Search Climate Insights Directory

The Center for International Environmental Law asserts that COP26 faces a critical 'ambition gap' and warns against 'false solutions' such as net-zero targets and carbon capture that distract from the necessary phase-out of fossil fuels. The statement emphasizes that legitimate outcomes require equitable participation, particularly for low-income countries and Indigenous Peoples, and calls for developed nations to fulfill their $100 billion annual climate finance promise. It specifically critiques the UK's leadership for continuing North Sea oil leasing while promoting global climate action. The document advocates for a rights-based approach to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to prevent land-grabs and double-counting of emissions, and demands the establishment of a dedicated loss and damage finance facility to support the most vulnerable communities.

The document characterizes "net-zero by 2050" pledges as a "dangerous greenwashing gimmick" that allows polluters to maintain a facade of climate action while protecting profits. It argues that net-zero is fundamentally different from "zero emissions" and relies on "unjust offsetting schemes," unproven technologies, and geoengineering. The authors contend that these schemes perpetuate environmental racism and injustice, particularly in BIPOC and low-wealth communities. The document demands that the United States, as a major historical polluter, achieve absolute greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2030, keep fossil fuels in the ground, eliminate industrial wood biomass and factory farming, and provide international finance and technical assistance to developing countries.

The document examines the resurgence of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in Europe as a critical tool for decarbonizing heavy industries and achieving Paris Agreement targets. It analyzes EU-level policies like the TEN-E Regulation and the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), alongside financing tools such as the Innovation Fund and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). The paper highlights a strategic shift toward 'carbon management hubs' to achieve economies of scale and reviews national progress in Norway, the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany, concluding that existing policy levers may be insufficient for the required scale-up.

The fact sheet details how six major corporate players—BP, Microsoft, Drax, IETA, BlackRock, and Shell—employ 'net zero' agendas to maintain business-as-usual operations. It contends that these entities promote 'false solutions' such as carbon offsets, BECCS, and hydrogen to delay emissions cuts at the source. The document further highlights the influence of these corporations on COP26 through sponsorship, lobbying, and participation in industry-led initiatives like the Race to Zero and the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets.

The document critiques the 'net zero' narrative promoted by the UK presidency of COP26, arguing that it ignores historical responsibility and relies on scientifically flawed assumptions about carbon removal. It warns that 'net zero' acts as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering and allows polluters to use carbon offsets to maintain business-as-usual emissions. The author calls for a shift toward 'real zero' targets, absolute emission reductions by the Global North, and the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26.

The briefing note critiques the 'net zero' agenda promoted by the UK presidency at COP26, arguing that the concept allows governments and corporations to maintain fossil fuel pathways through deceptive accounting and unproven technologies. It contends that net zero ignores historical responsibility, is inequitable to the global South, and relies on the physical impossibility of natural sinks absorbing all combusted fossil carbon. The author warns that the confusion between carbon removals and offsets is being exploited to create a carbon market potentially worth US$50-100 billion by 2030, which diverts investment from systemic transformation. Friends of the Earth International demands a focus on 'real zero', absolute emissions reductions by 2030, the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26, and the fulfillment of climate finance obligations by Northern countries.

The document critiques the 'net zero' framework promoted by the UK presidency and the 'Race to Zero' initiative for COP26. It asserts that net zero ignores historical responsibility, relies on physically impossible natural carbon sinks, and serves as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering. The author distinguishes between 'removals' and 'offsets', arguing that the latter maintain the status quo and divert investment from systemic transformation. Friends of the Earth International demands a shift toward 'real zero' (absolute emissions reductions), the exclusion of polluting companies from COP26, and the fulfillment of climate finance obligations by Northern countries to support the Global South.

A coalition of organizations calls on the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee to implement a comprehensive clean energy tax framework. The proposal emphasizes the need for decade-long policy certainty and specific credits for emerging technologies—such as clean hydrogen, carbon capture, and sustainable aviation fuels—alongside the extension of credits for mature resources like wind, solar, and existing nuclear power to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

The document argues that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is not a viable climate solution and urges the Canadian government to reject its funding and integration into national energy strategies.

The document asserts that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a "dangerous distraction" that prolongs fossil fuel reliance and poses severe risks to marginalized communities. It argues that CCS is economically unsound, fails to meaningfully reduce emissions, and is often used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) to increase oil production. The authors call for the removal of government subsidies, such as the U.S. 45Q tax credit, and a shift toward sustainable infrastructure and renewable energy.

The briefing details advancements in extreme event attribution, updated temperature datasets, and refined climate sensitivity models. It highlights the shrinking carbon budget for the 1.5°C target, the risks of climate tipping points, and the critical role of non-CO2 greenhouse gases like methane. Additionally, it discusses the scientific requirements for net-zero targets and the limitations of carbon dioxide removal and geoengineering.

The report argues that deep decarbonization of transportation requires a diverse set of solutions across technology, policy, and behavior, as no single technology can address all subsectors. Key strategies include the deployment of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) for light-duty and short-haul freight, hydrogen and ammonia for heavy-duty and marine transport, and sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) for aircraft. The authors emphasize that efficiency improvements are a critical near-term tool across all modes. A central policy recommendation is the adoption of a performance-based, adaptive framework, specifically a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) transitioning to a Zero-Carbon Fuel Standard (ZCFS) by 2050, to allow various fuels and vehicles to compete while reducing overall carbon intensity. The report also highlights the daunting nature of infrastructure transitions and the uncertainty of consumer behavior and automated vehicle impacts.

Ember's response to the UK government's call for evidence on biomass argues that the assumption of carbon neutrality for biomass power is scientifically unsupported and that such generation is more expensive than alternatives. The organization advocates for tightening sustainability regulations to exclude feedstocks from high-carbon or biodiverse forests and suggests that limited sustainable biomass should be diverted from the power sector toward construction and hard-to-abate industries. Ember also recommends unbundling residual and negative emissions budgets in UK carbon accounting and exploring lower-risk negative emissions routes, such as nature-based solutions and domestic energy crops on degraded land, over large-scale BECCS projects.

The report characterizes "net zero" agendas as a "Great Cheat," asserting that they allow major polluters to continue emissions while relying on unproven technologies and flawed offsetting schemes. It details how these entities use lobbying, financial influence over academia, and corporate capture of international forums like the UNFCCC to displace real emission reductions. The document highlights specific failures in the plans of companies such as Shell, Total SA, and JBS, and calls for a transition to "Real Zero" by 2030 through systemic change and climate justice.

The document analyzes how 'Big Polluters' across various sectors use 'net zero' targets as a form of greenwashing to delay real emission reductions. It identifies critical conceptual flaws in these plans, such as reliance on unproven geoengineering and carbon offsets, and details how these corporations influence political and academic institutions to validate their agendas. Case studies on companies like Shell, Total SA, and JBS illustrate the gap between public commitments and actual business operations, while the report calls for a transition to 'Real Zero' by 2030.

The report claims that "net zero" agendas are a form of greenwashing used by "Big Polluters" to avoid reducing emissions. It identifies these entities as industries responsible for the majority of historical emissions, including fossil fuels, agribusiness, and aviation. The document details how these actors use risky technologies like BECCS and carbon offsets as "dangerous distractions" and employ lobbying, financial contributions, and academic partnerships to shape climate policy in their favor. Case studies on JBS, Shell, and Total SA are used to illustrate how these plans often mask continued pollution and lead to land grabbing in the Global South.

The report contends that "net zero" pledges from "Big Polluters"—including fossil fuel, agribusiness, and tech giants—are deceptive strategies to avoid responsibility for climate change. It identifies "dangerous distractions" such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and carbon offsets, arguing these schemes often lead to human rights abuses and "carbon colonialism." The document details how these corporations influence policy through lobbying, financial contributions to politicians, and the funding of academic research at institutions like Stanford and MIT to validate "net zero" narratives. Case studies of Shell, Total SA, and JBS are used to illustrate how these plans often mask continued production of high-emissions products.

The document outlines a proposed U.S. policy package comprising 45Q tax credit enhancements, the SCALE Act, and appropriations from the Energy Act of 2020. Together with the American Jobs Plan, these measures aim to grow U.S. carbon management capacity 13-fold by the mid-2030s. Key recommendations include introducing a 'Direct Pay' option for tax credits, increasing credit values to $85 per metric ton for industrial applications and $180 for direct air capture, and extending the construction window to 2035. Additionally, the SCALE Act is presented as a means to overcome 'chicken-and-egg' infrastructure barriers through DOE cost sharing, EPA permitting support, and the creation of the CO2 Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (CIFIA) for low-interest loans.

The IEA Net Zero Scenario projects a massive expansion of solar and wind energy, with solar and wind together providing almost 70% of global electricity by 2050. It calls for an immediate end to new oil, gas, and unabated coal investments, forecasting a 90% decline in coal demand and a 275% decline in oil use by 2050. The transition relies heavily on the scaling of currently non-commercially viable technologies, including CCUS, hydrogen, and negative emission technologies (NETs), as well as a 60% increase in bioenergy use.

The report advocates for a U.S. federal Clean Electricity Standard (CES) targeting 80% clean power by 2030. It asserts that such a target is technologically feasible, affordable, and reliable, while providing significant co-benefits. Key arguments include the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs, the avoidance of over $1.7 trillion in health costs through reduced air pollution, and the establishment of a foundation for 100% clean power by 2035. The document highlights that achieving this goal requires rapid infrastructure build-out, specifically approximately 95 GW of wind and solar annually, and emphasizes the need for federal policy to reduce siting and interconnection barriers.