Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that natural gas is more damaging to the climate than coal over a 20-year period due to potent methane leaks throughout its lifecycle. It highlights that 'top-down' measurements using satellites and aircraft reveal significantly higher emissions than traditional 'bottom-up' estimates. The author notes that shale gas and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) further increase these emissions, making gas expansion incompatible with a livable climate. This analysis is applied to the proposed Richards Bay power plant, which may source gas from the Karoo basin or via LNG imports from the US or Australia.

The report examines the discovery of natural gas in the Eastern Mediterranean, focusing on the competing claims of the Republic of Cyprus, Turkey, and Turkish Cypriots. It analyzes the commercial viability of export options—such as LNG plants and pipelines to Turkey or Europe—against a backdrop of falling global gas prices due to the US shale revolution. The text argues that while hydrocarbons offer a potential 'win-win' for regional stability, their development is currently hostage to long-standing political conflicts, particularly the Cyprus problem and strained Israeli-Turkish relations. It also explores the specific challenges facing Lebanon in becoming a gas province and the role of global energy governance and major players like Russia and the EU in shaping the region's energy future.

The report examines the impact of natural gas discoveries in the Eastern Mediterranean on the geopolitics of Cyprus. It details the conflicting maritime claims between the Republic of Cyprus (RoC), Turkey, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), while analyzing the economic viability of various export options including LNG and pipelines. The authors conclude that the most likely future is a continuation of the status quo, where the RoC's ability to exploit gas remains heavily dependent on Israeli export decisions and the absence of a political settlement with Turkey.

The document demands that AXA cease providing insurance for new oil and gas projects, divest from unconventional hydrocarbons, and adopt a stricter definition of the Arctic region. It specifically calls for AXA to vote against Total's climate strategy, divest from Fortum due to pro-coal lobbying, and implement an exclusion policy for soy traders linked to deforestation in the Cerrado.

The 'Scan de la Finance Fossile' evaluates 56 French financial institutions on their policies regarding high-risk oil and gas sectors. The analysis finds that fewer than half of these actors have policies covering any of the five most risky sectors, and existing policies often contain loopholes that allow continued financing of companies and infrastructure that facilitate fossil fuel expansion.

The document details the reactions of eleven major European banks to a report on fossil fuel asset exposure. It provides specific 2019 data on fossil assets and equity for each bank, calculating a risk ratio. While some banks like BNP Paribas, Société Générale, and BPCE provided detailed rebuttals or highlighted their transition policies and green financing, others, such as Deutsche Bank and Santander, declined to respond. The banks generally contest the report's methodology, arguing that it ignores portfolio selectivity, client transition strategies, and the broader solvency of banking groups.

The report challenges the narrative of fossil gas as a low-carbon transition fuel, detailing its high methane leakage rates and the severe ecological and health risks associated with hydraulic fracturing. It highlights that methane's high warming potential can make gas more harmful to the climate than coal if leakage exceeds 4%. Additionally, the document outlines the health consequences of gas combustion, including respiratory illnesses and millions of annual deaths globally, and calls for financial institutions to cease all support for gas expansion.

The report details the environmental and health risks of fossil gas, highlighting that methane leaks can make gas more harmful to the climate than coal. It specifically critiques shale gas for its high water consumption, chemical contamination, and carcinogenic emissions, while noting that gas combustion contributes to millions of deaths globally through air pollution. Reclaim Finance recommends that financial institutions cease all support for fossil gas expansion.

The document outlines the high energy consumption and methane leakage associated with the LNG value chain, highlighting that US-produced LNG can have a carbon footprint 28% higher than coal. It warns of significant financial risks, including the potential for LNG infrastructure to become stranded assets due to overcapacity, particularly in Europe where utilization rates are forecast to drop to 36% by 2030.

The briefing identifies five 'non-conventional' oil and gas sectors that pose disproportionate risks to the 1.5°C warming limit and the environment. It details the high carbon intensity of oil sands and shale, the methane leakage associated with LNG and shale, and the ecological fragility of the Arctic and deepwater offshore environments. The document also highlights the financial instability of these sectors, citing high operational costs and the risk of stranded assets, and calls on French financial actors to adopt exit strategies.

The document analyzes the role of renewable energy in the Southern African mining sector, highlighting how energy instability and the high cost of diesel generators drive mining firms toward hybrid and private renewable solutions. While South Africa faces challenges from a reliance on coal and potential 'bridging' fuels like shale gas and nuclear power, the declining cost of solar and wind technologies, supported by the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Programme (REIPPPP), offers a viable path to reduce operating costs and increase energy security.

The document presents a series of expert suggestions for UK government climate policy, focusing on the need for deep emission reductions, a shift toward renewable energy, and the removal of fossil fuel subsidies. Key proposals include the creation of a major infrastructure fund for energy saving and storage, the implementation of strict emission limits for new electricity generation (50gCO2/kWh), and the adoption of stringent, annually tightening emission standards for CO2 sources such as cars.

The document consists of three tables identifying corporations and organisations involved in fossil fuels and arms. It details the roles of various oil, gas, and coal companies, their reserves rankings, and their environmental records. It also lists global arms manufacturers, their involvement in nuclear weapons programmes, and UK military entities, highlighting ethical concerns regarding recruitment and military strategy.

The document defends the findings of an SGR/CIEH report on shale gas, arguing that unconventional gas extraction is more invasive than conventional gas and risks exceeding global carbon budgets. It highlights regulatory resource shortages in the UK, the potential for fracking to trigger seismic events that damage wellbore integrity, and the risk of air and water contamination. The authors argue that shale gas is not a 'key component' of IPCC mitigation strategies and suggest that the UK could reduce its dependence on natural gas through energy conservation, biogas, and a transition to electric heating.

The document serves as a journalistic guide to the just energy transition in Colombia. It distinguishes between the country's clean electrical matrix and its fossil-fuel-dependent energy matrix, highlighting the potential for non-conventional renewable energy sources (FNCER) and the strategic importance of transition minerals like copper and lithium. It argues that a just transition must protect social and environmental rights and suggests that decarbonization offers greater employment opportunities than continuing with natural gas. The guide also addresses the environmental risks of mining and the specific case of Vaca Muerta in Argentina as a cautionary example of non-conventional hydrocarbon extraction.

The document introduces a proposed life cycle boundary for shale gas to address inconsistencies in environmental impact studies. WRI notes that variations in how studies define life cycle stages—such as omitting exploration or combustion—lead to differing estimates of greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and wastewater production, thereby hindering constructive dialogue on impact reduction strategies.

The document outlines the early stages of China's shale gas industry, noting that while the Chinese government is actively supporting research and exploration through state-owned enterprises, domestic demand will continue to exceed production. It argues that shale gas can enhance China's energy security by reducing imports and potentially mitigating climate impacts if it displaces coal. The testimony highlights the economic benefits of U.S.-China business partnerships and emphasizes the need for environmentally and socially responsible operations to ensure a level playing field and prevent the repetition of negative environmental impacts seen in the U.S.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) analysis reveals that a significant portion of the world's shale resources are located in water-stressed or arid regions, posing risks to energy development and local water security. The report highlights that 38% of shale resources are in areas of high water stress or aridity, and 386 million people live above these plays. It provides specific assessments for 11 countries and recommends that companies and governments implement water risk assessments, increase transparency, and adopt corporate water stewardship to mitigate conflicts with other water users, particularly in irrigated agriculture.