Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that BP's 2025 strategy shift prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over low-carbon energy. BP has retired its scope 3 net zero production target and increased its 2030 oil and gas production target to 2.3-2.5 mmboe per day, which is 57% above the IEA Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario. Investment in low-carbon energy has been sharply reduced from a planned US$4 billion per year to US$0.8 billion per year for 2025-2027. Additionally, BP is expanding its LNG capacity and gas power plants, while abandoning previous targets for installed renewable power capacities by 2030.

The report identifies that approximately 30% of global upstream coal and oil and gas infrastructure is located in regions where environmental conditions make satellite methane monitoring challenging. It details how factors such as persistent cloud cover in the tropics, low sun angles in high latitudes, and rugged terrain in mountainous regions limit data availability and accuracy. The authors argue for a multi-tiered observing system that combines satellite data with near-ground measurements to ensure comprehensive emissions monitoring across diverse geographies.

The report examines the 'geography factor' in satellite methane monitoring, identifying that approximately 30% of global coal, oil, and gas infrastructure is located in regions where environmental conditions hinder data collection. It details how factors like persistent tropical cloud cover, low winter sunlight in high latitudes, and mountainous terrain create 'difficult' observation zones. The authors argue for a multi-tiered observation system that integrates satellites with aircraft, drones, and ground-based sensors to overcome these geographic limitations and support the Global Methane Pledge's goal of reducing emissions by 30% by 2030.

The report analyzes the impact of environmental conditions on satellite methane detection, finding that approximately 30% of global upstream coal, oil, and gas infrastructure is located in regions where monitoring is difficult. It identifies key challenges such as persistent cloud cover in the tropics, low solar elevation in high latitudes, and rugged terrain in mountainous regions. The authors argue for a 'tiered observation system' that combines satellite data with local measurements (drones, aircraft, ground stations) to overcome these geographic limitations and support the Global Methane Pledge's goal of reducing emissions by 30% by 2030.

The report identifies environmental factors that hinder satellite methane detection, estimating that 30% of upstream coal and 29% of onshore oil and gas production occur in challenging-to-monitor regions. It highlights specific regional difficulties, such as persistent cloud cover in Indonesia and low winter sunlight in Russia and Canada, and advocates for a multi-tiered observing system combining satellites with near-ground measurements.

A coalition of organizations calls on Democratic leadership to reject efforts by the Trump administration and the fossil fuel industry to secure blanket waivers of liability for climate-related damages and deception.

Reclaim Finance criticizes ING for a 'double standard' in its climate policy: while the bank is the first major international bank to announce an end to direct project financing for new LNG export terminals starting in 2026, it continues to provide corporate financing to major LNG developers. Between 2021 and 2023, ING provided over US$5 billion to LNG expansion, making it the second-largest European financier in this sector. The document highlights ING's significant financial ties to Venture Global, including US$3 billion allocated between 2021 and 2023 and participation in its January 2025 initial public offering, as well as its role in issuing bonds for Cheniere Energy in early 2024.

The report argues that the fossil fuel industry has an inherent conflict of interest in educating children about climate change and proposes a comprehensive framework to decouple public education from industry influence. It recommends that federal, provincial, and local authorities establish climate education as a public good, prohibit industry advertising and sponsorship in schools, and implement strict transparency and vetting requirements for third-party education providers. Key proposals include the creation of a federally funded climate change education program under the Department of Environment and Climate Change Canada, the integration of climate justice across all grade levels, and the adoption of school board climate action plans that include transitioning to electric buses and plant-based diets.

The report documents how at least 39 oil and gas companies and 12 industry-tied organizations influence Canadian K–12 education through branded materials, government partnerships, and funding of third-party nonprofits. It argues that this 'petro-pedagogy' obscures the industry's role in climate change, promotes individual action over systemic change, and creates a conflict of interest in classrooms. The authors call for immediate policy action at federal, provincial, and local levels to implement comprehensive, science-based climate education free from corporate interference.

The report documents how at least 39 oil and gas companies and 12 industry-tied organizations influence Canadian school curricula through direct sponsorship, government partnerships, and funding of third-party nonprofits. It identifies 'petro-pedagogy' strategies—such as 'bias-balancing,' greenwashing, and a focus on individual rather than systemic action—designed to obscure the industry's role in driving climate change and delay the energy transition. The authors recommend that federal and provincial governments prohibit fossil fuel sponsorship in schools, mandate comprehensive climate justice education, and provide public funding for teacher training and resources to ensure education is free from corporate conflicts of interest.

The report explains that while provinces have broad authority over natural resources, the Canadian federal government can regulate oil and gas development through various 'heads of power' in the Constitution. It details the legal doctrines used by courts to resolve jurisdictional overlaps, such as 'double aspect' and 'incidental effects,' and analyzes twelve specific federal powers—including criminal law, fisheries, and interprovincial works—that allow the federal government to influence the oil and gas life cycle from production to closure.

The document identifies a strategic shift from outright climate denial to 'strategic doubt,' where influential economic and political actors—including fossil fuel companies and right-wing populist movements—deliberately spread misleading information to obstruct climate action. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of these campaigns, which are disseminated through traditional media, social media, and non-public corporate channels. The report notes a significant research gap in the Global South and proposes four policy interventions: mandatory standardized carbon reporting, litigation against greenwashing, the creation of cross-sectoral voluntary alliances, and the enhancement of scientific and media literacy for the public and officials.

The document analyzes how Colombia and Nigeria use narratives of development, energy security, and energy transition to maintain dependence on fossil fuels. It argues that these narratives are often inaccurate or outdated, contributing to 'carbon lock-in'. The briefing suggests that civil society and researchers can counter these claims by demanding transparency, highlighting the benefits of renewables, and promoting science-based alternatives for a just transition.

The statement contends that integrated oil and gas majors are not transitioning to sustainable energy and should be excluded from financial support. Citing the Global Oil and Gas Exit List (GOGEL), it highlights that 95% of oil and gas companies worldwide have plans for new projects, with major European firms like BP, Shell, and TotalEnergies increasing production or expanding short-term plans. The author argues that these companies are diverting capital away from clean energy, with the three European majors projected to allocate less than a third of future investments to low-carbon activities, contradicting IEA 1.5°C scenarios.

The report identifies a crisis of information integrity about climate science, characterized by a shift from outright denial to more nuanced skepticism and 'response skepticism' regarding climate solutions. It documents how powerful economic interests, particularly the fossil fuel industry, and political actors use strategies like greenwashing, delay, and obstruction to undermine scientific consensus. The review highlights the role of social media algorithms, bots, and 'source media' (such as corporate reports) in amplifying misleading narratives. It concludes that while individual-level interventions like inoculation and education are valuable, systemic governance through public regulation, standardized corporate reporting, and litigation is essential to restore information integrity.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denial to 'strategic skepticism,' where powerful economic and political actors intentionally spread misleading narratives to obstruct climate action. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this disinformation, which is disseminated through corporate sustainability reports, lobby groups, and social media. The document argues that this environment erodes public trust in science and creates a feedback loop of political inaction. To counter this, the report recommends standardized carbon emission reporting, legal recourse against greenwashing, the creation of multi-stakeholder coalitions, and enhanced science and media literacy education.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denial to 'strategic skepticism,' where powerful economic and political actors—including fossil fuel companies and right-wing populist movements—undermine climate action by questioning the viability and cost of solutions. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this disinformation, which is disseminated through social media, traditional media, and corporate sustainability reports. This erosion of information integrity leads to a loss of public trust in climate science and a feedback loop of political inaction. The document recommends four key interventions: legislation for standardized carbon reporting and content labeling, judicial action against greenwashing, the formation of cross-sector coalitions, and enhanced scientific and media education for the public and policymakers.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denial to 'strategic doubt,' where powerful economic and political actors—including fossil fuel companies and right-wing populist movements—deliberately spread misleading narratives to obstruct climate action. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this misinformation, which is disseminated through social media, traditional media, and corporate sustainability reports. This environment erodes public trust and creates a feedback loop of scientific denial and political inaction. The document recommends four key policy interventions: legislation for standardized carbon reporting and content labeling, litigation against greenwashing, the formation of counter-alliances by civil society, and the promotion of scientific and media literacy.

The International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) urges the Australian government to implement mandatory standardized climate disclosure to stop greenwashing, create transparent tracking systems for climate communication funding to expose hidden influence networks, and integrate climate information literacy and 'inoculation' strategies into education curricula to build public resilience.

The report outlines a framework for banks to implement robust climate transition plans and sectoral policies to eliminate support for coal, oil, gas, and unabated power generation. It advocates for a shift in financial flows toward sustainable power supply, recommending a 6:1 financing ratio in favor of sustainable energy over fossil fuels by 2030. The document specifies strict exclusion criteria for 'coal developers' and 'gas power developers,' demands transparent reporting on 'real-world economy' GHG emissions, and calls for a responsible climate lobbying policy aligned with 1.5°C pathways.