Search Climate Insights Directory

The UK has nearly completed its transition from coal, a process driven initially by market forces and later by a carbon tax, rather than a single planned strategy. While the 'dash for gas' in the 1990s and the 2013 carbon tax significantly reduced coal-fired power, the socio-economic recovery of mining communities remains incomplete. Despite regeneration efforts, former coalfields experience persistent 'economic inactivity' and high rates of incapacity benefit claims, indicating a long-term job shortfall that transcends the retirement of the original mining workforce.

The US coal industry has faced a sharp decline driven by the shale gas revolution, increasing competitiveness of renewables, and federal environmental regulations. This transition has led to significant job losses and bankruptcies among major coal producers, particularly impacting regions like Appalachia and the Powder River Basin. To mitigate these effects, the Obama administration introduced the Power Plus Plan to fund economic diversification and worker retraining. However, low-income households still face high electricity costs, and bankrupt companies have shifted reclamation and pension liabilities to state budgets.

The document explores the application of transitional justice—traditionally used to transition societies from injustice to peace—to the climate context. It identifies five key similarities between the two fields: the tension between backward- and forward-looking claims, unavoidable interdependencies, limited judicial capabilities, the management of profound loss, and inherent power imbalances. The brief concludes that ignoring historical justice claims risks the unraveling of climate agreements and suggests that a combination of mechanisms, such as truth commissions and reparations, is needed to build trust and legitimacy for future-oriented regimes.

The brief examines the application of transitional justice mechanisms to climate change, arguing that while litigation and amnesties are currently used, neither is sufficient alone. It suggests that legal pressure can force recognition of injustices, while amnesties may secure the cooperation of powerful actors, but both require integration with reparations, truth-seeking, and institutional reform to maintain long-term political legitimacy.

The brief explores how transitional justice frameworks for reparations—including restitution, rehabilitation, compensation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition—can be applied to the climate context. It emphasizes that addressing the needs of those most impacted is essential for building a legitimate global climate regime and suggests a combination of material and symbolic reparations to repair relationships and foster collective solidarity.

The policy brief explores how truth commissions, traditionally used for political reconciliation, could provide a pragmatic middle path between ignoring historical climate harms and pursuing legal liability. It evaluates three structural options: internal UNFCCC processes, external but linked mechanisms, and entirely external processes such as the International Court of Justice. The author concludes that a high-profile, neutral commission created by NGOs or a coalition of Parties is the most politically feasible approach for trust-building and documenting lived harms, though it must be accompanied by concrete action to avoid alienating supporters.

The report highlights that while African countries have shown ambition in their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), they lack the financial resources, technical capacity, and institutional frameworks necessary for implementation. It emphasizes the need for a shift from top-down to bottom-up adaptation strategies, the integration of climate change into national education curricula, and the harmonisation of regional policies, particularly within the East African Community. The document argues for a comprehensive African research agenda to generate evidence-based policies and the use of 'hooks' to align climate action with sustainable development goals to limit temperature increases to 1.5°C.

The document examines the tension between WTO non-discrimination rules and national climate policies, such as renewable energy subsidies and carbon pricing. It analyzes recent WTO disputes over local content requirements and proposes solutions including authoritative interpretations of GATT Article XX, the use of regional trade agreements (RTAs) to test new rules, and increased institutional coordination between the WTO and UNFCCC.

The document examines the tension between international trade rules and national climate policies, arguing that while trade rules are often seen as barriers to climate ambition, they can also facilitate the deployment of clean technologies. It proposes five key steps to create a more climate-friendly trade regime: an authoritative interpretation of GATT Article XX, the inclusion of climate expertise in WTO dispute settlement, the use of regional trade agreements to test climate rules, the pursuit of plurilateral deals like the Environmental Goods Agreement, and increased institutional coordination between the WTO and UNFCCC to enhance transparency.

The report analyzes the compatibility of Carbon Market Clubs (CMCs)—networks of emissions trading schemes (ETSs) sharing rules and services—with various 'climate clubs' consisting of governments, cities, and businesses. It explores whether standardized CMC services, such as mitigation value assessments and international asset reserves, can reduce transaction costs and political barriers to linking diverse carbon markets. While the Paris Agreement's Article 6.2 encourages voluntary cooperation, the report finds that political concerns over sovereignty, environmental integrity, and the 'not invented here' syndrome often outweigh technical efficiencies. Case studies of the EU ETS, WCI, RGGI, and ICAO illustrate the tension between the desire for centralized control and the economic benefits of networked markets.

The policy brief examines the challenges of developing a robust accounting framework for climate finance under the UNFCCC, following a decision reached at the Paris negotiations. It identifies two competing approaches to accounting: one focused on 'meeting financial obligations' (assessing the effort of developed nations) and another on 'tracking resilient/low carbon finance' (assessing the total scale of global resources). The authors argue that current practices, particularly the OECD DAC Rio marker methodology, fail because they mix these two approaches, leading to overestimations, double counting, and a lack of transparency. The brief recommends that the SBSTA adopt a two-track approach to develop separate accounting systems for each purpose and establish an internationally agreed baseline to verify the additionality of financial contributions.

The report proposes 'Inclusion of Consumption' (IoC) as a way to ensure carbon prices are reflected in the cost of materials like steel and cement, which are currently shielded by free allowance allocations in emissions trading schemes. By adding a charge to the consumption of these materials based on benchmarks, the IoC aims to incentivize material efficiency and innovation without harming competitiveness. The authors argue that IoC is administratively feasible, compliant with WTO law, and qualifies as an environmental regulation under EU law.

The report examines the shift in global climate governance from the top-down targets of the Kyoto Protocol to the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) of the Paris Agreement. It highlights the 'ambition gap' in current pledges and argues that the success of the agreement depends on integrating the actions of non-state actors—such as cities, regions, and businesses—into national frameworks. The document details specific subnational initiatives like the C40 network and Brazil's CB27, while providing a case study of Singapore's role in the negotiations.

This policy brief explores the application of transitional justice frameworks to international climate negotiations. It argues that because climate policy shares similarities with conflict transitions—such as profound loss, interdependence, and disputes over historical responsibility—lessons from transitional justice can help build the legitimacy and trust required for the Paris Agreement's success. The author suggests a balance of 'backwards-oriented' acknowledgments of responsibility and 'forwards-oriented' supports, proposing specific mechanisms such as collective reparations, long-term low-carbon development support, and 'soft accountability' tools like non-binding acknowledgments of historical responsibility.

The report details a December 2015 workshop in Paris focused on 'low carbon clubs' or multijurisdictional cooperative approaches (MCAs). Participants argued that these clubs should aim to increase emissions reduction ambition and could use carbon pricing to fund technological innovation in sectors like gas, electricity, oil, and mining. The discussion highlighted the potential for linking diverse carbon markets through initiatives like the World Bank's Networked Carbon Markets (NCM) and emphasized the need for non-pricing incentives—such as technology transfer and capacity building—to encourage participation from developing nations and the Alliance of Small Island States.

The Carbon-CAP project evaluated consumption-based policy instruments across four acceptability criteria: economic distributional impact, legal viability, international political/trade concerns, and institutional capacity. The analysis suggests a tiered implementation strategy, prioritizing instruments that change the available product range or costs—such as approved technology lists and supply chain procurement requirements—over those that merely influence consumer choice. The brief emphasizes that these instruments are most effective when deployed in complementary portfolios to spread responsibility between producers and consumers and to mitigate individual policy weaknesses.

The report examines how to reform EU energy law to meet 2030 targets, specifically a binding EU-wide target of 27% renewable energy and a 27% energy savings goal. It identifies four primary areas for streamlining: the alignment of renewable energy and energy efficiency targets, the merging of planning and reporting requirements, the consolidation of building-sector provisions into a single directive, and the transfer of market-barrier removal provisions to a reviewed internal electricity market directive. The authors argue that synchronizing these amendments during the 2016 legislative review period would reduce administrative burdens, enhance policy coherence, and increase investor certainty.

The document argues that production-based emissions accounting allows the EU to outsource manufacturing and claim emissions reductions while domestic consumption drives emissions elsewhere. It introduces the Carbon-CAP project, which evaluates over 30 policy instruments across sectors like transport and food to complement existing production-focused policies. These instruments are assessed based on effectiveness, scope, economic equity, and political/legal acceptance to avoid rebound effects and emissions shifting within the global economy.

The document outlines a framework for evaluating emissions trading schemes (ETS) by categorising assessment into operational aspects and outcomes. It reviews methodologies for analysing carbon prices, market activity, and transaction costs, as well as outcomes related to emissions, innovation, trade, and employment. The authors argue that while operational data is often readily available, assessing long-term outcomes like innovation and employment requires high-quality, disaggregated firm-level data and counterfactual baselines. The paper concludes with specific recommendations for China's pilot schemes, suggesting a prioritisation of carbon price and emissions analysis due to data availability, while advising a cautious, qualitative approach to innovation and trade effects in the short term.

The paper explores the analogy between transitional justice—typically used to transition societies from periods of deep injustice to peace—and the climate change context. It identifies four key similarities: unavoidable interdependence, the inadequacy of current judicial processes, disagreements over the link between past actions and future obligations, and the importance of socio-economic human rights. The author suggests that climate policy could adopt specific transitional justice practices, such as guarantees of non-recurrence, reparations, limited liability, and formal peace processes, to move beyond political stalemates regarding historical responsibility. However, the paper also notes significant limitations, including the fact that climate injustices are ongoing rather than past, the lack of a unified global 'society', and the risk of co-optation by powerful actors.