Search Climate Insights Directory

Between 2008 and 2015, heavy industry in 20 European countries generated over €25 billion in windfall profits from the EU ETS. These profits were primarily driven by the free allocation of emission allowances intended to prevent "carbon leakage," a phenomenon the report argues is unsubstantiated by evidence. The most significant gains came from cost-pass through to customers (€16.8 billion), followed by the sale of surplus allowances (€7.5 billion) and the use of cheaper international offsets (€0.8 billion). The iron and steel, cement, refineries, and petrochemicals sectors were the primary beneficiaries. The report concludes that these subsidies reduce the incentive for industrial decarbonisation and deprive governments of an estimated €143 billion in potential auctioning revenues, recommending a phase-out of free allocations and the establishment of a Just Transition Fund.

The document analyzes the challenges African low-income countries (LICs) face in financing infrastructure, specifically focusing on the African Development Fund (ADF). It highlights a critical gap in concessional funding, which pushes LICs toward high-interest non-concessional loans and unsustainable debt. The paper evaluates the ADF's ability to mobilize private sector finance through blending, guarantees, and public-private partnerships (PPPs), while using Lesotho and Senegal as case studies to illustrate issues such as inadequate project preparation, limited institutional capacity, and the risks of poorly managed PPPs. It concludes with recommendations for the ADF to enhance its project preparation facilities, improve debt advisory services, and ensure more inclusive stakeholder consultations.

The report by Friends of the Earth International asserts that the massive amount of public revenue lost annually to tax havens—estimated at $600 billion—is sufficient to finance a global energy revolution. Specifically, it calculates that an investment of US$7,603 billion by 2030 could provide 100% renewable energy to Africa, Latin America, and 'Other Asia'. The document advocates for the elimination of tax havens and the redirection of fossil fuel subsidies to support community-controlled renewable energy systems as a means to combat climate change and global inequality.

The report asserts that an 'Energy Revolution' is financially viable if governments end tax avoidance and evasion. It calculates that the annual cost to power half the world with 100% renewable energy—approximately $507 billion—is well below the estimated $600 billion in annual government revenue lost to tax havens. The document advocates for a just energy transition based on democratic control and energy access as a human right, specifically targeting the global South.

The report evaluates the Indonesian power sector using the Financial Sustainability Electricity Sector (FSES) framework. It finds that while generation capacity and reliability are improving, the sector remains heavily dependent on government subsidies and coal, with renewable energy deployment lagging behind official targets.

The document reports that Swedish energy-intensive industries generated approximately €729 million in windfall profits from the EU ETS between 2008 and 2014. These profits were driven by the surplus of free emission allowances, the use of low-cost international offsets, and cost-pass through to customers. The brief highlights that the Swedish government missed out on at least €1.9 billion in auctioning revenues due to these free allocations. It specifically identifies SSAB, Preem, and Cementa as the highest profiting corporations. The author argues that the risk of carbon leakage is unsubstantiated and that the current system reduces incentives for industrial decarbonization, recommending a phase-out of free allocations in favor of full auctioning.

The document argues that the EU ETS "carbon leakage" rules have led to massive windfall profits for French industrial companies while depriving the government of significant auctioning revenues. Between 2008 and 2014, French energy-intensive companies generated approximately €2.7 billion in windfall profits, with Bersillon, Total, and Lafarge being the top beneficiaries. The brief contends that these subsidies reduce incentives for decarbonization and that the Paris agreement will mitigate future leakage risks. It recommends phasing out free allocations in favor of 100% auctioning and implementing a tiered approach to target support only where truly necessary.

The document analyzes the financial impact of 'carbon leakage' rules within the EU ETS in the Netherlands from 2008 to 2014. It finds that energy-intensive industries generated over €1 billion in windfall profits through surplus allowances, offsets, and cost-pass through to customers. Specifically, Tata Steel, Shell, and Chemelot are identified as major beneficiaries. The brief highlights that the Dutch government missed out on at least €6.4 billion in auctioning revenues due to free allocations, which it argues reduces incentives for industrial decarbonization. It recommends phasing out free allocations, introducing a tiered approach to carbon leakage, and increasing investments in climate-friendly innovation.

The document argues that the EU ETS 'carbon leakage' rules, which provide free emission allowances to prevent companies from relocating to countries with weaker climate policies, have instead generated over €3 billion in windfall profits for UK energy-intensive industries from 2008 to 2014. These profits were primarily driven by cost-pass through, surplus allowances, and the use of low-cost international offsets. The brief highlights that the UK government missed out on at least €16.3 billion in auctioning revenues due to these free allocations, reducing funds available for the low-carbon transition. It specifically identifies Tata Steel, Lafarge, Hanson Cement, and Total as the highest profiting corporations. The author recommends phasing out free allocations, introducing a tiered leakage approach, and increasing the share of auctioned allowances to 100% to avoid further subsidies for pollution.

The report argues that the UK government is providing a comprehensive package of subsidies for Hinkley Point C that creates significant financial uncertainty and risk for the public. These include a long-term price guarantee, loan guarantees, and caps on waste disposal and liability costs, which the authors suggest could make nuclear power more expensive than renewable alternatives.

The document evaluates five indicators of financial support for reducing forest emissions: international public climate finance, domestic public spending, private sector investment, indigenous peoples' investments, and civil society investments. It finds that while international public finance from OECD countries has increased, there is a critical lack of harmonized global data for domestic and private sector spending. The report highlights the role of payment for ecosystem services (PES) in developing countries and the emerging potential of South-South cooperation, notably China's commitment of US$3.1 billion in climate finance.

The document analyzes the scarcity of agricultural financing in developing countries, where risks like natural hazards and high transaction costs deter lenders. It categorizes financial needs into four groups: farmers/entrepreneurs, value chain actors, rural infrastructure, and R&D. The brief details a range of instruments from informal savings and micro-finance to complex value-chain and infrastructure financing. It emphasizes the government's role in risk management through credit guarantees and insurance subsidies, and the importance of flexible regulatory frameworks to attract investment while protecting savings.

The SE4All Finance Committee report identifies a global annual investment need of over $1 trillion to meet 2030 sustainable energy goals, noting a significant funding gap of $654-862 billion. It argues that while capital is abundant, it is not automatically allocated to sustainable energy due to perceived risks, particularly in emerging markets. The report proposes four key investment themes—green bonds, DFI risk-sharing structures, new insurance solutions, and aggregation models—which could collectively catalyze an additional $120 billion in annual investment by 2020. It emphasizes the need for improved project preparation, the use of dedicated project preparation funds, and the strengthening of the governance and creditworthiness of power utilities in developing countries to create a pipeline of bankable projects.

The report by Friends of the Earth International asserts that a 100% renewable energy revolution is financially feasible, noting that the personal fortunes of the world's 782 wealthiest people (approximately $5,149 billion) could fund this transition for Africa, Latin America, and much of Asia by 2030. Using International Energy Agency (IEA) demand projections, the authors calculate that $5,148 billion in additional investment is required to meet electricity needs in these regions using renewables. The document emphasizes that the transition must be guided by principles of democratic control, energy access as a human right, and community consent to avoid further human rights violations. It concludes that the primary barrier is not finance, but a lack of political will, and recommends ending fossil fuel subsidies, repaying climate debt from developed nations, and implementing global feed-in tariffs to facilitate a just energy transition.

The document outlines the first Biennial Assessment (BA) of climate finance flows, highlighting the critical need for an internationally agreed-upon definition of 'climate finance' to ensure transparency and track progress toward the 2 degree Celsius target. It identifies significant data gaps in energy efficiency and private sector flows, and recommends that the COP strengthen measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems to improve the comparability of global finance data.

The CFAS Guide outlines the state of climate finance negotiations leading up to COP20 in Lima, focusing on long-term funding goals, the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund, and the roles of various financial mechanisms under the UNFCCC.

The report argues that India's energy efficiency market is stalled due to a lack of reliable baselines, high perceived risks for financiers, and prohibitive tax treatments. It proposes ten 'big ideas', including the creation of India-adjusted monitoring, verification, and financing protocols, the use of corporate social responsibility funds, and the establishment of a national ESCO association. The document also highlights the potential for 'negawatt' trading to improve the financial health of electricity distribution companies (discoms).

The report examines the financing of renewable energy in China, highlighting the transition from an electricity surcharge system to potential environmental fiscal measures. It analyzes global investment trends, the types and risks of renewable energy subsidies, and provides a framework for designing a carbon tax to fund the energy transition, drawing on international examples from Europe and North America.

The document argues that public finance is essential to close the 'viability gap' for CSP, as more than 98% of plants built by 2012 required such support. It highlights that while international financial institutions (IFIs) provide critical long-term debt and concessional finance, currency hedging costs often offset these benefits. The authors suggest that deploying 5-15GW of CSP could reduce electricity production costs by 14-44%, potentially making the technology competitive in Morocco and South Africa. Key recommendations include moving away from flat tariffs to remunerate the flexibility provided by thermal storage and transitioning from international to local private debt to ensure long-term sustainability.

The report examines the financing of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), emphasizing the need to move beyond reliance on international public funding toward leveraging private capital. It defines 'bankability' as the attractiveness of a project to investors based on its revenue-generating potential and provides a framework for designing such projects. Through eight case studies from countries including Morocco, Tunisia, and the Philippines, the document illustrates the roles of public-private partnerships (PPPs), the importance of implementing bodies (such as Special Purpose Vehicles), and the necessity of risk mitigation tools like partial credit guarantees and power purchase agreements. The report concludes with recommendations for NAMA developers to engage the private sector early in the design process and for international stakeholders to disseminate best practices in private funding.