Search Climate Insights Directory

The report estimates that the currently proposed EU ETS Phase III structure would raise between €150-190bn under a 20% emissions reduction target, increasing to €200-310bn if the target is raised to 30%. Germany is projected to receive the highest proportion of these revenues. The authors argue that these funds should be prioritised for climate-related expenditures, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstrations, low-carbon RD&D, and energy efficiency improvements for vulnerable groups. The report also explores an alternative scenario where the cement and steel sectors are fully auctioned with border levelling; this would increase revenues by €18-22bn from cement and €14-17bn from steel under a 20% target. While some suggest using these funds for national debt reduction, the authors warn that this could damage the legitimacy of the EU ETS, though they acknowledge it as a potential short-term transitional option for severely indebted Member States.

The document estimates that Phase III of the EU ETS will generate between €150-190bn in revenues across the EU by 2020, potentially rising to €200-310bn if a 30% reduction target is adopted. Germany is projected to receive the highest proportion of these revenues, while Italy, Poland, Spain, and the UK are each expected to accrue over €10bn from the power sector alone. The briefing also explores the financial impact of expanding auctioning to the cement and steel sectors and suggests strategic uses for these funds, including carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration, renewable energy RD&D, grid infrastructure, and international climate finance.

The report details 12 sustainability cases involving Royal Dutch Shell, highlighting systemic issues such as oil spills and gas flaring in Nigeria, toxic pesticide contamination in Brazil, and the high carbon intensity of Canadian tar sands. It examines the company's expansion into unconventional gas through fracking and its influence on political processes in the UK, Netherlands, and other host countries. The document argues that Shell's business strategy prioritizes profit over environmental and human rights, often employing a 'double standard' in its operational safety and reporting.

The author contends that natural gas acts as a 'palliative' rather than a cure for climate change, noting that while it emits less CO2 per kilowatt-hour than coal, its long-term use without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is imprudent due to carbon inertia. The text emphasizes the urgent need to eliminate methane leaks from gas, oil, and coal production, which are potent greenhouse gas sources. Furthermore, it warns against over-reliance on the 'shale gale' and the assumption that shale gas will remain cheap in the long term, urging a shift toward zero-carbon energy technologies.

The analysis suggests that in Norway and Brazil, CCS deployment is driven by strategic economic competitiveness and regulatory arrangements rather than solely by climate change mitigation goals or high fossil fuel dependence.

A coalition of environmental and community organizations argues against granting special liability relief or regulatory exemptions to carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) operators, asserting that such measures create moral hazards and undermine public health and environmental safeguards. The authors specifically oppose exempting geologic sequestration from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C, arguing that CO2 streams containing impurities could constitute hazardous waste and that existing industrial activities, such as hazardous waste injection, operate without such broad liability shields.

The document outlines China's shift toward energy efficiency and non-fossil fuel development, driven by energy security, environmental protection, and economic restructuring. It details the targets of the 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-2015), including carbon and energy intensity reductions. The author highlights China's rapid expansion in wind, solar, and high-speed rail, while noting the strategic importance of carbon capture and storage. Finally, it argues that China's clear policy framework creates significant investment opportunities for U.S. companies in clean technology.

The report assesses how a 30% GHG reduction target by 2020 would affect EU energy security compared to a 20% target and a business-as-usual scenario. It finds that more ambitious targets generally improve primary energy security by reducing overall energy demand and fossil fuel imports, particularly oil. However, it notes that the transition may increase risks for specific countries like Poland due to a shift from coal to imported gas, and could negatively impact electricity grid security due to the intermittency of renewables and the need for significant new capacity investments.

The document examines the strategic importance of low-carbon technology for the EU, highlighting the risk of 'high carbon lock-in' if infrastructure decisions today commit economies to high-emissions pathways for 20-30 years. It argues that the current 20% emissions target is insufficient to drive the necessary scale and speed of innovation. The authors propose a 30% target by 2020 to provide certainty for investors and spur the deployment of technologies like electric vehicles and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). The report also emphasizes the need for a system-wide risk management approach and increased international cooperation, particularly with China, the US, and Japan, to create integrated global markets and avoid protectionism.

The research examines how increasing the EU's 2020 emission reduction target beyond 20% interacts with energy security in Poland, the Czech Republic, and Latvia. It distinguishes between 'objective' energy security (quantifiable parameters) and 'subjective' energy security (political discourse), finding that these often diverge. The authors argue that more stringent targets could improve energy security by reducing import dependency through renewables and energy efficiency, and by providing a clearer policy framework to avoid 'suboptimal investment' and 'stranded assets' in technologies like nuclear and carbon capture and storage (CCS). While Poland and the Czech Republic express high subjective insecurity despite relatively stable objective positions, Latvia remains objectively vulnerable due to its high reliance on Russian imports, though it possesses significant renewable potential.

The report argues that the EU's current Climate and Energy Package is insufficient to reach its 2050 goal of 80-95% emissions reduction at a reasonable cost. It suggests that moving to a 30% reduction target by 2020, combined with proactive investment policies in the building and transport sectors and a more predictable carbon price signal via the ETS, would reduce long-term costs and prevent the EU from losing market share in low-carbon technologies to competitors like China and South Korea.

The document outlines the financial hazards of investing in new or retrofitted coal plants in the U.S., citing competition from natural gas and renewables, rising fuel costs, and the likelihood of future carbon pricing. It highlights that coal is no longer the low-cost option it once was and that many existing plants are inefficient and ripe for retirement. The report suggests that the U.S. can replace most coal power with renewable energy, demand reduction, and natural gas within 15 to 20 years.

The report details the financial hazards of investing in coal power, highlighting that new coal plants are now more expensive than many cleaner options. It identifies several risk factors: eroding market share due to energy efficiency, renewables, and natural gas; volatile coal prices driven by global demand (especially from China and India); and high, unpredictable construction costs. Additionally, the document emphasizes the financial liabilities posed by EPA regulations regarding air toxins, coal ash, and cooling water, as well as the long-term risk of carbon pricing. It concludes that the traditional cost and baseload advantages of coal have disappeared, making it an unacceptably risky investment compared to a transition toward a diversified, sustainable energy system.

The submission argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has already failed its primary objectives and that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is unlikely to meet the specific requirements of this offset framework, making its inclusion inappropriate.

The paper argues that Sectoral Approaches (SAs)—which the author suggests renaming to Sectoral Approaches, Agreements and Measures (SAAMs)—are most viable when designed as domestic policies first rather than top-down international agreements. Through analysis of the steel sector in China, India, and Japan, the document finds that national sovereignty and diverse domestic priorities make a common international solution unlikely. It concludes that SAAMs can co-exist with carbon pricing and that their implementation is hindered by both political sensitivities and technical challenges, such as data gaps and the difficulty of setting international benchmarks.

The document argues that Sectoral Approaches (SAs) are often misunderstood as top-down international carbon pricing schemes, whereas practical implementation requires a 'bottom-up' approach starting with domestic policies. Through case studies of the steel industry in China, India, and Japan, the author demonstrates that national priorities and sovereignty concerns make a single internationally agreed common solution unlikely. Instead, the paper suggests renaming SAs to 'SAAMs' to remove pejorative connotations and recommends that these measures co-exist with carbon taxes or Emission Trading Schemes (ETS) to drive the breakthrough technologies and RDD&D investment needed for deep decarbonization. The author concludes that while domestic schemes are more feasible, they should be linked internationally to manage trade competitiveness and leakage.

The study uses the Imaclim-R model to analyze the economic trade-offs of EU emissions targets. It finds that a -20% target by 2020 may lead to prohibitive costs and negative GDP growth between 2040 and 2050 due to technological inertia and 'lock-in' of carbon-intensive infrastructure. While a more ambitious -30% target can reduce long-term risks and provide energy security co-benefits—especially in oil-constrained scenarios—it may impose significant short-term macroeconomic costs. The authors argue that carbon pricing alone is insufficient for 'inert' sectors like transport and residential buildings, recommending complementary sectoral policies, such as passenger car mobility reduction, to lower overall costs and avoid industrial decline.

The document assesses various Sectoral Approach (SA) models for the Chinese iron and steel (I&S) industry, concluding that ex-post crediting based on carbon intensity reduction targets is the most suitable methodology. It identifies the I&S sector as a critical area for China to meet its 2020 carbon intensity reduction target of 40% to 45%. The study projects that under a 'technology penetration enhanced scenario', emission intensity could decrease by 34% by 2020 compared to 2005 levels, generating up to 709 million tons of CO2 emission reduction credits by 2030. Key barriers to implementation include poor data availability, commercial sensitivity, and the high heterogeneity of technology levels across enterprises.

The report argues that significant emissions reductions in Japan's steel sector require breakthrough technologies or CCS, as current efficiency is already high. It proposes two SAAM variants: one based on a fully-resourced research, development, diffusion and deployment (RDD&D) plan, and another based on regulating CO2 limits for plants. The analysis suggests that the sector's financial resources could support a significant scale-up of RDD&D, though the high cost of implementing CCS remains a major hurdle. The report also reviews the role of the Nippon Keidanren's voluntary plans and international partnerships like the Asia-Pacific Partnership (APP) and the World Steel Association (WSA).

The Obama administration's FY 2012 budget proposal emphasizes investments in clean technology, energy efficiency, and renewable energy to drive economic growth. Key funding increases are proposed for the DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy office, bioenergy RDD&D, and transportation infrastructure, while funding for fossil energy and the EPA's overall budget is reduced. The proposal also introduces new initiatives such as the Better Buildings Initiative and a National Infrastructure Bank.