Search Climate Insights Directory

The document alleges that BP knew about the devastating consequences of fossil fuels as early as 1991 but engaged in a campaign of deception to protect profits. It highlights the contrast between BP's 'Beyond Petroleum' branding and its actual capital expenditures, noting that the company spent $12 billion on oil and gas in 2002 compared to $45 million in solar. The briefing also criticizes BP for pioneering the 'carbon footprint' concept to shift responsibility to consumers and for implementing a 'net zero' ambition that excludes an estimated 46% of the carbon it extracts, including joint ventures with Rosneft.

The briefing argues that nuclear risk reduction requires moving beyond general policy statements toward concrete affirmations of restraint. It suggests four types of declarations: acknowledging the futility of first use, strengthening 'last resort' promises by removing exceptions for non-nuclear states, adopting multi-person decision protocols to prevent rash individual actions, and clarifying strategic ambiguities. Additionally, the author proposes 'CATALINK', a secure, encrypted, and multipolar nuclear hotline to replace outdated bilateral links and facilitate crisis communication in a multipolar world.

The Clean Air Task Force argues that Germany requires a dedicated CO2 strategy and regulatory framework to enable the implementation of CCU and CCS technologies, which are deemed essential for mitigating industrial process emissions that cannot be otherwise reduced. The document calls for the development of national and cross-border CO2 transport infrastructure, the introduction of Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfD) to support industrial clusters, and the initiation of a societal dialogue on climate protection technologies.

The document examines the resurgence of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in Europe as a critical tool for decarbonizing heavy industries and achieving Paris Agreement targets. It analyzes EU-level policies like the TEN-E Regulation and the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), alongside financing tools such as the Innovation Fund and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). The paper highlights a strategic shift toward 'carbon management hubs' to achieve economies of scale and reviews national progress in Norway, the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany, concluding that existing policy levers may be insufficient for the required scale-up.

The document highlights a significant discrepancy between the UK advertising industry's operational carbon footprint and the emissions of its fossil fuel clients, urging the industry to include client impact in its net zero accounting.

ClientEarth argues that the UK government's proposed 'Better Regulation' framework, informed by the TIGGR report, risks a deregulatory shift that would threaten environmental protections. The organization specifically opposes the adoption of a 'common law approach' to regulation and a 'new' proportionality principle, warning that these could erode the precautionary principle and lead to 'death by a thousand cuts' for the environment. ClientEarth also cautions against delegating excessive discretion to regulators through guidance rather than legislation, citing failures in oil and gas and agricultural pollution enforcement. Instead, it advocates for a prescriptive, government-led approach that integrates the value of natural capital into regulatory impact assessments.

The report argues that the food industry's reliance on single-use plastics creates significant ecological and health crises while exposing the sector and its financiers to material financial risks. It highlights a 'financial bubble' in the plastics industry driven by overproduction and impending regulation. Research reveals that seven banks operating in Belgium provided over 78 billion euros in financing to nine food industry companies between 2015 and 2021, with Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, and ING as the primary financiers. The document calls for banks to implement concrete plastic policies and for the Belgian government to use its influence as a shareholder to drive a transition toward a circular economy.

The document examines the legal frameworks governing shareholder resolutions in thirteen European countries, focusing on how investors can compel companies to adopt Paris-aligned climate strategies. It identifies a recurring tension between the general management powers of corporate Boards and the reserved rights of shareholders to amend a company's Articles of Association. The guide argues that framing climate 'asks'—such as net-zero commitments, transition plans, 'Say on Climate' votes, and lobbying disclosures—as amendments to the Articles of Association is often the most effective legal path to ensure resolutions are tabled at Annual General Meetings (AGMs). While the UK, Ireland, Spain, and Sweden are described as relatively simple jurisdictions for filing, others like France, Germany, and Austria require more nuanced framing to avoid infringing on Board competencies. The Netherlands is highlighted as the only jurisdiction among the thirteen where shareholders cannot legally compel a company to table a resolution without Board consent.

ClientEarth argues that Clause 1 of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, specifically the introduction of prospective-only quashing orders, would weaken the public's right to an effective remedy when public bodies act unlawfully. The briefing contends that these proposals conflict with the UK's obligations under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 9(4) of the Aarhus Convention, thereby damaging environmental democracy. It further warns that such remedies could allow unlawful decisions to stand, reducing accountability and preventing the protection of the environment from irretrievable harm.

The document argues that expanding the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) is essential to combat illegal nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels in London, which are nearly twice the legal limit. It details the expansion's scope, the specific vehicle emission standards required to avoid charges, and the projected health benefits, including the avoidance of 250,000 new cases of air pollution-related disease. The guide highlights that road transport, particularly diesel cars, is the primary source of NO2 pollution and emphasizes that low-income and minority communities are disproportionately affected by poor air quality. It also advocates for further measures, such as expanding the ULEZ to all of Greater London and adopting stricter World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for particulate matter (PM2.5).

The document advocates for the expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in London, scheduled for 25 October 2021, to address illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and the resulting public health risks. It highlights that air pollution disproportionately affects vulnerable groups and low-income households, while noting that without such policies, London would have taken 193 years from 2016 to meet legal NO2 limits. The briefing calls for further support through scrappage schemes and a comprehensive plan to tackle pollution hotspots near schools and hospitals.

The document argues that demand-side flexibility (DSF) is essential for integrating intermittent renewables and managing the electrification of transport, buildings, and industry. It highlights that while large industrial users have traditionally provided flexibility, residential and small business consumers have significant untapped potential through assets like electric vehicles (EVs) and heat pumps. Using the UK as a primary example, the brief identifies barriers such as inadequate economic signals and passive consumer behavior, and suggests enablers including smart metering, market reform, and digital aggregation platforms. For China, the authors recommend a 'hybrid approach' combining market-based pricing with administrative scheduling to transition away from a reliance on coal-fired power for system flexibility, while emphasizing the need for pilots to understand consumer preferences.

The document argues that demand-side flexibility (DSF) is essential for integrating intermittent renewables and managing the electrification of transport and buildings. It identifies barriers such as inadequate economic signals and consumer passivity, while highlighting enablers like smart metering, digital aggregation platforms, and the need to align services with consumer preferences. For China, the brief suggests a transition from coal-based flexibility to decarbonised sources, proposing a hybrid approach combining market prices with administrative merit orders to manage distributed energy resources.

The report finds that while net zero commitments from private financial institutions have grown rapidly, reaching USD 93.3 trillion in assets, they often lack the interim targets, detailed transition plans, and specificity in regional or sectoral investment needed for genuine Paris alignment. It highlights a strong focus on coal divestment but a significant lag in phasing out oil and gas financing and addressing biodiversity loss.

The fact sheet identifies six corporate entities—BP, Microsoft, IETA, BlackRock, Shell, and Drax—that the author claims are using "net zero" agendas to mask continued fossil fuel investment, rely on unproven technology, and influence policymakers through extensive lobbying and partnerships surrounding COP26.

The fact sheet details how six major corporate players—BP, Microsoft, Drax, IETA, BlackRock, and Shell—employ 'net zero' agendas to maintain business-as-usual operations. It contends that these entities promote 'false solutions' such as carbon offsets, BECCS, and hydrogen to delay emissions cuts at the source. The document further highlights the influence of these corporations on COP26 through sponsorship, lobbying, and participation in industry-led initiatives like the Race to Zero and the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets.

The document critiques the 'net zero' narrative promoted by the UK presidency of COP26, arguing that it ignores historical responsibility and relies on scientifically flawed assumptions about carbon removal. It warns that 'net zero' acts as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering and allows polluters to use carbon offsets to maintain business-as-usual emissions. The author calls for a shift toward 'real zero' targets, absolute emission reductions by the Global North, and the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26.

The briefing note critiques the 'net zero' agenda promoted by the UK presidency at COP26, arguing that the concept allows governments and corporations to maintain fossil fuel pathways through deceptive accounting and unproven technologies. It contends that net zero ignores historical responsibility, is inequitable to the global South, and relies on the physical impossibility of natural sinks absorbing all combusted fossil carbon. The author warns that the confusion between carbon removals and offsets is being exploited to create a carbon market potentially worth US$50-100 billion by 2030, which diverts investment from systemic transformation. Friends of the Earth International demands a focus on 'real zero', absolute emissions reductions by 2030, the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26, and the fulfillment of climate finance obligations by Northern countries.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) rejects Nature-based Solutions (NbS), characterizing the term as a "wolf in sheep's clothing" that masks neocolonialism and corporate greenwashing. The document contends that NbS promotes industrial monoculture plantations and the financialization of nature, which threatens the land rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities, particularly in the Global South. FoEI argues that NbS serves as a distraction from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels and instead advocates for systemic changes through agroecology and community forest management.

The document critiques the 'net zero' framework promoted by the UK presidency and the 'Race to Zero' initiative for COP26. It asserts that net zero ignores historical responsibility, relies on physically impossible natural carbon sinks, and serves as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering. The author distinguishes between 'removals' and 'offsets', arguing that the latter maintain the status quo and divert investment from systemic transformation. Friends of the Earth International demands a shift toward 'real zero' (absolute emissions reductions), the exclusion of polluting companies from COP26, and the fulfillment of climate finance obligations by Northern countries to support the Global South.