Search Climate Insights Directory

Malaysia faces significant fiscal and energy security risks due to its heavy reliance on oil and gas exports, particularly LNG shipments to Japan, South Korea, and China. The document highlights a growing crude oil trade deficit and the threat of stranded assets as global demand shifts. To mitigate these risks, the report recommends diversifying into green manufacturing, hydrogen, and carbon capture services, while establishing a Sustainable Energy Transition Fund and a Just Transition Commission to support displaced workers in resource-dependent regions like Sabah and Sarawak.

The briefing outlines how regional financing ecosystems—comprising regional banks, community lenders, economic development organizations, and governments—can unlock capital for clean energy by structuring local projects into investable portfolios. It highlights that a one-size-fits-all approach is ineffective, citing specific high-feasibility opportunities in Minnesota (green steel and transmission) and New Orleans (green buildings and hydrogen). By coordinating diverse financial actors and using public or philanthropic funds to absorb first-loss risk, these ecosystems can address persistent barriers such as lack of predevelopment capital and underwriting friction to ensure inclusive economic benefits from the energy transition.

The briefing outlines principles for quantifying and valuing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when conducting societal benefit-cost analyses for non-pipeline alternative (NPA) utility projects. It argues that these analyses must account for all upstream and downstream emissions changes and utilize the social cost of GHGs rather than environmental policy compliance costs to determine monetary value, thereby ensuring an accurate comparison between divergent project types.

The document analyzes how federal clean energy incentives have driven over $321 billion in investments across the U.S. between Q2 2022 and Q1 2025, highlighting that these investments are heavily concentrated in Southern and Western states and Republican-held congressional districts. It argues that rolling back these incentives would disproportionately harm these regions and jeopardize significant outstanding investments in states like Louisiana and North Dakota, as well as major projects in emerging hubs like Southern Arizona and the Southeast.

The document outlines a comprehensive framework for tracking global climate finance, focusing on real-economy investments in mitigation, adaptation, and dual-benefit activities. It defines a multi-layered taxonomy covering finance origins (domestic, international, indeterminate), actors (public, private, third-sector), and financial instruments. The methodology emphasizes a conservative approach to avoid double counting and carbon lock-in, utilizing a mix of primary project-level data and secondary market-sizing benchmarks from sources like the IEA and BNEF. Key 2025 updates include the integration of Luxembourg Green Exchange bond data, a new project-level hydrogen investment dataset, and the first-time inclusion of 2- and 3-wheeler electric vehicle sales in China and India.

The document outlines five strategic priorities for Germany to integrate climate policy into its foreign and security strategy: deepening partnerships with the Global South, strengthening multilateralism, securing sustainable supply chains for raw materials and hydrogen, promoting green technology exports, and addressing climate-driven security risks.

Trend Asia criticizes the new PP KEN for extending the use of fossil fuels until 2060, lowering renewable energy targets for 2030, and promoting high-risk or non-renewable 'new energy' sources like nuclear, hydrogen, and ammonia. The report highlights the environmental and social risks of bioenergy, specifically co-firing and Energy Plantation Forests (HTE), which it links to deforestation and land grabbing. It further argues that the policy lacks transparency, excludes community-scale renewable energy, and prioritizes industrial interests over human rights and ecological sustainability.

The document assesses the World Bank, Asian Development Bank (ADB), and African Development Bank (AfDB) against criteria for renewable energy transition, democratic energy systems, and environmental and social safeguards. It finds that these institutions often prioritize loans over grants, maintain gender-blind financing, and continue to invest in 'false solutions' such as large hydropower and hydrogen, despite their stated climate commitments.

The document outlines a comprehensive methodology for creating and assessing corporate transition plans in Vietnam's high-emission industries. It introduces a 'Five Hallmarks' framework for credible plans, provides sector-specific decarbonization criteria for steel, cement, and basic chemicals, and details the use of sustainability-linked financial instruments. It also presents a five-level classification system for financial institutions to evaluate the maturity and ambition of corporate transitions.

ClientEarth's response to the CISAF consultation emphasizes the need for horizontal integration of the 'Do No Significant Harm' (DNSH) principle and the removal of aid for fossil gas in industrial decarbonisation. The organization warns that proposed 36-month project completion deadlines may compromise environmental permitting and public participation. It further advocates for stricter conditions on carbon capture and hydrogen aid, suggesting that support be limited to 100% renewable hydrogen and hard-to-abate sectors.

The report analyzes the emergence of 'hydrogen readiness'—the declared ability of infrastructure to use hydrogen in the future—within EU law, private finance, and national policies. It argues that the concept is often used as a 'Trojan horse' to justify the continued construction and subsidization of fossil gas assets. The author identifies significant risks, including carbon lock-in, price volatility, and external energy dependencies, and concludes that the term should be abandoned unless assets can use 100% hydrogen from the outset.

The report finds that Shell's investment strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over renewable energy, with 2030 production targets and LNG capacities significantly overshooting IEA Net Zero Emissions (NZE) levels. Shell's diversification into sustainable energy remains marginal, and the company has recently reduced its decarbonization targets for product carbon intensity.

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 fragmented policies and challenged economics as primary barriers to the US hydrogen industry's scale-up, risking a loss of global leadership. It suggests that federal and state policymakers should maintain incentives, promote exports, and increase demand-side supports across sectors such as steel, aviation, and maritime shipping to secure supply chains and expand the industrial base.

The report examines 26 state-level Priority Climate Action Plans (PCAPs) submitted under the Climate Pollution Reduction Grants (CPRG) program, finding that most plans rely on generalities and high-cost incentives rather than sector-specific strategies. It argues that states must transition from high-level commitments to tailored, long-term roadmaps that prioritize cost-effective tools, such as operating-cost supports and regulatory standards, while leveraging co-benefits like public health improvements and workforce development to maintain American industrial competitiveness against international peers like China and the EU.

Reclaim Finance asserts that new gas power plants are incompatible with climate goals due to methane emissions and declining demand. It argues that future conversions to hydrogen or CCUS are unrealistic and that existing fossil plant capacity is sufficient for seasonal flexibility. The document criticizes the top 60 global banks for lacking specific electricity sector policies and calls for a 6:1 financing ratio in favor of sustainable power by 2030.

The document argues that financing new gas-fired power plants is incompatible with climate goals because gas is not a viable transition fuel, demand is peaking, and future conversions to hydrogen or CCUS are unrealistic. It calls on global banks to adopt specific power sector policies that exclude new gas financing and establish a 6:1 energy supply financing ratio in favor of sustainable alternatives by 2030.

The study evaluates the Klimaschutzverträge (KSV) scheme in Germany, finding risks that 'low-carbon' hydrogen may receive indirect subsidies and that removing emissions reduction criteria from bid evaluations could disadvantage green hydrogen. It recommends implementing a holistic sustainability standard for all hydrogen imports and explicitly accounting for transport emissions to ensure resource efficiency.

The study evaluates Germany's Carbon Contracts for Difference (KSV) and finds that while the program aims to support industrial decarbonization, it may indirectly subsidize 'low-carbon' (fossil) hydrogen. The authors warn against proposed changes to funding guidelines that would remove emission reduction criteria, which would diminish the competitive advantage of green hydrogen. The report also highlights gaps in accounting for transport emissions and the need for a holistic sustainability standard for imported hydrogen to ensure environmental and social safeguards in exporting nations.

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.