Search Climate Insights Directory

Federal clean energy incentives have already spurred $75 billion in private investment and created over 100,000 manufacturing jobs since 2022. Under a 'High Potential Scenario', these incentives could bring nearly $235 billion in federal investment to US states by 2030, with the largest gains expected in battery manufacturing and hydrogen production.

The report argues that achieving net-zero emissions requires a broad portfolio of zero-carbon technologies beyond wind and solar, including nuclear fission, fusion, and carbon capture. It introduces an Innovation Technology Framework based on the 'S curve' of innovation, which identifies critical development stages—R&D, early output, and commercialization—leading to 'market take-off.' The framework emphasizes four 'levers of success': lowering costs, speeding project deployment, easing access to financing, and removing ecosystem barriers. The authors advocate for a coordinated industrial policy that provides sustained public financial support until technologies reach the take-off point, typically defined as 1%-2.5% of global energy demand.

The document outlines various carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies, categorising them into natural/biotic and technological/abiotic approaches. It highlights the United States' leadership in the sector, supported by billions of dollars in public investment and tax incentives, while noting a significant gap between current trajectories and midcentury needs.

The document identifies concentrated carbon capture as a "safe bet" for industrial processes with high-concentration CO2 streams, such as cement and ammonia production, while categorizing non-concentrated applications (e.g., natural gas power) as "risky bets." It highlights the technology's potential role in Canada's net-zero pathways, noting that while it could reduce oil and gas emissions by 17 to 50 megatonnes by 2030, its large-scale deployment depends on long-term policy certainty and government financial support, including investment tax credits.

The document distinguishes between 'safe bet' concentrated-stream carbon capture and 'wild card' unconcentrated applications, noting that while the former is commercially viable for certain heavy emitters, the overall sector has a history of underperformance and high costs. In Canada, the technology is projected to contribute between 17 and 50 megatonnes of emissions reductions in the oil and gas sector by 2030, supported by federal investment tax credits of up to 50%. However, the author cautions that deployment depends on policy durability and prudent use of public funds, particularly as demand for oil and gas is expected to decline during the energy transition.

The guide argues that US states are uniquely positioned to scale the carbon dioxide removal (CDR) industry by leveraging their specific geographies and regulatory authority. It outlines a framework for state leadership based on four core pillars: adopting approach-neutral and performance-based definitions of CDR, setting explicit removal targets aligned with carbon budgets, creating clear regulatory and permitting environments, and ensuring community-supported deployment through transparency and equity. The document emphasizes that CDR should complement, not replace, aggressive emissions reductions to avoid moral hazard.

The document outlines critical technological needs for superhot geothermal systems (SHR), specifically those operating at or above 375°C. It identifies well construction and design as the most frequent point of failure and highlights permeability creation as the least mature technology vertical. The response recommends R&D in deep drilling (rotary, hybrid, and direct-energy), high-temperature materials like nickel alloys and ceramics, and the development of end-to-end surface power plant systems to bridge the gap between individual component readiness and commercial viability. It also suggests leveraging the existing U.S. oil and gas workforce and exploring ancillary revenue streams such as direct heat delivery for industrial processes.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) asserts that synthetic sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is a critical component for aviation decarbonization and qualifies for section 45Z credits. CATF analysis suggests that by mid-century, global aviation energy demand could be double the projected biofuel supply, with synthetic SAF potentially meeting up to 56% of aviation demand in some scenarios. The document argues that synthetic SAF fits the section 45Z definitions of both "transportation fuel" and "sustainable aviation fuel" because it is suitable for aircraft, meets carbon intensity requirements, does not involve the prohibited co-processing of applicable materials with non-biomass feedstocks, and adheres to ASTM International standards without being derived from petroleum or palm fatty acid distillates.

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 report documents the negative impacts and risks associated with various geoengineering 'false solutions,' including carbon capture and storage (CCS), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), direct air capture (DAC), solar radiation management (SRM), and marine geoengineering. It provides specific examples of project failures, environmental hazards, and social injustices across Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, and Latin America, asserting that these technologies often perpetuate the fossil fuel economy rather than solving the climate crisis.

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 report argues that offshore carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an ineffective and risky strategy that prolongs fossil fuel dependence. It highlights that proposed 'hubs' in the Gulf of Mexico and North Sea face significant technical challenges, such as pressure management and leakage from legacy wells, while relying heavily on public subsidies. The document concludes that CCS often covers for expanded fossil fuel production and calls for a halt to these projects to protect marine ecosystems and accelerate a just energy transition.

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 report argues that achieving net-zero aviation emissions by 2050 requires a multi-fuel approach because sustainable biofuels alone cannot meet projected energy demands. It examines synthetic fuels (e-fuels) as a scalable drop-in solution, though currently expensive, and analyzes the potential of hydrogen and ammonia for regional and domestic flights. While electrification is limited to niche urban air mobility, the report suggests a 2050 fuel mix comprising 86% bio- and synthetic SAF and 14% zero-carbon fuels (hydrogen and ammonia) as a plausible path to decarbonization, provided there is massive scale-up of low-carbon hydrogen production and supportive policy frameworks.

The report argues that Occidental Petroleum's (Oxy) climate strategy is misaligned with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. It finds that Oxy's net-zero targets are inadequate, focusing primarily on scope 1 and 2 emissions while ignoring the vast majority of its carbon footprint in scope 3. The analysis highlights a heavy overreliance on unproven direct air capture (DAC) technology, which the report claims is used as a 'licence to pollute' and a mechanism to prolong oil and gas extraction through enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The report further asserts that Oxy's 'net-zero oil' claims are scientifically invalid and that its lobbying efforts for government subsidies for carbon removals contradict its public climate commitments.

The report argues that the EU is not on track to meet its 2030 and 2050 climate goals and must shift to an 'option-based' approach that integrates a broad range of low- and zero-carbon technologies. Key recommendations include scaling up carbon capture and storage (CCS), diversifying the energy mix with small modular reactors (SMRs), superhot rock geothermal, and fusion energy, and implementing a rigorous methane import standard. It emphasizes the need for a comprehensive green industrial strategy, a dedicated climate fund to replace the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and international cooperation to set global clean-tech standards.

The document asserts that because fossil fuels are the primary driver of climate change, States' duties to prevent transboundary harm and protect human rights necessitate a rapid phase-out of oil, gas, and coal. It argues that due diligence requires States to conduct environmental impact assessments (EIAs) that include downstream 'Scope 3' emissions, regardless of where they occur. Furthermore, it contends that State actions increasing fossil fuel reliance are presumptively contrary to international law and that the precautionary principle obliges States to prioritize proven emission reductions over speculative technologies like carbon capture and storage.

The briefing examines the role of carbon capture and storage (CCS), noting that the majority of the world's 41 operational projects are linked to the oil and gas industry, specifically for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). It highlights a history of 'unmet expectations' and slow deployment, with capture rates often falling short of targets. While CCS is proposed for hard-to-abate sectors like cement and steel, the document argues it is often less cost-effective than electrification or energy efficiency. It further details how CCS projects in Norway, Canada, and Australia have been used to maintain the financial viability of fossil fuel extraction.

The document argues that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is essential for Europe to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, particularly for hard-to-abate industrial sectors like cement and steel. It details the technical processes of capture and geological storage, asserts that leakage risks are extremely low, and outlines current project developments in the North Sea region and across the EU. The text also addresses the economic viability of CCS, noting that while costs vary by industry, the technology is often the lowest-cost path for specific industrial decarbonisation and carbon dioxide removal (CDR).