Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that the United States must address market failures to reduce carbon pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, specifically focusing on reducing methane leakage from natural gas systems, to balance its energy boom with environmental protection.

The Union of Concerned Scientists identifies a significant number of U.S. coal-fired power plants that are economically uncompetitive compared to natural gas and wind power. The report argues that retiring these plants, along with those already scheduled for closure, would improve public health and reduce carbon emissions without jeopardizing grid reliability.

The authors contend that natural gas cannot solve the climate problem without carbon capture and storage (CCS), as it only offers a 50 per cent carbon dioxide reduction relative to coal, assuming no methane leakage. Given that fossil fuels are projected to remain a major energy source to meet growing global demand, particularly in developing countries, the document asserts that large-scale CCS is essential for all fossil power. While post-combustion capture (PCC) is commercially available for natural gas plants and faces fewer technical hurdles than coal PCC, the authors warn that relying on cheap, unabated natural gas may delay the commercialization of CCS. They recommend stricter CO2 emission limits, expanded incentives for enhanced oil recovery, and increased governmental support to scale up CCS technology.

A Clean Air Task Force (CATF) study indicates that new CNG buses are not necessarily superior to new diesel buses regarding air quality or climate impact. While CNG buses may have marginally lower particulate matter and volatile organic compound emissions, they can have higher nitrogen oxide and greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the higher purchase price of CNG buses may limit the number of older, high-emitting vehicles retired per dollar of capital funding, potentially resulting in lower fleet-wide emission reductions compared to a diesel fleet update. The climate impact of CNG is heavily dependent on methane leakage rates during production and the choice of Global Warming Potential (GWP) timeframes (GWP20 vs GWP100). Despite these factors, low fuel costs and federal funding structures incentivize transit agencies to choose CNG.

The report details 12 sustainability cases involving Royal Dutch Shell, highlighting systemic issues such as oil spills and gas flaring in Nigeria, toxic pesticide contamination in Brazil, and the high carbon intensity of Canadian tar sands. It examines the company's expansion into unconventional gas through fracking and its influence on political processes in the UK, Netherlands, and other host countries. The document argues that Shell's business strategy prioritizes profit over environmental and human rights, often employing a 'double standard' in its operational safety and reporting.

The author contends that natural gas acts as a 'palliative' rather than a cure for climate change, noting that while it emits less CO2 per kilowatt-hour than coal, its long-term use without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is imprudent due to carbon inertia. The text emphasizes the urgent need to eliminate methane leaks from gas, oil, and coal production, which are potent greenhouse gas sources. Furthermore, it warns against over-reliance on the 'shale gale' and the assumption that shale gas will remain cheap in the long term, urging a shift toward zero-carbon energy technologies.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) and the Canadian Association of Nurses for the Environment (CANE) call for a moratorium on fracking expansion in British Columbia, citing severe health risks to local populations and the climate impact of methane leakage. They recommend a transition to zero-emissions buildings, the end of fossil fuel subsidies, and a just transition for affected workers and Indigenous communities.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) advocates for the inclusion of 'blue' hydrogen in the UK's sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) mandate, arguing that biofuels and 'green' hydrogen alone cannot meet the sector's energy demands or the 2030 target of 10% SAF. CATF asserts that 'blue' hydrogen is more scalable and cost-effective than 'green' hydrogen and can achieve comparable lifecycle emissions if high carbon capture rates and strict methane leakage controls are implemented. The document provides cost comparisons and estimates the significant renewable energy capacity that would be required if the mandate were met solely through 'green' hydrogen.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) recommends that the DOE prioritize a limited number of large-scale hydrogen hubs (4 to 6) to avoid program dilution and maximize industrial learning. CATF emphasizes the need for full lifecycle analysis (LCA) to measure greenhouse gas intensity, noting that natural gas with carbon capture can reach 1.5 to 2.0 kgCO2e/kgH2, while solar-powered electrolyzers range from 0.96 to 2.52 kgCO2e/kgH2 when upstream emissions are included. The document argues for prioritizing 'difficult-to-electrify' sectors such as heavy-duty trucking, marine shipping, and heavy industry. To ensure equity, CATF suggests requiring comprehensive community environmental health assessments and implementing inclusive engagement strategies to protect disadvantaged communities from industrial pollution.

The toolkit critiques the draft IRP 2023, arguing that it deviates from 'least cost' energy pathways by favoring fossil fuels over renewables and failing to adequately address air quality, health impacts, and climate commitments. It provides a framework for the public to challenge the DMRE's modelling assumptions, the premature timing of the plan relative to the Integrated Energy Plan and Sectoral Emission Targets, and the lack of transparency in public participation.

The briefing argues that the EU's RePowerEU target to produce 35 billion m3 of biomethane by 2030 lacks an environmental impact assessment, creating risks of methane leakage and the intensification of industrial livestock farming. It finds that no existing EU policy sufficiently mitigates the environmental and social impacts of the sector, and that financial frameworks may channel over €37 billion into projects without robust sustainability checks. The report highlights a systemic issue with methane leaks, noting that real-world losses may be higher than official estimates, and warns that using biomethane to maintain existing gas grids could delay the phase-out of fossil fuels.

The European Union is the global leader in biogas production, reaching 22.8 billion m3 in 2024. While promoted as a renewable energy source, the report argues that the sector risks causing significant environmental harm through methane leakages, the incentivisation of industrial animal farming, and the use of food crops as feedstock. It further contends that the injection of biomethane into existing gas grids may postpone the transition to truly sustainable energy systems by locking in fossil gas infrastructure. The report examines the policy landscapes of seven European countries, noting that while most support biogas expansion, regulatory safeguards against these environmental risks are often insufficient. It also details the role of major oil, gas, utility, and agri-food companies in the sector and identifies the primary financial institutions providing credit and investment to biogas producers.

The report details the environmental and social harms of offshore oil and gas, from seismic exploration and production to transportation and decommissioning, asserting that these activities exacerbate the triple planetary crises of climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss.

The report analyzes 118 planned petrochemical projects in the US, finding that they could add 153.8 MMT of annual CO2e emissions, equivalent to nearly 40 coal plants. It highlights that a small number of megaprojects drive the majority of these emissions, with ammonia production being a primary contributor. The document argues that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an ineffective solution used to justify fossil-fuel-based expansion, often supported by federal subsidies. It also notes that the buildout is concentrated in disadvantaged communities in the Gulf Coast and Appalachia, worsening environmental racism.

The report asserts that fossil gas cannot be a transition fuel due to methane leakage and the urgent need to cut global carbon emissions by 50% by 2030. It criticizes gas blending as an inefficient strategy and advocates for the scaling of low-carbon hydrogen, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors like steel production, while warning that electrolysers must be paired with new renewable energy generation to avoid hindering grid decarbonisation.

Energy Innovation research indicates that natural gas-fired power plants offer only modest climate benefits over a 100-year timeframe and can potentially contribute to climate change if methane leaks are high or if they displace renewable energy. While using existing gas capacity to replace aging coal plants is recommended, the brief argues against investing in new large baseload gas plants. It highlights that methane is significantly more potent than carbon dioxide, with leakage rates in the United States estimated between two and four percent, which diminishes the emissions advantage of gas over coal.

The document argues that expanding fossil gas production in Africa is a 'fallacy' that risks creating stranded assets, increasing national debt, and exacerbating climate vulnerability. It highlights that gas reserves are concentrated in a few nations, meaning expansion will not benefit the continent broadly. Furthermore, it asserts that fossil gas infrastructure often involves high foreign ownership and poor contractual terms, pulling wealth out of Africa. The report contrasts this with the potential of renewables, noting that Africa possesses vast solar and wind resources that could provide cheaper, more accessible energy and more sustainable jobs. Environmental risks cited include the destruction of biodiversity hotspots, such as mangroves and coral reefs, and the health impacts of gas flaring and fracking. The briefing concludes that Africa should leapfrog extractive energy systems in favor of a clean, distributed energy future supported by international climate finance.

The document analyzes the French corporate duty of vigilance law passed on March 23, 2017, which requires large companies to prevent human rights and environmental violations in their supply chains. It uses case studies involving Total's palm oil biorefinery, Société Générale's financing of LNG terminals in the US, and French supermarkets' banana sourcing in Ecuador to demonstrate the law's necessity. The report concludes by advocating for a binding UN treaty to internationalize these standards and ensure victims' access to justice globally.

Global Witness asserts that 'supermajor' oil companies are conducting a 'brazen wealth transfer' by paying billions to shareholders while increasing oil and gas production. The statement highlights that companies like Shell, BP, TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil, and Chevron are ignoring scientific consensus and rowing back on climate pledges despite record profits and the increasing frequency of climate disasters.

Global Witness asserts that tensions between NATO allies in the eastern Mediterranean over fossil gas are futile, as the EU's projected 90 percent reduction in gas demand by 2050 renders these reserves unnecessary. The report highlights that extracting discovered gas in disputed waters would produce carbon emissions comparable to the annual output of France and Spain combined. It specifically calls for the cancellation of the €6 billion EastMed pipeline, which is currently a "Project of Common Interest," arguing that its operation would cause immense environmental damage and further escalate regional conflict.