Search Climate Insights Directory

The Clean Air Task Force asserts that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is essential for decarbonising foundational industries like cement, iron, steel, and chemicals, which account for approximately one-fifth of total emissions. While some national initiatives exist in the UK, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Norway, the author argues that a centralized EU strategy is needed to resolve cross-border transport issues, close a projected €10 billion funding gap, and address a storage capacity deficit where available space by 2030 may only meet half of the captured CO2 volume. The proposed strategy would include setting milestone targets, developing strategically placed storage sites, and creating a regulatory platform for CO2 transport infrastructure.

European governments are significantly increasing renewable energy targets and slashing planned fossil fuel electricity generation to reduce geopolitical dependence on Russian energy. Analysis shows that EU countries' planned 2030 renewable electricity share has risen from 55% to 63%, while planned fossil fuel generation has dropped by 31%. Major importers of Russian fuels, including Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, are leading these efforts through ambitious wind and solar expansions. The report also highlights the REPowerEU framework's role in coordinating these efforts and the need for further decarbonization in the heating, industry, and transport sectors.

The study compares the levelised cost of hydrogen (LCOH) for different carriers and transport methods to Rotterdam. It finds that pipeline imports from Norway (2030) and Algeria (2040/2050) offer the lowest LCOH. Among marine carriers, cracked ammonia is the most cost-effective for delivering liberated hydrogen, while uncracked ammonia is the cheapest overall if used directly as fuel. Saudi Arabia is identified as the most economical export location for all marine carriers due to low natural gas prices and favorable construction costs. Carbon emissions are lowest for liquid hydrogen (LH2) among liberated hydrogen chains, but uncracked ammonia is the least carbon-intensive overall. The report also details the technical, safety, and infrastructure challenges associated with each carrier, noting that while ammonia has mature transport infrastructure, large-scale cracking technology is still in development.

The report finds that total EU methane emissions were 15.2 Mt in 2019, with livestock agriculture contributing 53%, waste 27%, and energy 13%. While a business-as-usual trend suggests a 13.4% reduction by 2030, the report estimates a maximum theoretical reduction potential of 49% to 68%. Achieving the 30% (Pledge) and 45% (Science) targets requires significant behavioral changes in livestock agriculture, specifically a shift toward healthier diets with lower meat and dairy consumption, alongside technical measures in the energy and waste sectors.

The report highlights a 'double threat' in Northern Canada: inadequate existing infrastructure and a climate warming three times faster than the global average. Permafrost thaw is causing significant structural damage to runways, roads, and residential buildings, which threatens essential services like healthcare and food security. The authors argue that while incremental adaptation (e.g., thermosiphons) can delay costs, 'transformational adaptation'—repensuring how services are delivered and where infrastructure is located—is necessary to address systemic deficits rooted in colonial history. The report recommends federal funding restructuring, improved regional climate risk data, and updated building codes to ensure long-term resilience.

The document critiques the 'net zero' framework, asserting that it relies on the scientifically flawed assumption that ongoing fossil fuel emissions can be offset by carbon removals. It specifically analyzes how initiatives like ART-TREES and the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) attempt to standardize and merge different types of carbon credits—avoided emissions, reduced emissions, and removals—into single, fungible assets to increase market scale. The report warns that this 'house of cards' encourages continued fossil fuel use, risks creating a 'subprime carbon' financial crisis through derivatives and speculation, and threatens the rights of Indigenous peoples through land grabbing for nature-based solutions.

The report critiques the 'net zero' framework and the expansion of carbon offset markets, asserting that they create a false equivalence between carbon removals and avoided emissions. It argues that these mechanisms serve as a 'house of cards' designed to protect stranded fossil fuel assets by providing a veneer of climate action while allowing ongoing emissions. The document specifically highlights the efforts of the Task Force on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) and the Architecture for REDD+ Transactions (ART-TREES) to standardize and commodify different types of carbon credits to increase market volume. It concludes that the only viable path to limiting warming to 1.5°C is a rapid, just transition to renewable energy and the immediate phase-out of fossil fuels, rather than reliance on speculative carbon removal technologies or flawed offsetting schemes.

The document critiques the 'fossil bet on the future,' claiming that carbon offsets and net-zero goals serve as a 'house of cards' to maintain fossil fuel dependence. It specifically targets the amalgamation of carbon capture, emission reductions, and avoided emissions into single, fungible credit units, arguing that such mechanisms do not actually reduce atmospheric CO2 and may lead to increased warming. The report highlights the role of the Task Force on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) and ART-TREES in standardizing these credits to facilitate financial speculation and the 're-floating' of stranded assets.

The report argues that governments are reacting to the energy crisis by prioritizing short-term fossil fuel security over long-term decarbonization, risking a 'gold rush' for new gas infrastructure and domestic production. While some progress in renewables and green hydrogen is noted, the authors highlight a prevalence of 'bad practices' such as fossil fuel subsidies, tax cuts for petrol, and the expansion of LNG facilities. The document provides a framework of 'do's and don'ts', urging governments to instead focus on energy efficiency, electrification, behavioral changes, and the reinvestment of fossil fuel windfall profits into clean energy to avoid stranded assets and irreversible warming.

Reclaim Finance reports a decline in shareholder support for ambitious climate resolutions and a contradictory tendency for investors to approve 'pseudo-climate plans' that are incompatible with a 1.5°C warming limit. The organization highlights specific voting trends at European oil and gas majors and calls for a shift toward voting against companies continuing fossil fuel development.

ClientEarth and other NGOs express disappointment over a CEFAS report revealing that only 35% of 2022 UK-relevant fisheries catch limits were set in line with scientific advice, with nearly two-thirds exceeding those limits. The authors argue this failure violates the Fisheries Act and the 'Leader’s Pledge for Nature', and they request transparency regarding which TACs the UK advocated to set above scientific advice.

Reclaim Finance argues that Equinor's energy transition plan, submitted for a 'Say on Climate' vote on May 11, 2022, fails to align with the 1.5°C warming limit. The organization claims the company will exceed its carbon budget by 25.6% by 2050 and will have consumed 69.1% of its remaining carbon budget by 2030 due to a continued reliance on oil field production and development.

Reclaim Finance asserts that Equinor's climate plan is insufficient to meet 1.5°C targets, noting that the company will exceed its carbon budget by 2037. The statement criticizes Equinor for continuing to develop new fossil fuel resources, including unconventional and Arctic projects, and for relying on unproven CCUS scalability. It recommends that shareholders reject the company's transition plan and support resolutions calling for absolute GHG reduction targets and a cessation of exploration.

The report argues that while Europe has significant theoretical CO2 storage capacity, actual deployment is hindered by a funding gap, regulatory barriers to cross-border transport, and a lack of coordinated infrastructure. It recommends shifting from project-based funding to system-based approaches, implementing carbon contracts for difference (CCfDs), and establishing a market for low-carbon products. The authors call for a formal EU strategy to set milestone targets and coordinate the development of large-scale, open-access storage sites beyond the North Sea.

The report contends that fossil gas cannot be considered a transition fuel due to significant methane leakage and the need for rapid decarbonisation by 2030. It argues that the EU's Complementary Delegated Act threatens the credibility of the EU Taxonomy by allowing fossil gas as a transitional activity. The document advocates for a rapid shift to low-carbon hydrogen, prioritised for hard-to-abate sectors, and warns against 'gas blending' as an inefficient decarbonisation strategy. It recommends the use of additionality requirements for electrolysers to prevent them from cannibalising renewable energy growth and suggests various financial mechanisms, including Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfDs) and green public procurement, to mobilise investment. The report also emphasizes the need for a Just Transition to protect workers and low-income households from the regressive effects of carbon pricing.

The document examines the dimensions of a just energy transition, moving beyond the focus on fossil fuel workers to address the impacts of clean energy deployment. It identifies five types of energy justice—distributive, procedural, recognition, restorative, and cosmopolitan—and emphasizes the necessity of respecting human rights across the entire clean energy supply chain. The briefing highlights risks associated with critical mineral extraction and land use, providing case studies from Colombia and Scandinavia. It concludes that international cooperation and robust regulatory frameworks are essential to ensure that the benefits and costs of the transition are shared equitably without exacerbating existing inequalities.

The paper examines the dimensions of a just and equitable energy transition, moving beyond the impacts on fossil fuel-dependent workers to analyze the risks associated with clean energy supply chains. It identifies five forms of justice—distributional, procedural, recognition, restorative, and cosmopolitan—and emphasizes the necessity of respecting human rights, particularly for Indigenous peoples, throughout the energy lifecycle. The authors highlight the risks of human rights violations in critical mineral extraction and the potential for 'green' projects to cause displacement. They advocate for community benefit-sharing, quality job creation, and international cooperation to ensure that the economic benefits of the transition do not exacerbate existing inequalities.

The report examines the global and regional context of oil and gas transitions, focusing on the North Sea region. It identifies a significant 'ambition gap' between national net-zero targets and actual industrial strategies in the UK and Norway, while noting Denmark as a first-mover with a 2050 phase-out date. Using a scorecard analysis based on seven just transition principles, the report finds that while Scotland leads in support for workers and communities, the UK and Norway struggle with carbon lock-in due to continued licensing and a lack of comprehensive regional support policies.

A coalition of organizations and businesses urges New York State to pass legislation instituting a two-year moratorium on fossil fuel permits for proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining to protect the state's climate goals and vulnerable communities.

The US Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) lacks transparency regarding the greenhouse gas emissions intensities of the oils it stores, which hinders the ability to minimize climate impacts during drawdowns. The document notes that different oils vary significantly in their climate footprints based on production and refining methods, and that a mismatch exists between the SPR's lighter crudes and the deep-conversion refineries in Texas and Louisiana that primarily process them. It suggests that selectively purchasing the lowest climate-intensive oils for the current one-million-barrel daily withdrawal could save an estimated 90 million tons of CO2e.