Search Climate Insights Directory

The EU–China Environment Project (2018–2021) facilitated policy alignment and knowledge exchange between the EU and China across several key environmental domains. Major achievements include supporting the development of China's National Pollutant Discharge Permitting Regulation, contributing to the drafting of the Yangtze River Protection Law, and co-hosting workshops to inform the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework ahead of COP15 in Kunming. The project also provided research and workshops that influenced China's 14th Five-Year Plan and the 'Guiding Opinions on Integrating and Strengthening Efforts in Climate Action and Ecological and Environmental Protection'. Additionally, the initiative addressed plastic pollution, global deforestation in supply chains, and carbon leakage, while promoting a green economic recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic.

The proposal argues that the European Green Deal requires an effective CBAM to prevent carbon leakage and ensure carbon price signals drive industrial investment. It suggests a three-pillar approach: a 'climate contribution' based on carbon intensity benchmarks to ensure carbon costs are reflected in material prices; the EU ETS with conditional free allowance allocation to incentivise carbon efficiency; and Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfDs) to support investments in clean production and recycling. The authors contend that these elements must work together to avoid trade conflicts, limit administrative complexity, and provide the revenue necessary to fund the transition across all European industrial regions.

The document analyzes how free emission allowances under the EU ETS led to up to 50 billion euros in windfall profits for energy-intensive industries between 2008 and 2019. It challenges the 'carbon leakage' justification for these allowances, noting a lack of evidence for industrial relocation. The author recommends transitioning to full auctioning of permits and utilizing the resulting revenues for climate innovation and a just transition.

The document identifies three primary narratives in Russia: a dominant 'keep coal' discourse supported by political leadership, an emerging 'low-carbon trend' discourse focused on economic competitiveness, and a 'local environmental' discourse centered on pollution and health. It concludes that while external pressures like the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and declining demand are increasing, there is currently no active 'coal phase-out' or 'just transition' discourse within Russian national politics.

The document identifies three primary discourses in Russia: a dominant 'keep coal' vision supported by political leadership, an economically-driven 'low-carbon trend' discourse, and a 'local environmental' discourse focused on pollution and health. It concludes that while external pressures like the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and declining demand may force long-term adjustments, there is currently no active 'coal phase-out' discourse or just transition planning in Russia, leaving coal communities vulnerable to economic instability.

Between 2008 and 2019, fifteen CO2-intensive industrial sectors in nineteen EU countries earned estimated additional profits between €30 billion and over €50 billion from the EU ETS. These profits were derived from three primary sources: the overallocation of free emission allowances, the use of cheaper international credits (CERs/ERUs) for compliance, and the passing through of opportunity costs of free allowances into product prices. The iron and steel sector was the largest beneficiary, with profits ranging from €11.9 billion to €16.1 billion. In contrast, the aviation sector experienced a net loss of €151.2 million due to the need to purchase allowances. The report argues that free allocation may no longer be fit for purpose and recommends increasing the share of auctioning combined with targeted investment subsidies or a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to reduce windfall profits and encourage decarbonization.

The policy brief outlines a framework for cooperation between the African Union (AU) and the European Union (EU) to leverage green transitions for sustainable growth and climate resilience. It identifies six key areas for action: energy transitions, the circular economy, trade, agricultural adaptation, climate diplomacy, and financial instruments. The authors emphasize that while the EU aims for carbon neutrality by 2050, African priorities focus on poverty reduction and adaptation. The brief recommends that the EU avoid creating new trade barriers, such as carbon border taxes for Least Developed Countries (LDCs), and instead invest in green infrastructure, sustainable waste management, and grant-based adaptation funding to ensure a socially inclusive transition.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the EU ETS has failed to significantly reduce industrial emissions since 2012 due to free pollution permits and exemptions. To achieve climate neutrality by 2040, the briefing recommends increasing the Linear Reduction Factor (LRF), strengthening the Market Stability Reserve (MSR), ending free allowance allocations for industry and aviation, and earmarking 100% of auctioning revenues for climate action and innovation.

The report outlines a transition toward sustainable agriculture in South Africa, driven by resource scarcity, rising input costs, and international market pressures. It identifies key opportunities in smart farming, undercover farming, regenerative and organic agriculture, and renewable energy. A significant portion of the analysis focuses on solar PV, solar-powered irrigation, and biogas, while also detailing the policy landscape including carbon tax, land reform, and cannabis legislation. The Western Cape is highlighted as a strategic hub for these greentech investments.

The document explores how the climate crisis and energy transition are reshaping global power dynamics, particularly for the European Union. It argues that traditional geopolitics—focused on state rivalry and resource control—must be replaced by a model of 'ecological security' and 'steward statehood' rooted in human rights and social justice. Key analyses include the EU's 'open strategic autonomy,' the risks of corporate-led hydrogen projects, China's Belt and Road Initiative's energy dimensions, and the necessity of a global fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. It emphasizes that the green transition must be a 'just transition' to avoid social backlash and that Europe should lead by example in decarbonization and multilateral cooperation.

The policy brief argues that while free allocation in the EU ETS protects against carbon leakage, it mutes the carbon price signal for consumers, leading to underinvestment in material efficiency. To solve this, the authors propose a 'climate contribution'—a weight-based charge on the consumption of carbon-intensive materials sold in Europe. This mechanism would pass carbon costs to users and generate revenue for climate action without the high administrative complexity or trade conflict risks associated with border-focused CBAMs. The brief compares this approach against three other CBAM scenarios, concluding that combining dynamic free allocation with a climate contribution maintains a level playing field for exports and avoids 'resource shuffling' and downstream leakage.

The document outlines requirements for the EU's proposed carbon border adjustment measure, asserting that it must replace all existing industry protections, such as free pollution permits, to avoid being mere protectionism. It proposes that foreign producers buy pollution permits under the EU carbon market to strengthen carbon prices and incentivise innovation. The author suggests targeting the most polluting sectors—specifically steel, cement, and bulk chemicals—while exempting Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Finally, it argues that all revenues generated should fund climate action, either through EU innovation funds or as climate finance for developing nations.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) supports the European Commission's proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) as a tool to prevent carbon leakage and encourage global climate action. CATF argues that a CBAM must replace the free allocation of certificates under the European Emissions Trading System (ETS) and be paired with innovation policies for advanced decarbonization technologies. The organization specifically warns against including methane in the ETS due to the complexities and potential counter-intuitive effects of Global Warming Potential (GWP) time horizons. CATF recommends that the CBAM apply to all imported energy based on verifiable greenhouse gas intensity, exempt Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States, and reinvest all revenues into climate innovation both within the EU and in developing countries.

ClientEarth advocates for the removal of fuel tax exemptions in the EU fisheries sector, arguing that these 'harmful subsidies' artificially lower costs, increase fishing capacity, and exacerbate overfishing. The document suggests that these exemptions disproportionately benefit large-scale vessels and super-trawlers, while small-scale fishers are more vulnerable. To achieve this, ClientEarth proposes revising the Energy Taxation Directive (ETD) and leveraging WTO negotiations. It recommends redirecting financial support toward low-impact, small-scale fishers through better quota access and the post-2020 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) to ensure a just transition and environmental sustainability.

The document examines the progress of five EU Member States in developing policies for a climate-neutral industry. It finds that while most have set 2030 targets, these are generally conservative and focused on energy efficiency. The Netherlands and Germany are the most advanced, implementing specific incentives for advanced technologies, whereas Hungary, Poland, and Spain remain largely in the agenda-setting and policy-formulation stages. The brief emphasizes the need for a predictable legal environment and harmonized EU policies to avoid distorted competition in the basic materials sector.

ClientEarth urges the European Commission to implement strict, mandatory regulations on methane emissions across the fossil fuel and agriculture sectors. The organization argues that the EU, as the world's largest importer of fossil gas, has the commercial power to mandate low-emission supply chains. Key recommendations include expanding the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) to cover methane, introducing a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) for methane-emitting imports, and reforming the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to end subsidies for intensive livestock production. ClientEarth also highlights the health risks of indoor gas appliances and the need to counter industry misinformation by replacing the term 'natural gas' with 'fossil gas'.

The report by WWF and Carbon Market Watch argues that the EU Industrial Strategy lacks the specific targets, timelines, and governance structures necessary to achieve climate neutrality in energy-intensive industries. While it welcomes the focus on circularity and the Just Transition Mechanism, the authors highlight critical gaps regarding emission performance standards, the phase-out of free carbon allowances, and the lack of civil society inclusion in new industrial alliances.

Ember argues that the 4th Projects of Common Interest (PCI) list should be the last to include fossil gas projects, as current infrastructure is sufficient and demand is projected to decrease by 2030. The organization advocates for prioritizing renewable energy sources (RES), energy storage, and smart grid technologies to meet EU emission targets, while suggesting that the responsibility for writing the Ten-Year Network Development Plan (TYNDP) be expanded beyond the two ENTSOs to reduce conflicts of interest.

The document argues that the rapid government action and public support seen during the COVID-19 crisis provide a momentum that should be used to implement long-term green recovery strategies rather than short-term fixes. It emphasizes the need for a clear EU-wide dimension to investments to lower finance costs and suggests that recovery packages must prioritize social equity and local self-sufficiency to reduce vulnerability. The paper highlights the importance of defining 'green' across different sectors and suggests that cooperation on technology transfers and intellectual property, similar to WHO initiatives during the pandemic, should be applied to climate and clean energy action. It also notes the tension between EU reindustrialization and the needs of the Global South, as well as the geopolitical implications for Border Carbon Adjustment proposals.

The author contends that the EU's current trade policy is characterized by an 'inertia' that prioritizes unconditional liberalization over environmental and social goals. While the EU aims for carbon neutrality via the Green Deal, its trade framework continues to promote 'new generation' bilateral agreements that limit state sovereignty through investor-state dispute settlements and 'living agreements' that bypass democratic control. The text argues that the EU remains a net importer of carbon, with one-third of its footprint stemming from imports, and calls for a shift toward trade regulation that conditions market access on the achievement of environmental and social objectives.