, suggesting that investments in renewable energy and sustainable transport create more jobs than the oil and gas sector. It highlights specific examples of sustainable shifts in Amsterdam, Bogota, and the UK, and calls for government investment in public transport and green energy over fossil fuel subsidies.

The document argues that the rapid government action and public support seen during the COVID-19 crisis provide a momentum that should be used to implement long-term green recovery strategies rather than short-term fixes. It emphasizes the need for a clear EU-wide dimension to investments to lower finance costs and suggests that recovery packages must prioritize social equity and local self-sufficiency to reduce vulnerability. The paper highlights the importance of defining 'green' across different sectors and suggests that cooperation on technology transfers and intellectual property, similar to WHO initiatives during the pandemic, should be applied to climate and clean energy action. It also notes the tension between EU reindustrialization and the needs of the Global South, as well as the geopolitical implications for Border Carbon Adjustment proposals.

The report analyzes seven European Green Capital (EGC) winners—Bristol, Ljubljana, Essen, Nijmegen, Oslo, Lisbon, and Lahti—across 12 environmental domains to establish 'threshold activities' necessary for reaching the EGC finals. Comparing these to Tallinn, the study finds that while Tallinn excels in air quality, green space proportion, and the use of green electricity in municipal buildings, it lags in CO2 emissions per capita, waste landfilling rates, and the formal adoption of strategic planning documents. Key findings highlight the importance of carbon neutrality targets by 2050, integrated sustainable mobility strategies, and the implementation of 'polluter pays' principles in waste management.

The document highlights the shared origins of the Covid-19 pandemic and climate risks, both stemming from the degradation of the natural environment. It argues that traditional financial risk models cannot capture future climate risks and that delaying climate action while addressing the pandemic would be a 'double erreur'. The text advocates for green recovery plans, the integration of ESG criteria into central bank portfolios, and the exclusion of fossil fuels—specifically coal and unconventional oil and gas—from monetary and prudential crisis responses.

The 2020 Easter Scorecard methodology assesses major cocoa traders and chocolate manufacturers across six sustainability categories: mandatory due diligence, transparency and traceability, deforestation and climate, agroforestry, living incomes, and child labor. Companies are graded with colored 'eggs' (green, yellow, or red) based on questionnaire responses, with a final score represented by an 'Easter bunny'. The framework emphasizes the necessity of mandatory regulation and traceability as foundations for other reforms, while highlighting the role of agroforestry in carbon sequestration and biodiversity.

The European Union is urged to move beyond a "measure first, act later" approach to methane emissions, instead implementing mandatory Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) and equipment upgrades domestically while using its purchasing power to pressure gas suppliers like Russia and Norway to reduce emissions.

The document argues that fully decarbonizing global industry is essential for limiting global warming to 2°C, noting that 33% of global anthropogenic emissions in 2014 came from industry. It identifies a small number of industries as the primary sources of these emissions and proposes a blueprint involving energy efficiency, carbon capture, electrification, and zero-carbon hydrogen, supported by policies that ensure a just transition and economic development for low- and middle-income countries.

Reclaim Finance argues that Barclays' new fossil fuel policy is inadequate, citing weak exclusion thresholds for coal, flawed metrics for measuring coal exposure, and limited restrictions on oil and gas projects, particularly in the US and Argentina.

Reclaim Finance argues that Barclays' new fossil fuel policies are inadequate, citing the bank's use of revenue-based rather than capacity-based metrics for coal exclusion and its failure to ban hydraulic fracturing outside Europe and the UK.