Search Climate Insights Directory

The document analyzes methane abatement through improved flaring practices in nine African and Latin American countries. It identifies removing unlit flaring as a priority low-cost action and notes that while most measures fall below a low-cost threshold of 596 USD/tCH4, costs vary by country based on flaring volumes per site. Key barriers include regulatory focuses on flaring volumes rather than efficiency and high operation and maintenance requirements.

The report details how the EU's strategy to diversify energy supplies has led to an increased reliance on US LNG, which is expected to reach up to 80% of European imports by 2030. This demand fuels infrastructure expansion in the US Gulf Coast and Permian Basin, resulting in ecosystem destruction, hazardous living conditions for residents, and significant methane emissions. The text highlights the role of Italian entities, including the bank Intesa Sanpaolo and energy companies like Eni and Edison, in financing and purchasing this gas, while noting legal disputes over delivery obligations and the environmental 'sacrifice zones' created by relentless extraction.

An analysis of Texas oil and gas data reveals that methane waste is significantly underreported, with estimates suggesting actual losses are 3 to 4.5 times higher than official figures. The study finds that venting is the primary source of underreporting, particularly in low-production oil wells where economic incentives discourage gas capture. The report argues that current self-reporting systems are insufficient and recommends disaggregated reporting and more stringent regulations to reduce environmental harm and recover lost tax revenues.

Texas can leverage its existing oil and gas infrastructure, geological assets, and federal tax credits under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to become a global leader in carbon management, potentially attracting up to $94 billion in investments and creating up to 211,000 jobs by 2050.

The report finds that private equity-backed fossil fuel infrastructure in the U.S. causes between $11.3 and $15.1 billion in annual human health damages, resulting in nearly 1,000 premature deaths and 1,500 emergency room visits each year. A small group of firms, specifically ArcLight, Energy Capital Partners (ECP), and Quantum Capital, are responsible for approximately 20% of these impacts. The General J.M. Gavin coal plant in Ohio is identified as the single most harmful facility, causing an estimated $1.7 billion in annual health impacts. Regional analysis highlights a disproportionate burden in the Mid-Atlantic/New England area, where people are three times more likely to die from this pollution than in the rest of the U.S., and in Texas, which ranks first in asthma onset and symptoms due to its large population and proximity to the Permian Basin.

The report finds that private equity-backed fossil fuel facilities in the U.S. cause between $11.3 and $15.1 billion in annual human health damages, resulting in nearly 1,000 premature deaths and 1,500 emergency room visits per year. A small group of firms, specifically ArcLight, Energy Capital Partners, and Quantum Capital, are responsible for approximately 20% of these impacts. The General J.M. Gavin coal plant in Ohio is identified as the single most harmful facility, accounting for roughly 19% of all health impacts in the study. Regional analysis highlights disproportionate burdens in the Mid-Atlantic/New England area and the Permian Basin, with Texas ranking first in asthma onset and symptoms due to its large population and proximity to extraction sites.

Reclaim Finance contends that ENGIE's strategy of signing long-term LNG import contracts facilitates the construction of new export terminals and the exploitation of new gas fields, specifically in the US Permian Basin. The document highlights that these contracts, some extending beyond 2040, contradict IEA Net Zero scenarios and European decarbonization goals, potentially creating stranded assets or shifting carbon risks to Asia. It specifically cites the Port Arthur LNG and Rio Grande LNG projects as examples of high-emission infrastructure supported by ENGIE, and calls for shareholders to vote against CEO Catherine MacGregor and the company's "Say on Climate" proposal.

Reclaim Finance claims that ENGIE's long-term LNG import contracts, particularly those from the United States, drive the development of new export terminals and gas fields, contradicting decarbonization scenarios. The document highlights that these contracts lock in carbon-intensive trajectories for decades and risk creating stranded assets as European gas demand declines. It specifically cites contracts linked to the Port Arthur LNG terminal and the Rio Grande LNG project, the latter of which saw its carbon capture and sequestration project abandoned. Consequently, Reclaim Finance calls on shareholders to vote against the re-election of CEO Catherine MacGregor and the 'Say on Climate' proposal.

An investigation by Stand.earth Research Group and the Center for International Environmental Law identifies a direct link between fracking in the Permian Basin and the plastic packaging used by major global brands, highlighting the role of specific traders and exporters in fueling fossil fuel expansion.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) argue that the 45V Clean Hydrogen Production Tax Credit must use accurate, granular, and verified methane emission data rather than a national average to ensure the incentive drives truly clean hydrogen production and incentivizes upstream methane reductions.

The policy brief contends that fixed upstream emission rates for methane and CO2 in the 45VH2-GREET model create economic distortions by penalizing low-emission hydrogen producers and rewarding those with higher-emission supply chains. It proposes replacing these fixed rates with project-specific data from the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) to ensure tax credits align with actual lifecycle emissions.

The report argues that Occidental Petroleum's (Oxy) climate strategy is misaligned with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. It finds that Oxy's net-zero targets are inadequate, focusing primarily on scope 1 and 2 emissions while ignoring the vast majority of its carbon footprint in scope 3. The analysis highlights a heavy overreliance on unproven direct air capture (DAC) technology, which the report claims is used as a 'licence to pollute' and a mechanism to prolong oil and gas extraction through enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The report further asserts that Oxy's 'net-zero oil' claims are scientifically invalid and that its lobbying efforts for government subsidies for carbon removals contradict its public climate commitments.

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 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.

Methane is a potent climate pollutant responsible for 30 percent of the earth's temperature rise since the Industrial era. In the oil and gas sector, methane leakage can make natural gas as damaging as coal in the near term, with some US Gulf of Mexico offshore platforms showing leakage rates up to 66 percent. Despite the fact that many leaks can be repaired cost-effectively, the document notes that companies are not moving quickly enough, particularly in the US Permian Basin. The author advocates for mandatory requirements and the expanded use of aerial and satellite detection to increase transparency and enforce standards.

The policy brief highlights a systemic gap between self-reported methane emissions in the US oil and gas sector and actual emissions measured via remote sensing. It argues that current EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) guidelines rely on simplistic assumptions that miss 'super-emitting' events, leading to underestimations of emissions by factors of two to four. This data gap threatens the efficacy of the Inflation Reduction Act's (IRA) Waste Emissions Charge, potentially resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in lost fees. The author calls for the integration of empirical data and updated reporting categories to improve transparency, incentivize mitigation, and ensure accurate pricing of methane emissions.

The Environmental Commenters (EDF, CATF, NRDC, Sierra Club, and Earthworks) argue that current source-level reporting systematically underreports methane emissions. They recommend integrating top-down empirical data (satellite, aerial, and tower measurements) to validate bottom-up inventories. Key technical recommendations include establishing a 100 kg/hr threshold for 'large release events,' requiring continuous metering for a sample of pneumatic controllers to prevent data manipulation, and updating gathering pipeline emission factors using recent aerial studies rather than outdated distribution pipeline data. The group also emphasizes the need for rigorous reporting during ownership transfers to prevent 'transferred emissions' from escaping oversight and calls for extended reporting requirements for offshore facilities and plugged wells.

The document argues that the DOE's proposed 4 kgCO2e/kgH2 standard is too weak and should be lowered to 1 kgCO2e/kgH2 to prioritize truly zero-emission hydrogen. It criticizes the GREET model for underestimating methane leakage and grid emissions, warns against the safety and environmental risks of carbon capture and storage (CCS), and demands that the hydrogen hub program incorporate strict environmental justice protections and community engagement.

The document outlines a pathway to reduce U.S. oil and gas methane emissions by 65% using mature technologies and standards already employed in states like Colorado and New Mexico. It advocates for strengthening EPA regulations to include frequent leak detection and repair (LDAR) and a total ban on routine flaring. Additionally, it supports the Build Back Better Act's Methane Emissions Reduction Program (MERP) as a complementary financial incentive. The author asserts that these measures would save society $13 billion annually by 2025, prevent millions of tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from entering the atmosphere, and create approximately 220,000 total jobs without negatively impacting drilling activity.

The document analyzes the resource requirements and potential externalities of direct air capture (DAC) at both a single-plant (1 MtCO2/year) and a system-wide (0.5 GtCO2/year) scale. It finds that while on-site emissions are low, significant impacts arise from energy demand, land use, and the materials supply chain. The authors argue that responsible scaling requires project-specific social and environmental impact assessments, robust community engagement, and the use of legal agreements like Community Benefits Agreements to ensure equitable distribution of benefits, such as job creation.