Search Climate Insights Directory

The paper argues that the EU cement sector is more exposed to carbon leakage than generally assumed, particularly in coastal regions. Using two models with a CO2 price of 30 €/t, the author finds that short-term import levels in coastal regions would rise from 13% to 25%, with an overall EU leakage rate of 65%. In the long term, EU cement capacity is projected to decline by 13% as imports become more attractive during peak demand. The author concludes that while output-based allocation might mitigate financial pressure, a severe world recession would likely induce a similar industrial restructuring to that of a full auctioning scheme.

Ukraine began approving Joint Implementation (JI) projects in May 2007, with 13 projects approved by November 2007. The system is managed by the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP), which utilizes a two-stage approval process involving a Letter of Endorsement (LoE) and a Letter of Approval (LoA). While the government prioritizes energy efficiency and renewable energy, the system faces administrative delays due to a lack of staff—only four individuals manage JI—and a lack of legislation regarding the transfer and taxation of Emission Reduction Units (ERUs). Despite these hurdles, project developers generally view the system as reasonable and supported by political will.

The briefing examines the European Union's Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), and the Midwestern Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord. It argues that for cap-and-trade to be effective, the emissions cap must be sufficiently tight and the distribution of allowances should favor auctioning over free allocation to avoid windfall profits for firms.

The report examines how asymmetric CO2 pricing leads to carbon leakage and competitiveness distortions, particularly in trade-exposed, energy-intensive sub-sectors. It analyzes quantitative tools like 'Value at Stake' and qualitative strategic factors to identify vulnerable industries. The text evaluates four primary policy responses: free allowance allocation, direct state aid, sectoral agreements, and border adjustments/export taxes, weighing their economic efficiency against legal risks under WTO and EU law.

The document analyzes the impact of climate policy uncertainty on investment decisions, highlighting how different actors—such as oil majors, utilities, technology developers, and banks—respond to CO2 price volatility and regulatory ambiguity. It explores various economic appraisal methods, including real options and risk premiums, to demonstrate how uncertainty can delay investments or bias them toward fossil fuels. The author argues that while governments value policy flexibility, stronger commitments and intermediary targets are necessary to provide the credibility required for private sector investment in low-carbon technologies.

The document evaluates two mechanisms to prevent emissions leakage: output-based allocation and sectoral agreements. It concludes that output-based allocation can reduce leakage if applied to the first tradable intermediary product, but it often undermines incentives for innovation and product substitution. Sectoral agreements are deemed more promising if led by governments rather than voluntary private action, potentially utilizing financial incentives and border adjustments to ensure a level playing field and long-term CO2 price internalization.

The submission argues that the EU ETS is the only credible mechanism for a common carbon price in Europe but requires reform post-2012 to be effective. The authors advocate for a shift from free allocation to auctioning to remove investment distortions and 'early action' problems. To protect low-carbon investments from price volatility, they suggest reserve prices for auctions or put options. While acknowledging carbon leakage, the report asserts it only affects a few specific sub-sectors—such as semi-finished steel and clinker—and suggests that border adjustments or sectoral agreements are preferable to free allocations, which are viewed as a second-best, temporary option.

The report assesses how the EU ETS affects industrial competitiveness, identifying that while most sectors can profit in the short term through free allowances and cost pass-through, a small number of carbon-intensive subsectors face significant risks. Using UK and German data, the authors develop 'Value at Stake' indicators to screen for exposed activities. The analysis concludes that leakage concerns are concentrated in a few subsectors, particularly cement and blast furnace steel, where high direct emissions and international tradeability create vulnerability. The report argues that free allocation can mitigate these risks but may create perverse incentives, suggesting that targeted policies or harmonized allocation across EU Member States are necessary to maintain economic performance while achieving emission reductions.

The document analyzes the proposed National Allocation Plans (NAPs) for the 2008-2012 period of the EU ETS, arguing that excessive free allowance allocation, particularly in the power sector, creates significant economic distortions. It finds that free allocations to new installations often act as subsidies for fossil fuel generation, potentially making coal power more profitable under the ETS than without it. The authors highlight a lack of harmonization across Member States, the underutilization of auctioning, and the risk of an 'early action problem' where historic-based allocations discourage immediate emission reductions. The paper suggests that reducing free allocations and increasing auctioning would improve cost-efficiency and support low-carbon investment.

The research finds that proposed Phase II NAPs likely result in an oversupply of allowances, potentially leading to very low carbon prices and a 'dead market'. This surplus is exacerbated by the potential inflow of CDM/JI credits, which would shift the cost of Kyoto compliance from the private sector to government treasuries.

The author contends that EU climate policies, including CBAM, EUDR, and maritime regulations, are unilaterally imposed and threaten African economic development. The text highlights risks such as an $11 billion annual loss for exporters under EUDR and a potential 0.91% reduction in Africa's GDP due to CBAM. It further criticizes the EU-ETS and FuelEU Maritime for increasing freight costs for African consumers and extracting USD 3–5 billion annually without reinvesting in African sustainability. The document recommends that the EU redirect revenues from CBAM and the Innovation Fund to support Africa's green transition and align maritime measures with the IMO's Net-Zero Framework.

The Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3) activity report for 2009-2012 details the centre's growth to a team of 31 researchers focused on the socio-economic aspects of climate change. The report outlines four primary research lines: adaptation and impacts, mitigation measures, international climate policy, and climate policy specifically for the Basque Country. Key achievements include the production of 226 articles and 18 books, the development of the ARIES modelling technology for ecosystem services, and the creation of the REMEDIA scientific network for agroforestry GHG mitigation in Spain. The centre also emphasizes knowledge transfer through policy briefings, the Klimagune workshops, and the 'Training Caravan' educational initiative for students in the Basque Country.

The document examines the challenges of accounting for fossil CO2 used in non-permanent products (like plastics and fuels) in the EU ETS. It compares a 'final emitter pays' (downstream) approach, which avoids double pricing but risks emissions leakage, against a 'capture installation pays' (upstream) approach, which is the current system but risks double pricing if MWI is included. The authors recommend including MWI in the ETS by 2028 and suggest specific safeguards for either accounting path to maintain environmental integrity.

The analysis finds a significant funding gap for European carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects that cannot recover costs through carbon pricing alone. By 2023, 55% of excess costs are uncovered, and a total shortfall of €10 billion is projected by 2030. While some countries like Norway, the UK, and the Netherlands have established specific incentive schemes, the report argues that additional targeted funding is required, particularly for high-cost sectors, to kickstart deployment and develop infrastructure.

The document argues that for Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) to maintain industrial competitiveness and meet climate targets, it must rapidly deploy carbon capture and storage (CCS). A critical barrier is the current reliance on exporting CO2 to the North Sea, which increases costs; the report finds that developing domestic storage could reduce deployment costs by 23% to 48%. To bridge the funding gap between high deployment costs and the EU ETS price, the brief recommends a 'Coordinator' role for governments to align value chains, leverage EU funds like the Innovation Fund and Connecting Europe Facility, and implement de-risking tools such as carbon contracts for difference (CCfDs). Case studies of the Porthos (Netherlands) and Northern Lights (Norway) projects illustrate how layered public-private financing, including state-owned enterprise (SOE) participation and capital grants, can lead to final investment decisions.

The Porthos project is a pioneer CCS initiative designed to transport and store CO2 from the Port of Rotterdam in depleted gas fields under the North Sea. It is presented as a critical component for the Netherlands to meet its target of reducing CO2 emissions by 55% by 2030, as the industrial sector must reduce emissions by 60% in that timeframe. Porthos is expected to provide approximately 17% of the total intended industrial CO2 reduction for 2030 and address 11% of the Port of Rotterdam's emissions. The project's infrastructure is designed for a capacity of 10 Mt CO2 per year, with a projected total storage of 37 million tonnes over 15 years. However, the project's commencement depends on a final decision by the Raad van State regarding nitrogen emission impacts on Natura 2000 areas.

The document argues that CCS is essential for decarbonising hard-to-abate industrial sectors like cement and steel and for achieving net-negative emissions after 2050. It details the technical process of capturing CO2 using amines or membranes and storing it in saline aquifers or depleted reservoirs at depths exceeding 800 metres. The text asserts that geological storage is permanent and safe, with projected annual leak rates as low as 0.0002% in regulated industries. While costs vary by source—ranging from under 90 euro per tonne for fertilisers to 700 euro for direct air capture—the document suggests that government support for shared infrastructure can drive down costs, similar to the trajectory of offshore wind. It highlights approximately 100 proposed projects in Europe, particularly around the North Sea, and notes that the EU may need to capture 300 to 600 million tonnes of CO2 annually by 2050.

The fact sheet outlines the role of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in decarbonizing Bulgaria's industrial sectors, particularly cement, chemicals, and refining. It highlights Bulgaria's high emission intensity in the EU and identifies significant geological storage potential, including the Pleven saline aquifer. The document details the ANRAV project as a pioneering CCS initiative in Eastern Europe and recommends the development of a comprehensive national carbon management strategy and the creation of low-carbon industrial clusters.

Bulgaria, the EU's most carbon-intensive economy, can use carbon capture and storage (CCS) to decarbonise its chemical, refinery, and cement sectors. While the country lacks a cohesive deployment strategy, it has a legal foundation via the EU CCS Directive and significant estimated storage capacity of 2.6 Gt. The ANRAV project, supported by a €190 million EU Innovation Fund grant, aims to be Eastern Europe's first full value chain CCS project, targeting a 95% emissions reduction from the Devnya Cement Plant by 2028.

Croatia's industrial sector emits 2.76 MtCO2/yr, with cement production accounting for 62% of these emissions. The country has an estimated storage capacity of 4.2 GtCO2, primarily in saline aquifers and depleted hydrocarbon fields, which is sufficient to store 693 years of its annual point source emissions. Current initiatives include the Croatia Geothermal CCS project, which plans to store CO2 from the Našice cement plant and a plant in Beremend, Hungary, in the Drava saline aquifer. Other projects in development at Petrokemija Kutina, the Sisak Biorefinery, and a cement facility in Koromacno could collectively capture and store 1.3 million tons of CO2 per year. The document recommends streamlining permitting, developing a comprehensive carbon management strategy, and investing in storage site characterization to leverage Croatia's capacity for domestic and international CO2 storage.