Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that current carbon dioxide removal (CDR) governance systems are flawed because they often treat carbon removal as equivalent to emission reductions, leading to 'mitigation deterrence'. It examines regulatory tools like emissions trading systems (ETS), tax credits, and public auctions, as well as voluntary carbon markets (VCMs). The authors conclude that CDR must be a complementary tool, not a substitute for decarbonization. They propose a policy framework based on three principles: precaution, 'do no significant harm' (DNSH), and the primacy of emission reductions. Key recommendations include separating emission reduction targets from CDR and land-based sequestration targets, implementing rigorous measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems, and shifting from offsetting models to 'contributive approaches' or public procurement like reverse auctions.

The document argues that current carbon dioxide removal (CDR) policies often encourage 'mitigation deterrence' by treating removals as equivalent to emission reductions. It reviews various mechanisms—including emissions trading systems, tax credits, and voluntary markets—and concludes that most fail to ensure environmental integrity or permanence. The authors propose a 'blueprint' for sensible policy that strictly separates emission reduction targets from removal targets, mandates robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), and prioritizes the 'Do No Significant Harm' principle. It suggests that funding for CDR should come from carbon pricing revenues or dedicated procurement schemes rather than offsetting mechanisms.

The Foreign Pollution Fee Act proposes ad valorem charges on imports across 15 broad categories, including steel, aluminum, and solar panels, based on their greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity relative to U.S. production. The author argues the Act is administratively complex and serves as a protectionist tool, noting that it lacks credits for carbon prices paid in exporting countries and imposes onerous requirements for foreign producers to prove lower emissions. While it offers special treatment for low-income countries through International Partnership Agreements (IPAs), the author contends the bill's primary focus is on restricting imports from China and Russia rather than environmental protection.

The report finds that while CETP signatories have made significant progress in restricting fossil fuel finance, they have lagged in scaling up clean energy support. In 2022, signatories shifted USD 6.5 billion out of fossil fuels but only USD 5.2 billion into clean energy. Most high-income signatories lack concrete, publicly available targets and strategies to 'fully prioritize' clean energy, and financing remains heavily concentrated in upper- and middle-income countries, with no low-income countries among the top 20 recipients between 2020 and 2022.

Financial institutions (FIs) can leverage tools like RMI's Oil Climate Index plus Gas (OCI+) and satellite data to pinpoint methane 'hot spots' in oil and gas portfolios. Methane accounts for approximately half of the industry's Scope 1 and 2 emissions, yet emissions intensities vary by a factor of 10 or more between equivalent assets. The report highlights that 40% of needed methane reductions could be achieved through cost-neutral or net-profitable investments, such as leak detection and repair. With new regulations like the US Inflation Reduction Act's methane fee, FIs are encouraged to use this data to manage transition risks, set accurate disclosure targets, and steer client engagement toward immediate decarbonization opportunities.

The report analyzes how the shift toward a multipolar world, the EU Green Deal, US energy strategies, and China's dominance in critical minerals impact South Africa. It highlights the contradictions in European energy policy following the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the paradoxical nature of China's green energy support versus its fossil fuel investments in Africa. The authors argue that South Africa should adopt a strategy of 'active non-alignment,' diversify its critical mineral supply chains, and foster domestic innovation to achieve energy sovereignty and a just transition.

The paper examines how institutional carbon lock-in perpetuates fossil fuel use in Latin America, specifically through case studies of gas projects in Mexico and Colombia. It argues that state-owned enterprises and regulatory bodies often approve infrastructure based on the 'bridge fuel' narrative and perceived links between gas and economic development, despite a lack of robust demand analysis or alignment with climate targets.

The document argues that fragmented national approaches to plastic pollution are insufficient and calls for coordinated international trade-related action. It proposes a framework for categorizing single-use plastics based on their environmental impact and technical feasibility of substitution. Key recommendations include developing common guiding criteria for 'problematic' plastics, implementing trade-related control measures such as import/export bans and tariffs, and promoting eco-design and non-plastic substitutes. The brief highlights the roles of the WTO's Dialogue on Plastics Pollution (DPP) and the International Negotiating Committee (INC) for the plastics treaty as primary vehicles for this cooperation, while also suggesting the involvement of the WCO and ISO to improve trade transparency and standards.

The report examines the social and environmental risks associated with the surge in demand for transition minerals like nickel, lithium, and cobalt. It criticizes current IFI approaches, such as the World Bank's 'climate-smart mining,' for treating environmental and social governance (ESG) as commercial risks rather than human rights imperatives. Through case studies in Indonesia, Guinea, Argentina, and the DRC, the document illustrates harms including forced evictions, water scarcity, and corruption. It proposes solutions centered on reducing mineral demand through circular economy models, implementing binding due diligence, and supporting mineral sovereignty for resource-rich countries in the Global South.

The report evaluates hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) and hydrogen combustion engines for heavy-duty freight. It finds that while FCEVs offer range and weight advantages, they are significantly less energy-efficient than battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) and suffer from high fuel costs. The document highlights that most hydrogen is currently produced from natural gas, leading to life-cycle emissions similar to diesel trucks, and warns that hydrogen combustion engines still emit harmful air pollutants. Consequently, the author concludes that FCEVs will likely remain niche solutions for specific long-haul applications where BEVs are infeasible.

A coalition of organisations calls on the EU to maintain Article 18 of the Net-Zero Industry Act, which proposes mandatory CO2 storage injection capacity contributions from oil and gas producers based on their EU production share. The authors argue that this applies 'Extended Producer Responsibility' to the sector most responsible for the climate emergency, especially since the market has failed to deliver such capacity and public finances should be protected from the burden.

Reclaim Finance critiques the IEA's "clean energy" scope, asserting that several included technologies—such as CCUS, nuclear power, and solid biomass—are unsustainable due to high costs, environmental damage, or continued reliance on fossil fuels. The organization advocates for a narrower definition of sustainable power focused on solar, wind, ocean, and geothermal energy, as well as modernized grid infrastructure, and calls for banks to disclose detailed inventories of their energy transition financing.

The guidance introduces the 'Triple A' framework (Ambition, Action, and Accountability) and five specific 'Hallmarks' to evaluate corporate transition plans. It emphasizes that credible plans must feature science-based, time-bound targets covering all material GHG emissions (Scopes 1, 2, and 3), detailed financial plans, and strong board-level governance. The document warns against the over-reliance on carbon offsets and the use of national NDCs as a substitute for sectoral science-based pathways, while advocating for annual third-party verification to ensure transparency and accountability.

The submission argues that mandatory hazard labelling is essential for public health, particularly for women, children, and racialized communities, and advocates for the phaseout of carcinogens, mutagens, and endocrine disruptors in consumer products.

Half of the world's economies are at least five years past a peak in fossil power generation, with 107 economies representing 38% of global electricity demand having seen emissions fall by nearly 20% over the last decade. While the EU, Oceania, and North America are in a period of decline, Asia and the Middle East are the only regions yet to reach a peak, though individual countries like Viet Nam and Japan show progress. The report emphasizes that the expansion of wind and solar is the primary driver of fossil fuel displacement, noting that without these technologies, power sector emissions would be 20% higher.

The author contends that the EU's response to the Israel-Palestine crisis and other regional issues is hampered by internal divisions and the lack of a comprehensive Middle East strategy. The text highlights how the unanimity rule allows single member states to block collective action, such as ceasefire calls or opposition to US-led peace plans. It suggests that as US influence in the region wanes, the EU has an opportunity to establish an independent role, potentially through 'green diplomacy', provided it can overcome its internal fragmentation and move toward qualified majority voting.

The report examines the role of the European Union in mitigating cross-border climate impacts, specifically focusing on how climatic shocks in agri-food systems in third countries can trigger cascading risks—such as economic disruption, social unrest, and migration—that eventually affect Europe.

The report highlights the human and climate costs of gas flaring in countries that export fossil energy to the EU, noting that nearly 10 million people live within 5km of active flares. It advocates for the EU to leverage its market power by adopting a methane import standard to curb these emissions and improve global health outcomes.

The report highlights that coal mines are the largest source of energy-sector methane emissions in the EU, primarily driven by Poland. While the original EU Commission proposal aimed for a 70% reduction in cumulative methane emissions from active thermal coal mines by 2040, current agreements have already lowered this to 34%. Ember warns that Poland's latest lobbying efforts could further reduce these cuts to just 12% by 2040, representing a sixfold weakening of the original ambition. The document emphasizes that methane abatement in Poland's coal sector is a 'low-hanging fruit' that could reduce the EU's fossil fuel methane emissions by 15% at a cost of less than one euro per kilogram of methane.

The report argues that delivering existing clean power commitments would allow the UK to produce 98% of its electricity from clean sources by 2030, saving the average household £300 per year and reducing total household costs by £8.7 billion. It contrasts a 'Delivering commitments' scenario with a 'Falling short' scenario, noting that the latter would increase reliance on volatile fossil gas imports and result in the UK remaining a net importer of electricity. While grid investment would increase network costs, these are outweighed by a significant drop in wholesale electricity prices. The report identifies critical barriers to this transition, including slow permitting processes, grid connection delays, and unsuccessful renewable auction rounds, particularly for offshore wind.