Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of 109 civil society organisations calls for a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and the closure of carbon market loopholes. The letter demands that market-based mechanisms be tied to binding targets and proposes specific reforms to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), including human rights safeguards, a robust appeals procedure, and the exclusion of non-additional projects and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

The report finds a robust consensus across four analyzed studies that developing country mitigation pledges are greater in absolute terms than those of developed countries. It argues that developed country pledges are insufficient and could be further eroded by lenient accounting rules regarding land use and surplus allowances. The analysis concludes that current global pledges are consistent with temperature rises between 2°C and 5°C, necessitating higher ambition from developed nations based on principles of equity and historical responsibility.

The report finds a robust consensus across four different analyses that developing country mitigation pledges are greater in absolute terms than those of developed countries. It argues that Annex 1 pledges are insufficient and could be further diminished by lenient accounting rules regarding LULUCF and surplus allowances. The authors conclude that current global pledges are consistent with a temperature rise between 2°C and 5°C, necessitating higher ambition and stricter accounting from developed nations based on principles of equity and historical responsibility.

The report analyzes how the EU can move to a 30% greenhouse gas reduction target by 2020. It finds that full implementation of existing renewable energy and energy efficiency targets could lead to a domestic reduction of approximately 30%, though current policy instruments for energy efficiency are insufficient. The report also examines the role of offsets and LULUCF accounting, noting that these could reduce the required domestic effort to approximately 20% while still nominally meeting a 30% target. It concludes that the EU ETS cap would need significant adjustment—potentially to 29-43% below 2005 levels—to remain consistent with these targets.

The research investigates the risk of 'double-counting' international offsets, where both the buying developed country and the supplying developing country claim the same emission reduction toward their pledges. Using a spreadsheet model based on McKinsey abatement cost curves, the authors find that if offsets count twice, global abatement could be reduced by up to 1.6 billion tons CO2e in 2020. This dilution could increase the existing emissions gap by as much as 20%, potentially hindering the goal of limiting warming to 2°C. The paper compares this to a 'Buyer Only' scenario and proposes remedies such as shared crediting, partitioning eligible sectors, and implementing a common international transaction tracking mechanism.

The report assesses how the EU can achieve a 30% greenhouse gas reduction by 2020, analyzing the interplay between the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), renewable energy targets, and energy efficiency goals. It finds that full implementation of energy efficiency and renewable targets, combined with post-recession baselines, could lead to a domestic reduction of approximately 30%. The analysis also explores the impact of offsets and LULUCF accounting, noting that these mechanisms could reduce the required domestic effort to between 17% and 22% while still nominally meeting a 30% target. The report concludes that a 25% to 30% domestic reduction is consistent with long-term goals of 80% to 95% reduction by 2050.

The document analyzes four studies to determine that developing countries have pledged more absolute mitigation than developed countries, though global pledges remain insufficient to limit warming to 2°C. It argues that developed countries must increase their ambition and tighten accounting rules to reflect their greater historical responsibility and financial capacity.

The document details Climate Strategies' transition to a new research programme for 2011, focusing on eight themes including the low carbon economy and adaptation finance. It reviews 2010 projects on carbon pricing, power sector decarbonisation, and the EU's 2020 emissions targets. A significant portion of the text argues for a steel-specific negotiation forum within the UNFCCC to address carbon leakage and competitiveness, and proposes 'Climate Innovation Centres' (CICs) to facilitate technology transition in developing countries through multi-disciplinary coordination.

The document argues that the lack of harmonized accounting rules for Annex I pledges in the Copenhagen Accord creates uncertainty regarding the actual level of climate ambition. It recommends that the Conference of the Parties (COP) mandate the development of consistent, transparent, and accurate measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) guidelines. Specifically, it addresses the need for standardized coverage of greenhouse gases and sectors, rules for land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF), the prevention of double counting in international offsets, and the management of surplus assigned amount units (AAUs) from the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period.

The document analyzes the gap between emission pledges and projected emissions for 2020, highlighting that the global economic recession likely reduced the actual effort required to meet these targets. It identifies significant uncertainties in calculating 'allowed emissions' due to varying LULUCF rules and the carry-over of Kyoto Protocol credits. Quantitative comparisons across different data sources (PBL, GAINS, and National Communications) show considerable variance in 2020 projections, suggesting that many official projections may overstate emissions by not fully accounting for the recession's impact.

The paper examines the likely balance of demand and supply for carbon units in 2020, analyzing the 'emissions anyway' projections for major developed nations against their pledges. It concludes that while a theoretical demand gap exists, actual market demand for Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) may be low due to policy preferences for sectoral crediting in the US and EU, and a likely oversupply of CERs. The author warns that this suggests a potentially low-value international carbon market, which could hinder global efforts to peak emissions by 2020.

The document argues that agriculture is a critical but historically marginalized sector in climate negotiations, offering significant short-term greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction potential, particularly in developing nations. It reviews the status of UNFCCC negotiations, the Copenhagen Accord, and the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases. The report highlights Canada's leadership in GHG accounting and soil carbon sequestration, suggesting that Canada can improve its international reputation by providing capacity building and technology transfer to regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia. It recommends establishing a dedicated agriculture and climate change fund and supporting an SBSTA programme of work to integrate agricultural mitigation into post-2012 climate agreements.

The paper examines the complexity of comparing national emissions pledges due to inconsistent base years, varying scopes of greenhouse gases, and divergent accounting methods for LULUCF. It analyzes the specific pledges of Annex I countries (Australia, Canada, EU, Japan, Russia, Kazakhstan) and non-Annex I countries (China, India), highlighting how 'cherry picking' accounting systems can make targets appear more ambitious than they are. The authors recommend a common accounting framework where countries provide scenarios showing how energy-related emissions, LULUCF, and international offsets contribute to their total commitments.

The report analyzes how the Canadian agricultural sector can contribute to greenhouse gas reductions and the economic implications of emerging climate policies. It highlights the potential for carbon sequestration in soils and the role of bioenergy, while discussing the complexities of implementing a national cap-and-trade system. Key concerns include the integrity of agricultural offsets, the risk of carbon reversal, and the impact of international trade rules and U.S. policy alignment on Canadian competitiveness.

The report argues that while precise surgical assessment of comparability is currently impossible, a common set of core indicators is necessary to define fairness and support domestic and international negotiations. It proposes an 'apples with apples' anchoring point based on economy-wide emissions excluding LULUCF and introduces 'trajectory indicators' to align 2020 targets with 2050 goals. The analysis categorizes Annex I Parties into 'New World' economies, 'Old OECD economies', and 'Transition economies' based on emissions, population, and GDP trends. Finally, it emphasizes the need for harmonized economic modelling to provide a rational basis for cost-comparability, especially following the global financial crisis.

The 2009 Research Highlights from Climate Strategies provides a comprehensive overview of projects addressing the operational challenges of the EU ETS, the feasibility of linking emissions trading schemes, and the design of financial mechanisms for the UNFCCC. It specifically investigates carbon leakage in energy-intensive sectors like cement and steel, the potential for 'Green Investment Schemes' in Central and Eastern Europe, and the implementation of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) in countries including Ghana, South Africa, Brazil, and India. The document also assesses the impact of carbon pricing on the chemical sector and the evolving climate policy landscape in Russia.

The paper examines the challenges of defining 'comparable effort' for Annex I Parties, arguing that a simple set of transparent indicators is more conducive to political agreement than complex fairness models. It analyzes proposed 2020 targets against emissions, population, and GDP data, introducing 'trajectory indicators' to assess the consistency of short-term targets with 2050 goals. The authors highlight that Annex I countries fall into three distinct economic groups—'New World' economies, 'Old OECD' economies, and 'Transition economies'—which must be recognized for any target-setting to be feasible. Finally, the document reviews cost-based indicators, concluding that current model results are too inconsistent and outdated, particularly following the global financial crisis, to provide a reliable basis for cost-comparability without further harmonization.

The document examines the technical and political challenges of integrating REDD into global climate policy, focusing on the scope of activities (from REDD to REDD++), financing mechanisms, measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) standards, and institutional governance. It highlights the diversity of national circumstances, particularly in Africa, and the need for a phased implementation approach that balances equity with efficiency.

The report assesses the potential for linking emissions trading schemes (ETS) globally, concluding that an OECD-wide company-level carbon market by 2015 is a "highly ambitious goal." It identifies that while the EU ETS seeks to be a nucleus for a global market, most emerging schemes prioritize domestic price control over full bilateral linking. The study highlights significant barriers to linkage, including divergent target stringencies, the use of intensity-based targets (notably in Canada), and different cost-containment measures like price caps. It distinguishes between unilateral links (one-way recognition), bilateral/multilateral links (mutual recognition), and indirect links (via common mechanisms like the CDM). The report also examines the legal complexities of such links, particularly the constraints on US state-level agreements and the EU's regulatory mandates. It suggests that a "bottom-up" process of linking regional markets could serve as a fallback if top-down international agreements, such as a Kyoto successor, fail.

The report projects emissions for the EU, Japan, and other Annex I countries up to 2012 and 2020. It finds that while the EU ETS is likely to have a surplus of allowances up to 2012 at a price of €20/tCO2, the EU-15 and Japan will face overall deficits relative to their Kyoto targets. Conversely, Russia, Ukraine, and new EU member states are projected to have significant emission surpluses. Looking toward 2020, the EU ETS is expected to enter a deficit unless efficiency and renewables targets are met, suggesting a rise in carbon prices post-2012.