Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of 31 networks and organizations calls on EU Environment Ministers to reform the EU ETS by excluding coal investments from the Modernization Fund and article 10c, maintaining the 2013 base year for eligibility to prevent lignite plant subsidies in Greece, and establishing a Just Transition Fund.

The document argues that replacing the EU ETS with CORSIA for European flights would significantly reduce climate ambition and breach the Paris Agreement. It criticizes CORSIA for lacking legally binding status until 2027, relying solely on offsets, and lacking in-sector reduction requirements. The authors demand that the EU ETS cover all domestic and international flights from 2017 unless CORSIA is substantially strengthened in its targets, legal binding date, accounting rules, and in-sector reduction requirements.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the European Parliament failed to strengthen the 'polluter pays principle' by rejecting a carbon border tax and free permit phase-out for the cement sector. While the Parliament decided to include shipping in the EU ETS and strengthen aviation rules, it voted to maintain a 2.2% annual emissions cap reduction rate rather than increasing it to 2.4%.

International researchers advocate for the strengthening of the EU ETS post-2020, emphasizing the need to address structural surpluses and ensure a full carbon price pass-through for basic materials like steel and cement to drive innovation and global policy alignment.

The document advocates for a mechanism requiring cement and clinker importers to pay for their pollution to create a level playing field and end free allocation in the EU ETS. It argues that free allocation has hindered innovation, increased emissions by subsidizing high-carbon exports to Africa, and generated over €5 billion in windfall profits for the cement industry. The briefing asserts that an import inclusion scheme is WTO-compatible and beneficial for the industry, as it would incentivize the adoption of new technologies in a sector where European production is currently less efficient than in other global regions.

The letter argues that international frameworks for aviation and shipping emissions are insufficient to meet Paris Agreement goals. It specifically criticizes ICAO's CORSIA for relying on offsets and the IMO for delaying global CO2 measures. The authors call for the EU ETS to return to full-scope for aviation, include all EU-related shipping emissions in 2030 targets, and eliminate free allowances for both sectors to fund climate initiatives.

The report argues that achieving the EU's 2050 climate targets requires a broad portfolio of innovative production processes, material substitution, and efficiency gains. It proposes an integrated policy approach combining EU ETS reform—specifically the 'inclusion of consumption' to ensure carbon price pass-through—with public procurement and targeted innovation support, such as carbon contracts for differences, to overcome investment risks and the 'technology valley of death'.

Carbon Market Watch and Transport & Environment critique the EU's guidelines on Upstream Emission Reductions (UERs), stating they are too weak to force the oil industry to change practices due to loopholes regarding carbon offsets and double counting. While the Fuel Quality Directive requires a 6% carbon footprint reduction by 2020 compared to 2010, the authors argue that national governments must now make the guidelines legally binding and limit eligible savings to Clean Development Mechanism projects in Least Developed Countries to ensure transparency and additionality.

The report argues that the EU ETS's 'carbon leakage' rules have allowed heavy industry to generate over €25 billion in windfall profits from 2008 to 2015. It claims that free allocation of pollution permits has cost governments at least €143 billion in lost auctioning revenues, reduced incentives for efficiency, and lacks empirical evidence of actual carbon leakage. The document calls for phasing out free allocations and establishing a Just Transition Fund to support impacted communities.

A coalition of 31 environmental organisations calls for a meaningful carbon price and reformed funding mechanisms within the EU ETS revision to phase out fossil fuels and support a just transition in Europe.

The document argues that EU climate tools must be reformed to support a low-carbon transition in Central and Eastern Europe, specifically calling for a 55% emission reduction target by 2030 and the phase-out of fossil fuel and nuclear energy subsidies.

The cement industry in 20 European countries generated €5 billion in windfall profits between 2008 and 2015 due to the EU ETS, which the document argues subsidises pollution and hinders decarbonisation. These profits were derived from surplus allowances (€2.7 billion), cost-pass through (€2.1 billion), and offsets (€0.1 billion), with the highest gains in Spain, Italy, and Germany. The brief identifies failures such as low carbon prices and benchmarks that incentivise high-carbon clinker production, noting that European production is less energy efficient than that of India. To drive decarbonisation, the author recommends ending free allocations, introducing 100% auctioning with benchmarked border levelling to prevent carbon leakage, and replacing clinker benchmarks with cement benchmarks.

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.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the European Parliament's industry committee has failed to fix fundamental flaws in the EU ETS, specifically regarding the oversupply of pollution permits and the continued provision of free allowances to heavy industry. While the committee strengthened exclusions for future coal investments and permanently cancelled a small portion of surplus allowances, the organisation contends these measures are insufficient to drive a low-carbon transition or meet Paris Agreement commitments.

A coalition of 29 European organizations calls for more ambitious EU climate regulations, specifically targeting the 2030 Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) and the LULUCF regulation. The group advocates for a trajectory toward 95% emission cuts by 2050, the rejection of forestry offsets that undermine other sectors, and the mandatory accounting of wetlands to ensure the EU meets its Paris Agreement commitments to limit warming to 1.5°C.

The open letter argues that the EU ETS currently sustains coal infrastructure through low carbon prices and the misuse of Article 10c and the Modernisation Fund. The signatories call for a tighter ETS cap to increase carbon prices and the explicit exclusion of coal-related investments from funding mechanisms to avoid locking Central and Eastern Europe into coal dependency.

A coalition of networks and organizations calls for an ambitious revision of the EU ETS to stop the use of Article 10c and the Modernisation Fund for fossil fuel capacity, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. They advocate for a higher carbon price to disincentivize coal and the redirection of funds toward energy efficiency and renewable energy.

The report evaluates the climate risk disclosure practices of several major fossil fuel companies, including Arch Coal, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, CONSOL Energy, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Royal Dutch Shell. It scores companies across four categories: regulatory risks, physical risks, market/indirect risks, and corporate governance. While most companies provide detailed analysis of regulatory risks, the report finds widespread failures in disclosing the specific role of climate change in physical risks and a near-total absence of disclosure regarding corporate governance on climate issues.

The document critiques the EU's Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) proposal for 2021-2030, arguing that the 30% emission reduction target is insufficient and that proposed flexibilities and inaccurate baselines could undermine the environmental integrity of the transition.

The International Coalition for Sustainable Aviation (ICSA) warns the EU against prioritizing the breadth of participation in the ICAO Global Market Based Mechanism (GMBM) over environmental integrity. The letter argues that without safeguards against double-counting and low-quality offsets, the GMBM will fail to address aviation emissions. It calls for the EU to make its commitment to the GMBM contingent on the inclusion of transparency and environmental safeguards, drawing on the EU's own experience with the Union registry and the Paris Agreement.