Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that the global transition to renewable energy, specifically wind and solar, frequently results in 'green colonialism' where Indigenous rights to self-determination and free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) are ignored. It documents human rights violations and land-grabbing in countries such as Kenya, Norway, Colombia, and Mexico, noting that Indigenous communities often respond through litigation, protest, and efforts to secure project ownership. The authors recommend the formal recognition of Indigenous rights, the strict application of FPIC, the implementation of Indigenous-led environmental impact assessments, and the promotion of Indigenous ownership to ensure a just transition.

The report argues that the EU is not on track to meet its 2030 and 2050 climate goals and must shift to an 'option-based' approach that integrates a broad range of low- and zero-carbon technologies. Key recommendations include scaling up carbon capture and storage (CCS), diversifying the energy mix with small modular reactors (SMRs), superhot rock geothermal, and fusion energy, and implementing a rigorous methane import standard. It emphasizes the need for a comprehensive green industrial strategy, a dedicated climate fund to replace the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and international cooperation to set global clean-tech standards.

The paper outlines a strategic framework for Europe to achieve leadership in clean energy innovation, emphasizing that financial investment alone is insufficient. It proposes four pillars of innovative capacity: building human capital, pushing early-stage technology, creating demand-side market incentives, and securing access to key resources. Using Norway's carbon capture and storage (CCS) leadership as a case study, the author demonstrates how aligning these pillars creates a competitive advantage that is difficult for other regions to imitate. The document concludes that Europe should target sectors where it has natural resource advantages and integrate its policies to create a cohesive ecosystem rather than relying on isolated funding or deployment targets.

The analysis finds that while gas-fired power plants emit 58% less CO2 at the stack than coal, the lifecycle benefit is reduced to 24% when considering upstream emissions. This benefit varies wildly by production basin; gas from northeast Pennsylvania can significantly reduce GHG impacts, while gas from the Permian basin could potentially worsen them by 20% compared to coal. The report concludes that for natural gas to be compatible with net-zero goals, both aggressive upstream methane abatement and downstream carbon capture and storage (CCS) are required, noting that abated coal with CCS actually shows 37% lower emissions than abated gas with CCS due to the latter's persistent upstream methane and liquefaction emissions.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) asserts that the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement do not exhaustively define State obligations regarding climate change. Instead, States are bound by concurrent duties under customary international law (such as the prevention of transboundary harm), human rights law, and the law of State responsibility. CIEL argues that the cumulative emission of greenhouse gases, primarily from fossil fuels, constitutes an internationally wrongful act. Consequently, responsible States—particularly industrialized nations—must cease their destructive conduct and provide full reparation for material and moral injuries. The submission emphasizes that these obligations extend to future generations, grounded in the principle of intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle, which mandates prioritizing proven emission reductions over speculative technologies.

The document asserts that because fossil fuels are the primary driver of climate change, States' duties to prevent transboundary harm and protect human rights necessitate a rapid phase-out of oil, gas, and coal. It argues that due diligence requires States to conduct environmental impact assessments (EIAs) that include downstream 'Scope 3' emissions, regardless of where they occur. Furthermore, it contends that State actions increasing fossil fuel reliance are presumptively contrary to international law and that the precautionary principle obliges States to prioritize proven emission reductions over speculative technologies like carbon capture and storage.

The document asserts that zero-carbon electricity grids are possible and debunks myths regarding the need for fossil fuel backups or the risk of grid overload from renewables. It highlights that wind and solar costs fell by 55% and 85% respectively between 2010 and 2020, and that countries like Denmark, Portugal, and Uruguay are already demonstrating high renewable integration. However, a significant bottleneck exists in grid infrastructure, with 3,000 GW of renewable projects awaiting connection across several major economies. The briefing recommends a cross-sector approach integrating heating, cooling, and industry, alongside investments in digitalisation, storage, and cross-border interconnectors to ensure stability and efficiency.

The report argues that the UK is currently off track to meet its 2030 NDC and sixth carbon budget, necessitating a shift toward 'accountability and implementation'. It advocates for a systems-based approach that complements electrification with carbon capture and storage (CCS), low-carbon hydrogen, nuclear energy, and aggressive methane mitigation. Key recommendations include establishing a Methane Action Plan, creating a 'producer responsibility' policy for CO2 storage, and prioritising low-carbon hydrogen for 'no-regrets' industrial sectors like refining and ammonia production. The document also emphasises the need for international collaboration, particularly with the EU and emerging economies, to scale these technologies and maintain the UK's global climate leadership.

The report argues that Poland, as one of Europe's most carbon-intensive economies, must adopt a diversified technology portfolio to achieve climate neutrality. It recommends a shift from coal (currently 70% of the power mix) toward a combination of renewables, nuclear energy, carbon capture and storage (CCS), clean hydrogen, and superhot rock geothermal energy. The authors emphasize that restricting technology options would significantly increase system costs and infrastructure needs. Key policy recommendations include implementing 'carbon contracts for difference' to advance CCS, prioritizing clean hydrogen for 'no regrets' industrial sectors, and reforming the nuclear industry through standardized, product-based business models. Additionally, the report calls for urgent action to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector and the mapping of thousands of abandoned wells. Public polling indicates strong Polish support for advanced nuclear (63%) and superhot rock energy (66%).

The report finds that since the 2021 IEA Net Zero roadmap, at least 20.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) of new oil and gas discoveries have been announced. In 2023 alone, 20 fields were approved for development, sanctioning 8 billion boe. The analysis highlights a significant disconnect between the industry's push for new reserves—particularly in South America and Africa—and climate goals, noting that current production pathways are significantly higher than 1.5 degree compatible scenarios. It specifically criticizes the use of scope one and two emissions claims to justify projects while ignoring scope three emissions.

The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is a cap-and-trade mechanism designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the power, heavy industry, aviation, and maritime sectors by pricing pollution. It operates by setting a decreasing cap on total emissions, divided into EU Allowances (EUAs), which companies can trade or buy at auction. While the system has raised over €152 billion since 2005, its effectiveness has been historically hampered by an oversupply of permits and the extensive use of free allocations to prevent 'carbon leakage'. A separate system, ETS2, will be introduced in 2027 to cover buildings and road transport. The document highlights concerns regarding the environmental integrity of the current cap relative to the EU's carbon budget and the lack of transparency in how member states spend auction revenues.

The briefing examines the role of carbon capture and storage (CCS), noting that the majority of the world's 41 operational projects are linked to the oil and gas industry, specifically for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). It highlights a history of 'unmet expectations' and slow deployment, with capture rates often falling short of targets. While CCS is proposed for hard-to-abate sectors like cement and steel, the document argues it is often less cost-effective than electrification or energy efficiency. It further details how CCS projects in Norway, Canada, and Australia have been used to maintain the financial viability of fossil fuel extraction.

The EU Industrial Carbon Management Strategy aims to scale up CO2 capture, utilisation, and storage to meet 2040 climate targets, specifically targeting an annual injection capacity of at least 250 million tonnes in the European Economic Area by 2040. To achieve this, the Commission plans to address current imbalances in storage—which is currently concentrated in the North Sea—by establishing transparent permitting processes by 2025 and creating an investment atlas of potential storage sites. The strategy also envisions a vast transport network, potentially reaching 19,000 km by 2040, and proposes a regulatory package for CO2 transport and a demand aggregation platform by 2026. Financial mechanisms discussed include the Innovation Fund, Connecting Europe Facility, and a possible Important Project of Common European Interest for transport and storage. Additionally, the strategy emphasizes industrial carbon removals (such as BECCS and DACCS) to help reach a target of removing 400 million tonnes of CO2 per year by 2040.

The document analyzes COP 28 outcomes for Africa, noting a gap between high-level agreements and the actual financial resources provided for adaptation and loss and damage. While it highlights the historic agreement to transition away from fossil fuels and new food system initiatives, it argues that the scale of funding remains insufficient for Africa's urgent needs.

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.

The Institute for Economic Justice argues that South Africa's National Treasury has unnecessarily cut social spending by failing to mobilize available resources. The brief identifies significant revenue potential through the removal of regressive tax breaks for high earners, the introduction of wealth and financial transaction taxes, and the utilization of the Gold and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account (GFECRA). It recommends restoring the Corporate Income Tax rate to 28% and implementing a progressive Social Security Tax to fund social protections.

Reclaim Finance argues that TotalEnergies' climate strategy is insufficient for a 1.5°C target, citing continued fossil fuel expansion and inadequate low-carbon investment. The document details the financial networks supporting the company, critiques the 'laxity' of French asset managers like Amundi, and proposes a comprehensive suite of regulatory and monetary reforms to redirect financial flows away from fossil fuels.

The report identifies methane emissions from the oil and gas sector as a critical near-term climate risk and opportunity. It proposes a strategic framework based on emissions visibility, policy action, market activation, and accountability to drive the industry toward 'near-zero' leakage. Key recommendations include the adoption of low-methane procurement standards by governments and utilities, the use of third-party certifications like MiQ, and the implementation of policies to plug marginal wells. The document highlights recent regulatory moves in the U.S. and EU, and international initiatives like the MMRV and CLEAN frameworks, as essential steps to tip global gas markets toward low-emissions supplies.

The report examines hydropower in northern Sweden, specifically the Norrbotten region, amidst rising energy demands from 'fossil-free steel' and battery production. It highlights the shift of hydropower from baseload capacity to a flexibility and storage role to support intermittent wind and solar power. This transition, alongside industrial growth, increases the risk of 'hydropeaking'—rapid fluctuations in river flow—which threatens freshwater biodiversity and fish species like salmon and brown trout. The document analyzes the Swedish National Plan for Hydropower Permit Reviews (NAP), noting the trade-off between environmental restoration and a national production loss limit of 1.5 TWh/year. It concludes that while climate change may increase water run-off and production potential, sustainable management requires integrated economic and ecological frameworks and broader stakeholder inclusion.