Search Climate Insights Directory

The author contends that current climate policies are failing because they lack redistributive measures and ignore carbon inequalities, which in turn fuels right-wing populism. The text proposes a 'third way' based on post-growth economics and a 'green-red alliance' that integrates social justice with environmental goals. A central practical solution highlighted is the promotion of energy communities—non-profit entities that democratize energy production and provide affordable, clean energy to vulnerable households. The document calls for a radical acceleration of emission reductions, aiming for carbon neutrality by the mid-2030s and a negative carbon balance by the 2040s, funded by taxing high polluters and redirecting fossil fuel subsidies.

The document analyzes the limitations of both shareholder engagement and full divestment in the oil and gas sector, citing recent moves by Dutch pension funds PFZW and ABP. It argues that while divestment may not provide immediate financial pressure on companies, total withdrawal removes necessary levers of influence. Reclaim Finance proposes a strategy of stopping new capital injections (specifically new bonds) while using voting rights to block 'climaticide' strategies, including voting against director re-elections and dividend distributions.

Reclaim Finance argues that neither passive engagement nor complete divestment is sufficient to force oil and gas companies to align with the Paris Agreement. Instead, it advocates for a 'third way' where investors stop purchasing new bonds but retain shareholdings to vote against directors, manager remuneration, and dividends at 2024 annual general meetings. The organization highlights that 96% of oil and gas producing companies continue to open new fields and that record profits are being prioritized for shareholder remuneration over the energy transition.

The document analyzes the implementation of CCfDs in Europe, specifically comparing the Dutch SDE++, the UK's Industrial Carbon Capture (ICC) contract, and the Danish CCUS Fund. It details how these mechanisms bridge the cost gap between the EU ETS carbon price and the actual cost of carbon abatement for hard-to-abate sectors like cement, steel, and chemicals. The analysis covers critical design elements including fund sizes, technology eligibility, reference and bid pricing, payment symmetry, and the management of cross-chain risks related to transport and storage (T&S) infrastructure.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) argues that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is indispensable for Austria to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors like cement, lime, and steel. The document recommends that Austria set specific deployment targets, remove legal barriers to geological CO2 storage, and develop a strategic plan for operationalising storage sites by 2035. To address the 'chicken and egg' problem of infrastructure investment, CATF suggests 'oversizing' transport networks and establishing an aggregation platform to match CO2 sources with sinks. Financially, the document proposes the use of carbon contracts for difference (CCfDs) to bridge the gap between EU ETS prices and decarbonisation costs, while advocating for long-term market demand through near-zero carbon product standards. Finally, it emphasizes the need for proactive public engagement and inclusive stakeholder dialogues to build political and social support for CCS.

In 2023, EU fossil fuel generation fell to less than a third of the electricity mix (33%) for the first time, driven by a record 26% drop in coal generation. Wind and solar combined for 27% of EU electricity, with wind surpassing gas power for the first time. While solar capacity grew by 56 GW, wind generation growth remains inconsistent and below the 15% annual increase needed for REPowerEU targets. EU electricity demand fell by 3.4% in 2023 to its lowest level since 2001, though a rise of 2-3% is projected for 2024. To support this transition, the EU requires significant grid investments—estimated at €584 billion by 2030—and an increase in storage capacity to 200 GW by 2030 to manage variable renewable energy and reduce curtailment.

The authors identify a category of 'risks of response' where climate policies trigger security dynamics, exemplified by widespread farmer protests across Europe. These protests, driven by grievances over fuel subsidies and environmental regulations, have escalated into violence and provided opportunities for far-right parties to foment instability. The text warns that this 'green backlash' could slow the transition and increase global security risks if not managed with better risk assessments and ameliorating measures.

The document argues that large-scale deployment of CCS is essential for Europe to reach climate neutrality by 2050, yet current draft NECPs show significant gaps in targets and planning. It provides a framework for Member States to assess storage capacity, map projects, engage stakeholders, and establish financing and regional cooperation for CO2 transport and storage networks.

The document argues that clean hydrogen should be treated as a 'precious molecule' and prioritised for 'no regrets' hard-to-abate industrial sectors rather than being deployed indiscriminately. It recommends that EU Member States move beyond a sole focus on renewable ('green') hydrogen to include other low-carbon pathways, such as nuclear ('pink') and natural gas with carbon capture ('blue'), to avoid resource constraints. The guide emphasises locating production close to end-users to minimise transport inefficiencies and suggests that hydrogen in transport be limited to heavy-duty trucking, aviation, and shipping, while light-duty vehicles should prioritise electrification. Finally, it advises leveraging EU and national support mechanisms to fund 'champion' projects across the entire value chain.

The document argues that superhot rock (SHR) energy—a subset of Engineered Geothermal Systems that accesses rock temperatures exceeding 400°C—could provide a zero-carbon, firm, and energy-dense power source available globally. It notes a significant gap in current EU planning, where only one country (Italy) mentions SHR in its draft NECP, despite 20 countries planning for geothermal energy. The guide recommends that Member States fund pilot demonstrations, map national SHR resources, contribute to a centralised EU geothermal data repository, develop national geothermal strategies, and create stakeholder collaboration platforms. It highlights that SHR systems can potentially produce up to ten times the energy of conventional geothermal wells and could support the production of clean hydrogen.

The report details how the plastics industry promoted recycling as a false solution to plastic waste despite knowing it was technically and economically unviable. It outlines a history of industry tactics, from promoting disposability in the 1950s to the current promotion of 'advanced recycling' as a means to avoid bans and maintain virgin plastic production.

The document compiles historical evidence from the plastics industry showing a disconnect between public claims about recycling and internal assessments. Industry documents from the 1970s through the 1990s reveal that the industry viewed material recycling as economically marginal or impractical, often preferring waste-to-energy incineration. Despite this, the industry funded public relations campaigns and supported coding systems (like the SPI resin identification codes) that suggested recyclability to consumers, even when the industry knew that markets for recycled plastics were unstable or non-existent for most resin types.

The report argues that CCS is essential for the EU to reach climate neutrality by 2050, noting that current deployment rates are far below required levels and that no operational CO2 storage sites currently exist within the EU. It recommends setting clear deployment targets for CCS, DACCS, and BECCS, and establishing a strategic plan to distribute storage basins across the region by 2035 to avoid over-reliance on the North Sea. To address financial barriers, the author suggests coordinating funding, using carbon contracts for difference (CfDs), and creating a dedicated tender for capture capacity. The report also emphasizes the need for a common regulatory framework for cross-border CO2 transport, the creation of an aggregation platform to match CO2 sources with sinks, and the development of market demand for near-zero carbon products. Finally, it advocates for the prioritization of permanent industrial carbon removals (DACCS and BECCS) and their gradual integration into compliance markets like the EU ETS, provided robust standards and monitoring are in place.

The document argues that international investment agreements (IIAs) and the ISDS mechanism act as legal barriers to climate action by allowing fossil fuel companies to sue governments for compensation when regulations impact their returns. It outlines a three-part framework for States: removing risk through treaty termination, carveouts, or removal of ISDS clauses; reducing risk via the adoption of 'right to regulate' provisions, interpretative statements, and the careful design of climate measures; and responding to active claims using jurisdictional challenges, the 'necessity defense', and arguments against the 'legitimate expectations' of investors. The toolkit emphasizes that the urgent need to limit warming to 1.5°C may justify the termination of treaties like the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) based on a fundamental change of circumstances.

ClientEarth brought a derivative action against Shell's Board of Directors in the High Court of England and Wales, arguing that the company's Energy Transition Strategy was inadequate and breached sections 172 and 174 of the Companies Act 2006. The claim alleged failures in setting Scope 3 targets, over-reliance on carbon capture and nature-based solutions, and non-compliance with a Dutch court order. Despite support from institutional investors managing over half a trillion USD in assets, the High Court refused permission to continue the claim, citing a lack of formal expert evidence and the wide discretion afforded to directors in management decisions. The Court of Appeal subsequently refused permission to appeal this decision.

The report evaluates nine voluntary carbon neutrality standards and initiatives (VCNSIs) using the CARE (Coverage, Assurance, Responsiveness, and Engagement) methodology. While performing relatively well in Coverage and Assurance, the analysis reveals significant gaps in Responsiveness and Engagement. Key issues include the inconsistent inclusion of Scope 3 emissions, a lack of stringent mitigation targets aligned with 1.5°C pathways, and limited board diversity. The report recommends shifting from static 'neutrality' labels to dynamic progress-monitoring systems and suggests the creation of an oversight body to harmonize standards and prevent greenwashing.

The report examines the planetary boundaries concept, which identifies nine bio-physical systems essential to human stability. It notes that as of 2023, six of these nine boundaries have been exceeded globally. The document explores the difficulty of 'downscaling' these global limits to national levels, discussing various allocation principles such as equality, needs, and sovereignty. It specifically evaluates the potential for Estonia to calculate its 'own share' of these boundaries to inform national environmental policy, while highlighting significant data gaps and the lack of a harmonized EU-wide methodology.

The report evaluates the technical feasibility of drilling superhot rock (SHR) geothermal wells—defined as depths >5 km and temperatures >374°C. It concludes that while the necessary technologies exist or are emerging, significant gaps remain in rate of penetration (ROP) for hard rock, high-temperature electronic tool durability, and temperature management. The analysis categorizes rock-destroying equipment into conventional rotary, hybrid, and direct energy methods, assigning Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) to each. It emphasizes that the primary barrier to progress is a lack of access to SHR conditions in both laboratory and field settings, which prevents the iterative testing needed to reduce costs and risks.

The Climate Bonds Resilience Taxonomy (CBRT) Methodology establishes a science-based framework to scale private and public financing for climate adaptation and resilience. It categorises investments into four types—adapting measures, adapted activities, enabling measures, and enabling activities—across seven thematic areas including Resilient Infrastructure and Resilient Natural Systems. The methodology employs a tiered screening process to ensure a "measurable reduction in vulnerability (or exposure)" while managing maladaptation risks and ensuring no significant harm to climate mitigation. The framework is designed for global applicability and interoperability with existing standards like the EU Sustainable Finance Taxonomy and the MDB Joint Methodology.

The report argues that the fossil fuel industry has shifted from outright climate denial to a strategy of 'duplicity,' using greenwashing and misleading claims to protect profits while expanding fossil fuel production. It details how companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron overstate their clean energy investments, set unrealistic or retracted emissions goals, promote unviable 'false solutions' such as carbon capture and algae biofuels, use front groups to lobby against climate policy, and shift responsibility for emissions onto individual consumers.