Search Climate Insights Directory

The text advocates for 'universal basic services'—publicly funded, sustainable access to essentials like transport, housing, and childcare—as a means to ensure a socially just ecological transition in Europe. It argues that current EU climate policies, such as the European Green Deal, are too reliant on market mechanisms and regulation, which can be regressive and disproportionately affect low-income households. The author contends that shifting from a GDP-centered growth model to one based on 'sufficiency' and collective action can reduce carbon intensity and combat inequality. To achieve this, the document calls for the removal of restrictive EU budgetary rules, the taxation of excess corporate profits and wealth, and a move away from using high interest rates to combat inflation, which the author claims hinders green investment.

The author contends that the EU's current climate finance is insufficient compared to its historical responsibility for emissions and its domestic spending. While the EU aims for carbon neutrality, the text argues this creates a 'green fortress' that neglects the needs of vulnerable nations. It suggests reallocating fossil fuel subsidies and implementing taxes on polluters to fund global climate action and warns that the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) could economically penalize African exporters.

The author contends that South Africa is failing to realize its economic potential due to policies that promote financialization and austerity over productive growth and social support. The text highlights the extreme wealth inequality in the country and criticizes the National Treasury's opposition to extending the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant. It argues that the current fiscal challenges are manageable and that austerity is counterproductive to growth, suggesting instead a model of decisive political leadership and state-led development to avoid a 'social cliff'.

The Institute for Economic Justice criticizes the South African National Treasury for presenting expenditure cuts as the only solution to a 'fiscal cliff'. The author argues that austerity leads to the collapse of critical services, increased poverty, and long-term GDP decline. Proposed alternatives include removing tax breaks for high earners, returning the corporate income tax rate to 28%, and lowering borrowing costs through state-mandated lending and capital controls.

Global Witness contends that hydrogen heating is an inefficient and dangerous alternative to heat pumps, pushed by gas companies to avoid stranded assets. The briefing criticizes the UK Energy Bill for introducing a hydrogen levy on consumers and proposing forced participation in heating trials in locations like Redcar or Whitby, Ellesmere Port.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) challenges the Centre for Development and Enterprise's (CDE) opposition to a basic income grant (BIG) in South Africa. The IEJ argues that social protection, rather than austerity or market-led structural reform, is essential for economic growth. It asserts that cash transfers stimulate labor demand, entrepreneurship, and grassroots productivity, while progressive taxation to fund these grants can lead to positive GDP changes and employment surges without causing economic crises.

The author contends that the current global political economy is a 'neocolonial debt regime' where Global South nations are forced to divert funds from climate preparedness to pay creditors in the Global North. Using Belize as a case study, the text illustrates how debt-to-GDP ratios hinder public health and ecological resilience. The document calls for a shift from an 'insulting' aid-based model to a reparations-based framework, including the cancellation of all Global South debt, the implementation of 'climate-health-debt swaps', and the democratisation of international financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) criticizes the 2021 MTBPS for implementing real-term spending cuts across health, education, and social protection while prioritizing a primary budget surplus over economic stimulus. The IEJ contends that the government is ignoring available fiscal space and recommends a shift toward a comprehensive stimulus package, the implementation of a wealth tax, and the adoption of a Universal Basic Income Grant to foster an equitable recovery.

The IEJ criticizes the South African National Treasury's 'fiscal consolidation' approach, arguing that budget cuts during a recession are procyclical and retard economic recovery. The document asserts that there is significant fiscal space due to tax overruns and IMF funding, which should be used for a Universal Basic Income Grant (UBIG) and job creation initiatives. It warns that prioritizing debt reduction over public expenditure has led to real declines in spending for education and social grants, which undermines human capital and socio-economic rights.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) critiques the South African National Treasury's approach to debt reduction through expenditure cuts, asserting that such austerity is economically flawed and violates constitutional and international human rights obligations. The report highlights the negative impacts of budget cuts on education and healthcare, noting that the 2021 Budget's non-interest spending is projected to contract at an annual real average rate of 5.2 per cent. To counter this, the IEJ suggests utilizing additional fiscal space from SARS revenue windfalls and IMF funding, implementing progressive taxes such as a wealth tax and social security tax, and launching a GDP-linked stimulus package. The document advocates for a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) and the conduct of gendered human rights impact assessments to guide fiscal policy.

The policy brief contends that the proposed $1 billion Northeast Supply Enhancement Project (NESE) gas pipeline is incompatible with New York's Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). It argues that a 'no infrastructure' approach—combining energy efficiency, electrification (specifically heat pumps), and demand response—is a more cost-effective and reliable path to meeting energy needs while reducing emissions. The author asserts that National Grid's cost analysis underestimates the benefits of customer-focused solutions by ignoring air conditioner cost savings, externality costs of pollution, and the long-term savings beyond a 15-year net present value calculation.

ClientEarth argues that the proposed reductions in the capacity mechanism levy for energy-intensive users (EIUs) in Poland would undermine the security of supply objectives of the capacity market by dis-incentivising demand-side response. The organisation highlights that the scheme's costs would be shifted to households and non-EIU consumers, potentially affecting public acceptance. ClientEarth suggests that a fixed annual compensation would be a more adequate form of aid to maintain incentives for shifting consumption away from peak hours. The document also questions the expansion of the beneficiary pool from 52 to 300-350 EIUs and recommends that the Commission reject the scheme to avoid distorting the energy market.

The author advocates for a 'sufficiency' paradigm to replace the pursuit of infinite economic growth, which is deemed incompatible with planetary boundaries. The text proposes a shift toward an economy where the Global North reduces its material and energy throughput to allow the global poor to meet their basic needs. Key policy mechanisms suggested include 'cap-and-rationing' systems for resources and carbon, a transition from labor-based to resource-based green taxation, and the implementation of maximum income ceilings to curb conspicuous consumption and speculation.

The policy brief critiques the South African Reserve Bank's (SARB) focus on price stability, arguing that high interest rates and inflation targeting contribute to de-industrialisation and unemployment. It proposes replacing these tools with 'Real Quantitative Monetary Easing' (QME), the monetisation of debt, and Overt Monetary Financing (OMF) to support SMMEs and public infrastructure. The author advocates for a close working relationship between the SARB and National Treasury to de-financialise the economy and establish public banks to direct credit toward productive investment.

The report critiques the Trump administration's attempt to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule, asserting that the agencies used a revised economic analysis that violated their own requirements to make the rule appear unjustified. It maintains that the 2015 rule remains cost-benefit justified and that its repeal would result in the loss of significant environmental and economic benefits.

The author contends that the RFS2 biofuel mandate leads to higher greenhouse gas emissions because increased fuel supply lowers prices, encouraging higher overall consumption. Citing a study by Hill et al., the text asserts that even with a conservative 50% gasoline displacement rate, the RFS2 is projected to result in a cumulative increase of 431 million metric tons of CO2 from 2006 to 2022.

Synapse Energy Economics analyzes and debunks claims made by NERA Economic Consulting regarding the costs of a proposed 65 ppb ozone standard. Synapse finds that NERA inflated compliance costs by over 700% through flawed assumptions on emission reduction requirements, an inappropriate use of 'cash for clunkers' data to price unknown controls, and significant mathematical errors. Synapse's re-analysis suggests annualized costs of $13.6 billion to $21.6 billion, far below NERA's $155 billion estimate. Additionally, the document argues that NERA's prediction of 1.4 million 'job-equivalent' losses is based on a 'black box' model that does not predict actual unemployment and ignores the economic benefits of pollution control investments.

The author contends that the eurozone is facing a critical risk of deflation due to flawed austerity policies and the failure of the European Central Bank's conventional monetary tools. The text argues that standard quantitative easing (QE) is ineffective because it primarily benefits the wealthy and fails to stimulate lending during a 'liquidity trap'. As a solution, the document proposes 'overt money financing' or 'quantitative easing for the people' (QEP), which would involve the central bank providing debt-free money directly to governments to fund public works, tax cuts, or an unconditional basic income, thereby boosting demand without increasing public debt.

This collection of articles from the Green European Journal examines the instability of the current financial system, the risks posed by fossil fuel asset bubbles, and the need for a 'green' economic transition. It critiques the role of private bank money creation, the impact of austerity in the EU periphery, and the influence of banking lobbies on regulation, while proposing alternatives such as sovereign money, debt jubilees, and mandatory climate risk accounting for financial institutions.

The authors critique current European economic strategies as failing socially and environmentally, advocating instead for a 'green conversion' of industry. Drawing on the 1970s Lucas Aerospace and LIP factory examples, they propose shifting production from energy-intensive consumption to resilient products through worker-led innovation and democratic work organization. The paper suggests implementing 'Ecological Enterprise Zones' in post-industrial areas of Britain and refocusing EU convergence funding to support circular economies and social ownership, arguing that moving away from corporate profit-driven models is essential for achieving a sustainable, low-energy economy.