Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines how World Bank Development Policy Finance (DPF) in Indonesia and Pakistan has facilitated the expansion of fossil fuels. In Indonesia, a $500 million loan specifically promoted natural gas infrastructure, while the Bank's private sector arm, the IFC, has been linked to coal projects. In Pakistan, the $400 million PACE program's 'prior actions' led to the fast-tracking of an energy plan (IGCEP) that slashed renewable energy targets from 30-33% to 17% and increased reliance on coal, gas, and large-scale hydropower. The authors conclude that DPF often supports fossil fuels by default through sector stabilisation and recommend that all fossil fuels be added to the World Bank's Excluded Expenditures list.

The report uses the Louisiana Energy Policy Simulator (EPS) to compare a Business As Usual (BAU) trajectory with a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) scenario. Under BAU, Louisiana's economy-wide emissions are projected to increase by 30% by 2050. Conversely, the NDC scenario, which aligns with Paris Agreement targets, could reduce statewide emissions by 97% below 2020 levels by 2050. This transition would rely heavily on industrial fuel switching and green hydrogen, potentially creating 263,000 new job-years and avoiding 2,300 premature deaths annually by 2050.

A coalition of climate, environmental, and health NGOs calls on the European Commission to revise the draft CEEAG to ensure it supports the Paris Agreement and the European Green Deal. The authors argue for a strict 2030 deadline for coal plant closures, a transparent methodology for assessing plant profitability to avoid fossil fuel subsidies, and the removal of preferential treatment for fossil gas to prevent infrastructure lock-in.

Carbon Market Watch analyzed 18 "carbon neutral" fossil fuel claims, primarily involving liquefied natural gas (LNG), and found that every claim failed to meet basic criteria for environmental integrity and transparency. The report argues that fossil fuels cannot be carbon neutral because the firms involved are not aligned with 1.5°C pathways and rely on flawed "tonne-for-tonne" offsetting. Key failures include the omission of Scope 3 emissions in one-third of claims, a total lack of transparency regarding the price paid for carbon credits, and the use of impermanent nature-based sinks to offset long-term fossil carbon emissions. The report recommends that fossil fuel firms cease these claims, stop new exploration, and shift toward a "contribution" model for climate finance.

The Three Seas Initiative (3SI) is criticized for prioritizing fossil gas infrastructure over renewable energy, which risks locking in emissions beyond 2050 and violating the EU's Climate Law. As of July 2021, fossil gas projects outnumber renewables in the 3SI database by more than two to one. Many of these gas projects are described as 'zombie projects'—outdated relics that have failed to attract financing or remain unutilized, such as the BRUA and Eastring pipelines. The document highlights that EU gas consumption must decline sharply to meet a 55% emissions reduction by 2030. While the 3SI Investment Fund (3SIIF) recently made its first energy investment in solar developer Enery Development, the briefing argues that significant political and financial shifts, including from the US, are needed to catalyze the region's renewable energy potential and align with the 'Fit for 55' package.

Earthjustice contends that the Biden administration's legal defense of the Willow Project and other oil exploration in the Western Arctic contradicts its climate goals. The author highlights the environmental risks to the 23 million-acre National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, the potential release of 260 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the Willow project, and the negative impacts on the traditional caribou hunting practices of the Native Village of Nuiqsut.

The report analyzes the role of hydrogen in the energy transition, contrasting 'green hydrogen' (produced via renewable-powered electrolysis) with the current industry standard of steam methane reformation (SMR) from fossil fuels. It warns that the oil and gas industry uses hydrogen rhetoric to justify continued fossil fuel infrastructure and delay electrification. The authors argue that green hydrogen should be reserved for 'hard-to-electrify' sectors like maritime shipping and high-heat industrial processes, while being rejected for use in passenger vehicles, home appliances, and gas-fired power plants due to energy inefficiency, high costs, and pollution risks.

The report examines how green bonds and transition finance can support South Africa's shift from a coal-dependent energy system to a low-carbon economy. It highlights the critical role of the two largest emitters, Eskom and Sasol, and proposes various financial models, including sovereign green bonds and asset-backed securities, to attract international capital while managing the social implications of a 'Just Transition'.

The document advocates for a comprehensive EU directive on corporate due diligence to prevent environmental harm. It argues against size-based thresholds for companies, citing the seafood and timber industries as examples where small and medium enterprises (SMEs) can cause significant damage. It emphasizes the necessity of a 'life cycle' approach to value chains, particularly for fossil fuels (addressing Scope 3 emissions and methane leakage) and plastics (addressing pellet pollution). Finally, it calls for mandatory, detailed public reporting to ensure corporate accountability, using the automotive sector's emissions and battery supply chains as a case for transparency.

The report examines how the EU sustainable taxonomy, originally designed to be science-based, has been influenced by industry lobbying to potentially include fossil gas and nuclear energy. It argues that gas is not a sustainable transition fuel due to methane leaks and carbon lock-in, and that nuclear energy fails the 'do no significant harm' (DNSH) principle due to waste and safety risks. The document details the scale of lobbying efforts, identifying hundreds of meetings between EU officials and industry representatives, and criticizes the EU Commission for deferring decisions on these technologies to future legislation and relying on flawed technical reports.

The report finds that 2,277 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) of new coal mining capacity is under development globally, with 614 mtpa already under construction. This expansion is heavily concentrated in China, Australia, India, and Russia, which together represent 77% of global development. The authors argue that this trajectory is incompatible with the Paris Agreement, as coal production would need to decline 11% annually through 2030 to limit warming to 1.5°C. If all proposed capacity is realized, 2030 production would be over four times the 1.5°C-compliant pathway. The report also highlights a potential $91 billion USD in stranded assets and significant greenhouse gas emissions, estimated between 5,000 and 5,800 Mt of CO2-equivalent annually from these projects.

The report finds that international public finance for gas in low- and middle-income countries is four times higher than for wind or solar, risking a 'dash for gas' that locks economies into high-carbon pathways. It argues that gas is no longer a necessary 'bridge fuel' because renewables are often cheaper and more effective for power, cooking, and industry. The document recommends that international financial institutions end support for gas and instead scale up clean energy finance, focusing on grid integration, technology transfer, and a just transition for workers.

The report finds that international public finance for gas projects in low- and middle-income countries averaged nearly USD 16 billion per year from 2017 to 2019, which is four times the amount provided for wind or solar. It argues that the 'bridge fuel' concept is obsolete due to the urgency of the climate crisis, methane leakage, and the falling costs of renewables. The document recommends that international public finance institutions end all support for gas exploration, production, and long-lived infrastructure, instead scaling up finance for grid integration, technology transfer, and universal clean energy access. Case studies of Argentina, Egypt, and India illustrate risks such as high subsidies, dependence on volatile export markets, and the creation of redundant parallel infrastructures for gas and electric vehicles.

The report finds that international public finance disproportionately supports natural gas in low- and middle-income countries, often exceeding support for wind and solar by four times. It argues that the 'bridge fuel' narrative is obsolete due to the falling costs of renewables and the risks of stranded assets and methane leaks. The document recommends that international financial institutions cease funding gas infrastructure and instead support clean energy integration, technology transfer, and a just transition, particularly for the poorest nations.

The report finds that international public finance disproportionately supports natural gas over renewables in the Global South, creating risks of stranded assets and carbon lock-in. It argues that renewables are now cost-competitive for most gas uses and recommends that public financial institutions cease support for gas infrastructure to prioritize clean energy transitions.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Société Générale for maintaining high levels of fossil fuel financing despite public pledges to exit coal and reduce oil and gas exposure. The document highlights the bank's continued support for Arctic extraction, shale gas, and liquefied natural gas (LNG), as well as its use of semantic loopholes to fund coal-heavy entities like EPH.

ClientEarth argues that the EU is overinvesting in methane gas infrastructure and urges the Commission to implement a methane product standard by 2025 to integrate climate costs into gas prices. The document recommends that public financial support for methane gas or gas-derived hydrogen be precluded or strictly conditioned on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and lifecycle emission caps. It further calls for institutional reform to ensure independent energy system planning, the prioritisation of energy efficiency over new infrastructure, and the cessation of the term 'natural gas' to avoid greenwashing.

A March 2021 survey of 922 registered U.S. voters reveals broad support for clean energy development and conservation policies, though significant political polarization persists regarding the urgency of global warming and the role of government. While majorities support tax rebates for energy-efficient vehicles and renewable energy research, views on carbon taxes and national emergency declarations are more divided. The report also highlights a general preference for combined government and individual action, with a specific demand for increased corporate responsibility.

The research paper evaluates the impact of a 1.5°C-compatible policy scenario for Nevada, projecting that deep decarbonization across electricity, transportation, and buildings could add $700 million to the state economy and create 4,500 jobs by 2030. It contrasts a 'Business-As-Usual' outlook, where emissions are expected to increase by 12% by 2050, with a strategic policy package including a 100% clean electricity standard by 2035 and a transition to all-electric vehicle and building equipment sales. The analysis also highlights significant public health benefits, estimating the prevention of over 120 deaths annually by 2030.

The report argues that new natural gas developments in Appalachia are high-risk investments due to low domestic prices and the global transition toward low-carbon energy. Analysis of 216 prospective gas fields indicates that average 2020 prices for gas and oil do not support widespread expansion. The authors highlight that deep decarbonization consistent with the Paris Agreement would likely keep gas prices below the $3/Mbtu threshold required for average profitability, potentially rendering new fields and associated petrochemical infrastructure, such as ethane crackers, unprofitable.