Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing identifies five priority areas for Canada to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies: reforming major tax credits, addressing losses from the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion, ending support for carbon capture and storage, stopping LNG infrastructure subsidies, and ensuring low-carbon funds do not benefit fossil fuel companies. It highlights a lack of transparency, noting Canada failed to publish a promised inventory of subsidies by December 2024. The document also details provincial-level subsidies, including fuel tax cuts and infrastructure support, and calls for a comprehensive inventory of all financial supports to the sector.

The report argues that offshore oil and gas activities pose severe threats to the global commons, specifically the oceans and atmosphere. It details how seismic surveys harm marine life, production leads to catastrophic blowouts and underreported methane emissions, transportation increases the risk of spills and invasive species, and improper decommissioning leaves a legacy of leaking 'orphan' wells. The document emphasizes that these risks are magnified by climate change and that existing legal frameworks, including UNCLOS and the polluter pays principle, should be leveraged to phase out offshore fossil fuel extraction.

The document argues that offshore oil and gas production poses severe risks, including underreported greenhouse gas emissions from flaring and methane leaks, the high potential for devastating well blowouts—especially in deep waters—and chronic marine pollution from produced water. It highlights the failure of current cleanup technologies and the long-term socio-economic damage to coastal communities, concluding that halting offshore expansion is essential to meeting the 1.5°C global warming limit.

The author contends that the green energy transition cannot rely on markets alone or the leadership of fossil fuel producers, who lack the incentive to undermine their core business. Instead, the transition must be driven by consumers reducing global demand through policies like carbon pricing. The text outlines four geoeconomic scenarios for this transition: 'survival of the fittest', 'geopolitical preferences', 'green preferences', and 'development preferences', suggesting that the latter two—which prioritize low-carbon footprints and the socio-economic needs of lower-income producers—are the most just and realistic pathways to meeting Paris Agreement goals.

The report exposes how 400 banks and 400 investors provided billions in support for LNG expansion between 2021 and 2024, despite IEA warnings that no new export facilities are necessary for a 1.5C pathway. It highlights a significant gap between the net-zero pledges of financial institutions and their actual lending and investment practices, noting that most top funders lack effective LNG-specific policies. The document details the climate risks of methane leakage and the social impacts of LNG projects, while calling for a complete end to financial services for new LNG export and import terminals.

The report details how 18 South Korean investment banking institutions provided US$7.4 billion to LNG expansion between 2021 and 2023. It specifically highlights DB Financial, Kyobo Life Insurance, and KDB Financial Group as the primary contributors, accounting for 44% of this total. The document argues that this support fuels a climate disaster by locking in long-term fossil fuel dependence and increasing the risk of stranded assets, particularly through the financing of the Korea Gas Corporation (KOGAS).

The document challenges six common arguments used to justify financial support for gas expansion, asserting that new gas projects are incompatible with a 1.5°C warming limit and that global gas demand will peak by 2030.

The document evaluates three industry-proposed methods for reducing carbon emissions from gas plants: hydrogen cofiring, carbon capture and storage (CCS), and biomethane. It concludes that these approaches often fail to achieve targeted emissions reductions when full life cycle impacts—such as upstream methane leakage, energy penalties, and production emissions—are considered. Furthermore, the brief argues that these technologies perpetuate environmental and social inequities by maintaining the operation of gas plants. In contrast, the report finds that transitioning to renewable energy sources like wind and solar provides superior reductions in carbon, air, and water pollution while offering lower costs and fewer land-use impacts.

The report examines the push for natural gas as a 'transition fuel' in South Africa, contrasting government plans with the environmental and financial risks of stranded assets. It details the activities and financing of Kinetiko Energy's Mpumalanga Gas Project and Renergen's Virginia gas field, highlighting significant concerns regarding groundwater contamination, methane leakage, and a lack of transparency in governance.

The document outlines the 'Waste Clinic' methodology, where local government representatives (patients) and waste management experts (doctors) collaborate to address solid waste challenges. It details a structured process involving planning—such as selecting decision-makers and regional experts—and a five-session execution phase including expert presentations, challenge identification, and solution development. Based on experience in Colombia, Mexico, and Ecuador, the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) recommends a two-day format and the use of hypothetical city scenarios to encourage more open problem-solving.

An analysis of five leading private infrastructure firms—Macquarie Asset Management, Global Infrastructure Partners, Stonepeak, IFM Investors, and I Squared Capital—reveals a total lack of sectoral policies to prevent investment in fossil fuel expansion. Despite the sector's growth, with global assets under management surpassing US$1 trillion in 2023, these firms continue to invest heavily in midstream infrastructure and liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, posing a risk to the global carbon budget.

The document criticizes the financing of the Stade LNG terminal in Germany, arguing that such projects create an unnecessary dependence on fossil gas and contradict climate goals. It highlights a disconnect between banks' public climate commitments and their continued funding of LNG import and export infrastructure.

Earthjustice and partner organizations urge the EPA to reject California's SIP revisions, claiming they create loopholes for oil and gas polluters. The authors argue that RACT must apply to all wells regardless of production volume or oil gravity, and that the EPA failed to conduct a required environmental justice analysis. They contend that current exemptions for heavy oil and low-production wells disproportionately harm frontline communities and that monitoring and reporting frequencies are insufficient to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act.

The report finds that while burning hydrogen in power plants is technically feasible, it is likely not a cost-effective solution for bulk power production or load following. The authors highlight significant inefficiencies, such as a 24% round-trip efficiency for electrolytic hydrogen, and high costs for necessary geological storage and transport infrastructure. Lifecycle emissions reductions for hydrogen derived from natural gas with carbon capture are limited (averaging 50%) due to upstream methane leaks. The report concludes that clean hydrogen production should be prioritized for heavy industry and transportation rather than the power sector, where clean firm generation (e.g., nuclear, geothermal) or other storage options (e.g., pumped storage hydropower) are generally more economical.

The Electrical Utilities Criteria provide a framework for certifying entities and debt instruments based on their emission intensity and transition pathways. It defines specific thresholds for existing and new capacity across various technologies, including fossil fuels and renewables, while integrating cross-cutting requirements for carbon capture, hydrogen, and bioenergy. The criteria also mandate adaptation and resilience risk assessments to ensure long-term operational viability under climate change.

The document defines the technical requirements for electrical utilities to achieve certification, focusing on a transition pathway to net-zero emissions by 2040. It sets specific greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity thresholds (gCO2/kWh) for existing and new capacity, mandates the phase-out of unabated fossil fuel plants, and provides guidelines for low-carbon technologies such as CCS/CCUS, hydrogen co-firing, and bioenergy. It also includes requirements for climate adaptation and resilience risk assessments.

The report establishes a framework for certifying electrical utilities and their debt instruments based on their alignment with a 1.5-degree warming scenario. It defines a global emission intensity transition pathway based on IEA Net Zero (NZE) 2023 data, requiring utilities to reduce carbon intensity from 460 gCO2/kWh in 2025 to 0 by 2050. The criteria distinguish between existing capacity, which may be retrofitted with carbon capture or low-carbon co-firing, and new capacity, for which no new fossil fuel investments are eligible. It also sets specific non-combustion emission thresholds for hydropower, geothermal, and bioenergy, and incorporates EU Taxonomy standards for CO2 transport and methane leakages.

Reclaim Finance condemns TotalEnergies for distributing US$16.6 billion to shareholders in 2023 while continuing to prioritize oil and gas expansion. The organization calls on shareholders to vote against the reelection of directors, including Patrick Pouyanné, and against dividend allocations to push for a transition toward sustainable energy and emission reductions.

The report concludes that the EU's demand for fossil gas and oil is in a long-term structural decline, making new production projects—especially in the Arctic—unnecessary and incompatible with 1.5°C warming limits. Analysis shows that existing production and current contracts will likely exceed EU demand by the 2030s in net-zero aligned scenarios, creating a risk of oversupply and stranded assets.

Reclaim Finance asserts that the top 60 banks provided $122.2 billion to major LNG firms between 2016 and 2022, with most lacking policies to prevent further support. The report highlights that current LNG terminal developments could lead to a 235% capacity increase and 1.9 GtCO₂ of overshoot relative to IEA net zero goals. It criticizes European banks for continuing to finance import terminals despite exceeding current demand, risking long-term gas lock-in.