Search Climate Insights Directory

The report evaluates zero-emission alternatives to natural gas-driven pneumatic controllers, which are known to release methane. It focuses on electric controllers and solar-powered instrument air systems, finding that both are cost-effective compared to the social cost of methane. The analysis highlights that electric controllers generally offer the lowest abatement costs and that recent technological advancements, such as vertical solar panel stacking and new failsafe systems for Emergency Shut Down (ESD), have expanded the viability of these technologies.

The report examines the intersection of climate change and agriculture in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. It highlights that while the Prairies are warming faster than most of Canada, leading to increased risks of drought, flooding, and pests, the agricultural sector also contributes significantly to national emissions, particularly through nitrogen fertilizer and livestock. The authors argue that current federal and provincial policies lack concrete sectoral targets and comprehensive strategies, recommending a shift toward agroecology, reinstated public extension services, and targeted financial incentives for beneficial management practices to ensure long-term viability.

The briefing finds that sectoral pledges on methane, coal, transport, and deforestation could close the 2030 emissions gap by approximately 9% (2.2 GtCO2e), though global emissions would still remain nearly twice as high as necessary for a 1.5°C pathway. The Global Methane Pledge and the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use offer the highest likely impacts, while the coal and electric vehicle initiatives provide minimal additional reductions due to limited signatory participation or delayed phase-out timelines.

The report critiques the GFANZ network, noting that while it represents over a third of the world's investable capital, its guidelines are riddled with loopholes. Key failures include the lack of mandatory absolute emission targets, the omission of fossil fuel restrictions in the Race to Zero criteria, and a reliance on 'analysis paralysis' through complex financed emissions accounting. The author recommends that alliances mandate the cessation of financial services for new fossil fuel supply and require clients to adopt robust phase-out plans for coal, oil, and gas.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) asserts that the government must shift from risk management to a hazard prevention paradigm to protect public health. Key recommendations include eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, reforming the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), implementing a just transition for workers and Indigenous peoples, and adopting a planetary health lens to integrate climate adaptation and mitigation.

The United Arab Emirates is the first Gulf state to announce a national drive to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, with plans to invest $163 billion in renewable energy. The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) suggests that the UAE can leverage its technical capacity to scale low-carbon hydrogen and carbon capture and storage (CCS) to decarbonize its energy exports and support global climate targets. Key recommendations include expanding wind and solar power, developing both blue and green hydrogen, joining the Global Methane Pledge, and establishing international frameworks for clean fuel certification.

The document argues that EU methane legislation must cover the entire supply chain, including imports, to be effective and consistent with climate goals.

The Center for Climate Integrity asserts that the American Petroleum Institute (API) spent decades coordinating a campaign of deception regarding the dangers of fossil fuels despite early internal research predicting catastrophic climate events. The document claims API has evolved from outright denial to 'greenwashing' and continues to lobby against climate legislation and federal leasing moratoriums while providing political cover for its member companies.

The Center for Climate Integrity presents evidence that Chevron and its predecessors were aware of the catastrophic effects of fossil fuels as early as 1980 but funded campaigns to discredit climate science and sow public uncertainty. The document highlights a contradiction between Chevron's public claims of leadership in clean energy and its actual investment patterns, noting that only 0.2 percent of annual capital expenditure was spent on low-carbon energy between 2010 and 2018. Additionally, it points to patents filed by Chevron and Texaco in 1974 for drilling equipment designed for warming Arctic conditions, suggesting the company prepared for the physical impacts of climate change while publicly denying them.

ClientEarth argues that classifying natural gas as sustainable under the EU Taxonomy Regulation would violate the Paris Agreement, the European Climate Law, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The organization contends that natural gas activities do not meet the 'climate change mitigation' criteria because they increase greenhouse gas emissions, particularly when methane leakages are considered. Furthermore, ClientEarth asserts that natural gas cannot be a 'transition' measure as feasible low-carbon alternatives exist and such investments risk locking in carbon-intensive assets and diverting funds from renewable energy.

Reclaim Finance calls on AXA to cease providing insurance for the Brunsbüttel LNG terminal and other new fossil fuel projects. The organization argues that such infrastructure facilitates the import of shale gas, contradicts AXA's leadership in the Net Zero Insurance Alliance, and ignores calls from the French Ministry of Economy to exit non-conventional oil and gas sectors.

A coalition of NGOs, including Reclaim Finance and Urgewald, wrote to the CEOs of ten insurance companies (including Allianz, AXA, and Munich Re) demanding they stop insuring the Brunsbüttel LNG terminal in northern Germany. The authors argue that the project, promoted by Gasunie, will lock in greenhouse gas emissions for 30–50 years, contradicting the 1.5°C goal and risking the creation of a stranded asset. They highlight that the project costs €450 million, with up to €100 million from German taxpayers, and faces significant opposition from environmental groups and market analysts.

The report argues that methane emissions from livestock are a critical 'blind spot' in climate policies. It finds that neither the 18 largest producing countries nor the 20 largest industry companies have set sufficient targets to reduce methane, often ignoring the necessity of reducing livestock numbers and meat consumption to meet Paris Agreement goals.

The report identifies a critical 'blind spot' in climate policy regarding livestock methane, finding that neither the largest producing nations nor the biggest meat and dairy companies have set targets aligned with the 45% reduction required by 2030 to limit global warming to 1.5°C. While some countries report emissions, most lack concrete action plans to transform food production and consumption. Similarly, an analysis of 20 global meat and dairy giants revealed poor performance, with none reporting methane emissions separately or establishing specific methane reduction targets.

The report highlights a critical failure by major livestock-producing nations and corporations to address methane emissions, despite the gas's high potency and short atmospheric lifespan. It finds that most assessed countries lack absolute methane reduction targets and that the largest meat and dairy companies fail to report methane emissions separately or implement concrete abatement plans. The document advocates for a systemic transition toward plant-rich diets and the implementation of both technical and behavioral mitigation measures to meet Paris Agreement goals.

The Build Back Better Act's methane fee is projected to reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions by 172 million metric tons of CO2e annually by 2050, accounting for 65 percent of the Act's total industrial GHG reductions. The fee is expected to create approximately 70,000 jobs and add over $250 billion to the U.S. GDP by 2050. With abatement costs for over 95 percent of the potential being under $40/ton CO2e, the total cost to the oil and gas industry—including fee payments and abatement measures—is estimated at $133 billion, representing only 0.77 percent of projected industry revenues.

The analysis finds that the 'Infrastructure Bills' could reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by 1,067 to 1,510 million metric tonnes by 2030, potentially putting the U.S. on track to meet its NDC of 50-52% below 2005 levels. The most critical drivers are the Clean Electricity Performance Program (CEPP) and clean energy tax credits, which together could drive the power sector to 70-85% clean generation. Additional benefits include the creation of 449,000 to 638,000 job-years and the avoidance of 4,600 to 7,000 premature deaths annually by 2030, with health benefits concentrated in communities of color.

The fact sheet identifies six corporate entities—BP, Microsoft, IETA, BlackRock, Shell, and Drax—that the author claims are using "net zero" agendas to mask continued fossil fuel investment, rely on unproven technology, and influence policymakers through extensive lobbying and partnerships surrounding COP26.

The document assesses the proliferation of gas power plants, pipelines, and LNG terminals across East, South, and Southeast Asia. It contends that these investments, totaling $380 billion, risk becoming stranded assets as renewable energy costs plummet and climate targets necessitate a rapid shift away from fossil fuels. The report highlights the significant carbon budget impact of these projects and the continued role of public finance in supporting gas expansion despite net-zero pledges.

The report analyzes the planned expansion of gas infrastructure in Asia, including power plants, pipelines, and LNG terminals, totaling $379 billion. It argues that this expansion risks locking in high greenhouse gas emissions, potentially consuming a quarter of the global carbon budget for a 1.5°C limit. The document highlights that falling costs of renewable energy and high price volatility of LNG make these gas investments economically risky and likely to become stranded assets. It further criticizes the continued support of public financial institutions for gas projects and advocates for a transition to clean energy portfolios.