Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that neonicotinoids, systemic insecticides widely used in corn and soy production, are causing widespread declines in insect and bird populations, particularly honey bees in Canada. It highlights that these chemicals are water-soluble, persistent, and toxic to arthropods, potentially threatening global food security by reducing fruit, vegetable, and nut supplies. While some government reports suggest economic losses from a ban, other studies indicate that neonic seed treatments provide negligible benefits to crop yields. The briefing notes regulatory responses in Ontario, Québec, and the European Union to mitigate these risks.

The document details Alberta's heavy reliance on coal for electricity, noting that in 2014, 68% of the province's electricity came from coal, with six plants emitting approximately 43 megatonnes of greenhouse gases in 2011. It links these emissions to broader climate trends in Canada, where average temperatures rose by 1.7°C between 1948 and 2012. The text outlines severe global health risks, including an expected 250,000 additional annual deaths between 2030 and 2050 due to heat, malnutrition, and disease. Specifically for Albertans, it predicts increased heat waves, smog, and extreme weather, citing the 2013 floods that displaced over 100,000 people and cost over $5 billion.

The document examines the use and impact of atrazine in Canada and globally, highlighting its role as a significant environmental and health risk despite declining sales in Quebec. It details the chemical's persistence in surface and groundwater, its classification as an endocrine disruptor by several governments, and its toxic effects on wildlife, particularly amphibians. The text also discusses the lack of consensus on human carcinogenicity, the risks associated with pesticide 'cocktails', and the legal challenges surrounding its regulation in North America, ultimately advocating for a ban based on the European example.

The Clean Air Task Force asserts that the current TEN-E proposal fails to support EU decarbonization by excluding CO2 storage and non-pipeline transport (such as ships, barges, rail, and trucks). The document argues that because geologic storage is unequally distributed across Europe, cross-border storage is a prerequisite for a level playing field in the Single Market. It claims the exclusion of storage contradicts the European Green Deal and the Sustainable Finance Taxonomy, increases investor risk, and ignores the fact that climate mitigation only materializes at the point of permanent storage.

The analysis finds a significant funding gap for European carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects that cannot recover costs through carbon pricing alone. By 2023, 55% of excess costs are uncovered, and a total shortfall of €10 billion is projected by 2030. While some countries like Norway, the UK, and the Netherlands have established specific incentive schemes, the report argues that additional targeted funding is required, particularly for high-cost sectors, to kickstart deployment and develop infrastructure.

The document argues that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is essential for the EU to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, particularly for harder-to-abate sectors like cement, steel, and chemicals. The signatories call for the Clean Industrial Deal to address critical gaps, including the lack of operational commercial-scale storage sites in the EU and the need for cross-border transport networks. Key recommendations include ensuring geographically balanced storage development to avoid leaving Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe behind, creating strong demand signals for decarbonised products through public procurement, and addressing funding gaps via the Competitiveness Fund and Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI). The letter also emphasizes the need for international partnerships, specifically mentioning the removal of regulatory barriers to access storage in the UK and the Mediterranean Sea.

The U.S. iron and steel sector accounts for 1.0% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, totaling 63 MMT CO2e. While 70% of U.S. steel is already produced via electric arc furnaces (EAFs), which emit 75–90% less CO2 than blast furnaces when using clean energy, the remaining 30% of production relies on coal-fired blast furnaces. Key decarbonization pathways include expanding EAF capacity, deploying carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) for existing blast furnaces, and scaling hydrogen-based direct reduced iron (H2-DRI). Recommended state-level policies include providing low-interest loans or grants for capital financing, setting low-carbon procurement standards for public projects, and supporting clean hydrogen hub development.

The report argues that Poland requires a stable, enduring regulatory framework and a diversified technology portfolio to achieve a resilient and socially responsible energy transition. It proposes four guiding principles: technology optionality, proactive long-term infrastructure planning, public participation to ensure social fairness, and cross-regional and international cooperation. Specific policy recommendations include accelerating the departure from coal by combining onshore wind with nuclear energy and gas equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS), advancing first CCS projects to Final Investment Decision, and exploring Small Modular Reactors (SMR) and superhot rock geothermal energy (above 400 degrees Celsius) for firm power and heat.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) seeks $20 million over three years to accelerate the global deployment of carbon management technologies by 2050. The organization focuses on establishing government-funded innovation and commercialization programs in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia. CATF argues that carbon capture is essential for decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like cement, steel, and aviation, and for achieving negative emissions. Current deployment is hindered by cost barriers, technology risks, and a lack of infrastructure and pollution standards. In the U.S., CATF leverages the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, while in Europe, it advocates for a comprehensive EU policy framework to scale up the approximately 70 planned projects. The strategy involves using first-mover nations to drive cost reductions and learning, which will then facilitate technology transfer to emerging markets in Asia and other regions.

The analysis identifies a significant gap between announced CO2 capture ambitions and the development of geological storage capacity in Europe, particularly in the short term. While Europe possesses a theoretical storage potential of approximately 507 Gt, the time required to develop storage sites (5 to 15 years) lags behind the faster implementation of capture projects. By 2025, a shortage of around 15 Mt/year is expected, and by 2030, the gap widens to approximately 40 Mt/year, with available capacity meeting only half of the 82 Mt/year demand. The report notes that many capture projects are concentrated in industrial clusters, but several countries—including Belgium, France, Germany, Poland, and Sweden—have no announced storage projects despite capture ambitions, necessitating cross-border storage solutions.

The document identifies critical infrastructure barriers to the clean energy transition and details CATF's strategies to overcome them through policy advocacy, research, and stakeholder engagement, requesting $12 million in funding over three years to support these efforts.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) argues that Europe's current decarbonization plans are too limited in technological and policy options, focusing primarily on 2030 targets. CATF proposes a paradigm shift toward 'optionality,' advocating for a diversified clean energy portfolio that includes carbon capture and storage, zero-carbon fuels, and next-generation technologies like fusion and superhot rock energy. To implement this strategy, CATF seeks $35 million over three years to expand its capacity at the EU and member-state levels.

The document details the methodology for calculating SO2 control costs, estimates the health and monetary benefits of a tighter emission cap alternative (CATF 16) compared to the EPA's IAQR, and argues that sufficient boilermaker labor exists to implement these controls by 2010.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) has established a Land & Climate Program to address the complexities of land competition and its role as both a source and sink of greenhouse gas emissions. The program focuses on three pillars: Ecosystem-Based Carbon Removal, Climate-Beneficial Bioenergy, and Land-Smart Clean Energy Deployment. CATF intends to create a global hub of scholars and organizations to map land conflicts and develop solutions. While currently most active in the U.S., the program is expanding into Europe and focusing on forested areas in the Global South. To implement these strategies, CATF is seeking $2.5 million per year for the next three years.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) aims to reduce anthropogenic methane emissions from agriculture, fossil fuels, and waste to slow global warming. The strategy focuses on driving global action via policy and markets, developing cross-cutting capacity for funding and research, and strengthening multilateral commitments like the Global Methane Pledge. CATF seeks $25.5 million over three years to expand its technical, policy, and communications teams to implement these goals.

The document advocates for the use of nuclear energy orderbooks in Europe to avoid the inefficiencies of fragmented deployment. It explains that by shifting from design evolution to design standardisation and serial replication, the EU can leverage 'learning by doing' effects to lower average unit costs, strengthen supply chains, and overcome regulatory and financing barriers.

The document argues that CCS is essential for decarbonising hard-to-abate industrial sectors like cement and steel and for achieving net-negative emissions after 2050. It details the technical process of capturing CO2 using amines or membranes and storing it in saline aquifers or depleted reservoirs at depths exceeding 800 metres. The text asserts that geological storage is permanent and safe, with projected annual leak rates as low as 0.0002% in regulated industries. While costs vary by source—ranging from under 90 euro per tonne for fertilisers to 700 euro for direct air capture—the document suggests that government support for shared infrastructure can drive down costs, similar to the trajectory of offshore wind. It highlights approximately 100 proposed projects in Europe, particularly around the North Sea, and notes that the EU may need to capture 300 to 600 million tonnes of CO2 annually by 2050.

Europe is redefining carbon capture as a strategic building block for its 2050 climate neutrality goals, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors like cement and steel. While the region is shifting toward an infrastructure hub model to achieve economies of scale—with projects like Northern Lights in Norway and Porthos in the Netherlands—deployment remains slow. The author contends that current funding instruments and the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) are insufficient on their own, calling for bold, per-ton deployment subsidies similar to those used for renewables or the US 45Q tax credit to accelerate commercial scale-up.

The document highlights a €10 billion funding gap for announced carbon management projects in Europe and argues that the EU ETS alone is insufficient to drive the deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS). It recommends a faster phase-out of free allowances by 2029, a significant expansion of the Innovation Fund, and the use of Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfDs) to provide investor certainty and bridge the gap between current ETS prices and the actual costs of carbon abatement.

The policy brief recommends that Europe move beyond a heavy reliance on renewable energy and electrification by supporting a broader suite of technologies, including nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage. It analyses the U.S. policy framework—specifically the Energy Act of 2020, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)—as a model for bridging the gap between R&D and large-scale commercial 'take-off'. Key recommendations for the EU include streamlining regulations, providing 'self-activating' incentives, and proactively planning shared infrastructure for CO2 and hydrogen to reduce investor risk and accelerate deployment.