Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that large-scale deployment of CCS is essential for Europe to reach climate neutrality by 2050, yet current draft NECPs show significant gaps in targets and planning. It provides a framework for Member States to assess storage capacity, map projects, engage stakeholders, and establish financing and regional cooperation for CO2 transport and storage networks.

The document details the financial scale of U.S. fossil fuel subsidies, noting a shift from net revenue to net loss for the government between FY 2016 and FY 2022. It analyzes the Biden-Harris Administration's FY 2024 budget proposal to eliminate 13 tax preferences to save $96.9 billion, while also highlighting how the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) continue to provide funding for methane reduction and carbon capture technologies.

In 2022, U.S. fossil fuel subsidies totaled $757 billion, including $754 billion in implicit costs. While the Biden-Harris FY 2024 budget proposes eliminating 13 tax preferences to save $96.9 billion, other legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act continues to provide subsidies, including $1.55 billion for methane reductions and credits for carbon sequestration.

The document examines the ecological and human rights risks of various geoengineering approaches, asserting that these speculative technologies could lead to ecosystem collapse and perpetuate neocolonialism.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) allocated $12.1 billion to advance carbon management technologies in the United States. Two years into implementation, the Department of Energy (DOE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have launched several key programs. The Carbon Capture Demonstration Projects Program has selected nine FEED study projects and three demonstration projects, including the Baytown, Project Tundra, and Sutter projects. The Carbon Storage Validation and Testing Program has awarded funding to projects across multiple states, including Texas, Louisiana, and Wyoming, to develop large-scale sequestration and transport infrastructure. Additionally, the EPA has allotted $48 million to 25 state and Tribal recipients to support the regulation of UIC Class VI wells. In the realm of carbon removal, the Regional Direct Air Capture (DAC) Hubs Program has selected two commercial-scale hubs in Texas and Louisiana for award negotiations. The document notes that while progress is underway, agencies have until 2026 to allocate remaining funds, and future success depends on shared transport networks and community engagement.

The document argues that climate change is a human rights crisis driven by a small number of 'Carbon Majors' in the fossil fuel and agroindustrial sectors. It asserts that States have a duty under the American Convention on Human Rights to regulate these entities, halt fossil fuel expansion, and ensure reparations for affected communities. It further argues that business enterprises have an independent obligation to respect human rights, which includes conducting due diligence across their entire value chain and ceasing deceptive 'climate-washing' practices.

The document examines the risks and inefficiencies of direct air capture (DAC), focusing on Oxy's Stratos project in Texas. It argues that DAC is used as a 'smokescreen' to prolong fossil fuel extraction through enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and to capture public subsidies. The briefing highlights that DAC's projected global capacity is insignificant compared to total emissions and that its resource requirements—including water and toxic chemicals—pose environmental risks. It further critiques the influence of oil executives on COP28 leadership and the use of flawed carbon credits to justify continued pollution.

The report argues that current carbon dioxide removal (CDR) governance systems are flawed because they often treat carbon removal as equivalent to emission reductions, leading to 'mitigation deterrence'. It examines regulatory tools like emissions trading systems (ETS), tax credits, and public auctions, as well as voluntary carbon markets (VCMs). The authors conclude that CDR must be a complementary tool, not a substitute for decarbonization. They propose a policy framework based on three principles: precaution, 'do no significant harm' (DNSH), and the primacy of emission reductions. Key recommendations include separating emission reduction targets from CDR and land-based sequestration targets, implementing rigorous measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems, and shifting from offsetting models to 'contributive approaches' or public procurement like reverse auctions.

The document argues that current carbon dioxide removal (CDR) policies often encourage 'mitigation deterrence' by treating removals as equivalent to emission reductions. It reviews various mechanisms—including emissions trading systems, tax credits, and voluntary markets—and concludes that most fail to ensure environmental integrity or permanence. The authors propose a 'blueprint' for sensible policy that strictly separates emission reduction targets from removal targets, mandates robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), and prioritizes the 'Do No Significant Harm' principle. It suggests that funding for CDR should come from carbon pricing revenues or dedicated procurement schemes rather than offsetting mechanisms.

The document details the technical methodology used by the Union of Concerned Scientists to model US energy system transitions. It outlines targets for reducing energy and industrial CO2 emissions by 47.5% by 2030 and 100% by 2050, alongside specific targets for non-CO2 gases. The analysis employs seven scenarios, including reference cases and various net-zero pathways, incorporating the impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Key assumptions include the total retirement of coal generation by 2030 in net-zero scenarios and 100% zero emissions vehicle sales by 2035.

The Canadian Climate Institute and Clean Energy Canada propose adjustments to the Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) to ensure they are achievable and cost-effective. Key recommendations include raising the performance standard to 60 tonnes of CO2 per GWh, increasing the capacity factor for peaker plants to 15%, and introducing interim standards for facilities commissioned after 2025. To complement the CER, the authors argue for reforming the Output-based Pricing System (OBPS) to apply full carbon pricing to the electricity sector, federally procuring negative emissions via DAC-CCS and BECCS to offset residual emissions, and increasing support for demand-side management and distributed energy resources.

The briefing examines carbon mineralization as a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategy, highlighting its potential to remove up to 10 gigatons of CO2 annually by 2050. It argues that while some federal funding exists, mineralization lacks the dedicated support given to direct air capture. The author calls for expanded R&D funding, demonstration projects, and updated tax credits (specifically 45Q) to scale the technology. Additionally, the document emphasizes the need for robust measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) standards and regulations to manage hazardous materials in feedstocks to ensure responsible deployment.

The policy brief outlines how Saudi Arabia and the UAE can leverage their geological storage potential and National Oil Companies to scale up carbon capture and storage (CCS). It identifies current project statuses, storage capacities, and recommends the creation of carbon management strategies, open-access storage hubs, and enduring financial incentives to decarbonize hard-to-abate industries and the power sector.

The Center for International Environmental Law asserts that geoengineering technologies, including solar radiation modification and carbon dioxide removal, are unproven, unfeasible at scale, and violate human rights obligations. The organization warns that these technologies are being used as excuses to avoid phasing out fossil fuels and notes that unregulated experiments often occur on Indigenous Peoples' territories without consent. It advocates for a rapid, fair fossil fuel phase-out and the adoption of a global binding instrument via the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative to limit global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The report identifies a 'planning gap' in Europe's trajectory toward 2050 climate neutrality and proposes that the updated National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) be transformed into comprehensive roadmaps. It recommends that Member States move beyond a narrow focus on renewables to include a diverse portfolio of clean firm energy (advanced nuclear, superhot rock geothermal), carbon capture and storage (CCS), and zero-carbon fuels. The authors emphasize the need for robust energy system modelling, cross-border infrastructure coordination, and the implementation of financial mechanisms like Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfD) to attract investment. Additionally, the report calls for a focused strategy to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas supply chain and the creation of a net-zero implementation tracker to ensure accountability.

The report concludes that all analyzed policy frameworks are inadequate for the robust deployment of carbon dioxide removals (CDR). Most frameworks fail to establish a clear firewall between emissions reductions and removals, often treating them as interchangeable through offsetting mechanisms. Key deficiencies include the absence of legally binding, separate CDR targets, the lack of a robust definition of CDR that ensures long-term permanence, and insufficient monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems. The authors recommend that CDR be strictly defined as a secondary climate function to balance residual emissions, supported by dedicated legal targets and rigorous accounting to prevent 'mitigation deterrence'.

Octavia Carbon is a Kenya-based startup developing Direct Air Carbon Capture (DACC) technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere for permanent storage or industrial use. The company aims to disrupt the high cost of DACC by utilizing Kenya's natural endowments, specifically the high-porosity basaltic rock of the Rift Valley for storage and waste heat from geothermal power for energy. By the end of 2024, Octavia Carbon intends to produce at least one machine per day, reaching a capacity of approximately 40,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. The company projects a cost per tonne of CO2 between $300 and $500, significantly lower than current global ranges of $775 to $1,200, positioning it as a potential global cost leader by mid-decade.

The report assesses Europe's geological CO2 storage potential, estimating theoretical capacity between 262 and 1520 GtCO2. It compares 'Domestic' (widespread) and 'Export' (limited basins) storage scenarios against 'Prioritised' and 'Technical Potential' demand scenarios. While Europe has sufficient long-term theoretical capacity, current announced projects are insufficient for 2035 demand. The study highlights that widespread domestic storage significantly reduces transport CAPEX compared to export-heavy models, though some countries like Finland and Estonia lack suitable sedimentary basins.

The report assesses Europe's theoretical CO2 storage capacity, estimating it between 262 and 1520 GtCO2, and matches this against industrial and non-industrial CCS demand scenarios for 2035 and 2050. It compares 'Export' scenarios (limited key basins) with 'Domestic' scenarios (widespread storage), finding that while Europe has sufficient long-term theoretical capacity, current announced projects are insufficient for 2035 demand. The analysis highlights that widespread domestic storage could halve transport CAPEX costs compared to export-heavy models, though certain regions like Northern Italy, the German North Sea, and Switzerland may face capacity constraints under high-demand scenarios.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) presents a critical overview of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), asserting that the technology overpromises on emission reductions while introducing significant safety risks and high costs. The document highlights the 'energy penalty'—the extra energy required to power capture equipment—and notes that most existing projects are used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which can increase overall emissions. It warns that a large-scale CCS buildout in the United States would require an unrealistic and dangerous expansion of pipeline infrastructure. Furthermore, the text argues that CCS is unnecessary for 'hard to abate' industrial sectors, where electrification and demand reduction are more viable, and critiques 'blue hydrogen' as a means to prolong fossil fuel dependence. The document concludes that global capture capacity is negligible compared to total emissions and that public subsidies, such as the US 45Q tax credit, inappropriately support the fossil fuel economy.