Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that carbon offsetting is often used to justify continued emissions and delay the necessary phase-out of fossil fuels. It distinguishes between 'avoidance offsets', which are deemed incompatible with net zero goals, and 'removal offsets', which face significant challenges regarding permanence, additionality, and scale. The authors contend that the current carbon market reproduces global inequalities and risks negative social outcomes, particularly in land-based projects. They recommend that governments and businesses eliminate avoidance offsets, prioritize direct emission reductions, and fund necessary carbon removals through non-market mechanisms such as public financing or mandates.

ClientEarth and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) have expressed serious concerns regarding the European Commission's revision of the State aid Guidelines on climate, environmental protection and energy (CEEAG). They argue that the Commission is favoring energy intensive users (EIUs) by potentially expanding aid eligibility to companies only 'at risk' of carbon leakage, rather than those at 'significant risk'. The authors contend that the risk of carbon leakage remains 'unproven' and that maintaining reductions in electricity levies for EIUs contradicts the European Green Deal and the Polluter Pays Principle. They advocate for 'Option E2' (the ETS list), which would restrict aid to 14 eligible sectors, resulting in an estimated 89% annual budget reduction and 'much lower competition distortions'. Additionally, the letter criticizes the Commission's governance, alleging a breach of EU jurisprudence by failing to make impact assessments publicly accessible before adopting proposals.

The document outlines the EU's proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), designed to prevent carbon leakage by requiring importers to purchase certificates for embedded emissions in specific goods. It details the sectors covered, the calculation of emissions, the phase-out of free ETS allowances, and the transitional period from 2023 to 2025. Carbon Market Watch critiques the proposal for excluding bulk chemicals and indirect emissions, the slow phase-out of free allocations, and the plan to use revenues for COVID-19 debt repayment rather than international climate finance.

A joint statement by five NGO networks providing policy recommendations for the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), focusing on the phase-out of free allowances, expanded scope, support for vulnerable nations, and the rejection of export rebates.

The CEEAG guidelines, effective from January 2022, streamline public financial support for decarbonisation, renewables, and nature restoration while introducing new categories for clean mobility and coal phase-out. While they promote technology-neutral competitive tenders, the document highlights concerns regarding continued support for fossil gas, the lack of a clear definition for 'low-carbon hydrogen', and the limited ambition of energy efficiency commitments for energy-intensive users.

The document examines the growth of the transatlantic trade in natural gas liquids (NGLs), specifically ethane and propane, from the US to Europe. It contends that this trade allows European plastics producers to bypass domestic fracking bans and climate regulations, effectively offshoring the high greenhouse gas emissions associated with extraction and transport. The author calls for the EU to expand its Methane Regulation, Emissions Trading System (ETS), and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to cover the full petrochemical supply chain and imports.

The briefing argues that as countries increase climate ambition, border carbon adjustment (BCA) mechanisms are becoming inevitable to prevent carbon leakage in energy-intensive sectors. To prevent these tools from becoming protectionist, the author proposes a framework of principles—such as the primacy of leakage protection, revenue sharing, and credit for equivalent foreign carbon prices—and best practices regarding coverage, data standards, and appeal mechanisms. The author suggests the World Trade Organization (WTO) as the ideal multilateral forum for discussing these standards, specifically highlighting the 2021 Ministerial Conference (MC12) as a critical starting point.

Carbon Market Watch argues that while the CBAM proposal has positive elements, such as basing certificates on verified emissions and avoiding export rebates, it requires significant revisions. Key recommendations include removing the overlap between CBAM and free emission allowances, including bulk chemicals and indirect emissions from the start, providing special considerations for least developed nations and small islands, and recycling revenues toward international climate finance rather than the Next Generation EU facility.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the European Commission's proposal to update the EU ETS is insufficient, specifically citing an inadequate emission reduction target and the failure to implement the polluter pays principle through continued free allowances. The organization advocates for a 70% emission reduction target by 2030, a more aggressive Market Stability Reserve (MSR) intake rate of 36%, and the immediate phase-out of free emission allowances. Further recommendations include expanding the ETS to cover all international shipping voyages and waste incineration, excluding Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) due to potential loopholes, and deleting Article 26 of the ETS Directive to allow binding greenhouse gas limits in industrial permits.

The author contends that the lack of a formal, ministerial-level 'climate and trade' agenda at the WTO or UNFCCC leads to policy silos and trade tensions. To address this, the document proposes a coalition of approximately 40 trade ministers, including G20 members and diverse developing nations, to align trade flows with the Paris Agreement and ensure a just transition.

The document analyzes the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) as a shift in climate policy toward trade and economic levers. It highlights the growth of carbon pricing globally, including the EU ETS and China's national ETS, and suggests that COP26 should be used to establish a 'green window' for preferential treatment of green goods and a mechanism to allocate CBAM revenues to vulnerable countries to ensure a just transition.

The briefing argues that as countries increase climate ambition and carbon pricing, border carbon adjustment (BCA) mechanisms are becoming inevitable to prevent carbon leakage. To avoid these tools becoming protectionist or causing trade disputes, the author proposes a framework of principles—such as prioritizing leakage protection over competitiveness and granting credit for foreign carbon prices—and best practices, including the use of international data standards. The document suggests the World Trade Organization (WTO) as the ideal multilateral forum for discussing these guidelines to provide a bulwark against national protectionist pressures.

The REDD+ programme aims to curb carbon emissions by providing financial incentives to developing countries for protecting forestry resources. While small-scale projects in Kenya and Cambodia have successfully preserved biodiversity and created jobs, large-scale implementation has faced significant failures. In Indonesia, the programme has been undermined by the misclassification of palm oil plantations as revegetation projects, alleged double counting of credits, and the displacement of indigenous communities. Despite these issues, the document notes that REDD+ has improved forestry monitoring and kept rainforests on the global policy agenda.

The document argues that Canada needs to design a border carbon adjustment (BCA) mechanism to prevent emissions from being transferred to unregulated foreign competitors as its carbon price is legislated to rise to CAD 170/tonne by 2030. It notes that while the EU will implement a BCA (CBAM) by 2023, and the US and UK intend to do the same, such systems are complex, politically sensitive, and potentially conflict with trade rules. The report provides recommendations on eight design elements for a Canadian BCA and examines how Canada should respond to the schemes of its major trading partners.

The report examines the implementation of a border carbon adjustment (BCA) in Canada to mitigate 'leakage'—where emissions-intensive and trade-exposed (EITE) sectors relocate or are undercut by foreign competitors with lower carbon costs. It proposes two primary design paths: a regulation-based BCA extending the existing output-based pricing system (OBPS) or a tax-based BCA accompanying a full carbon tax. The authors identify 11 high-risk product categories, including bitumen and synthetic crude oil, which represent 34% of Canada's GHG emissions. The report analyzes the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the U.S. approach, noting that while the U.S. lacks a national carbon price, it may use low-carbon standards or Section 232 tariffs. Key recommendations include coordinating with the EU and U.S. to harmonize benchmarks and ensuring the system is 'future-proofed' to accommodate a transition from the OBPS to full carbon pricing.

The document provides a multi-faceted analysis of how trade policies impact environmental and social sustainability. It highlights the new environmental provisions in the USMCA/T-MEC/CUSMA, the European Union's leadership in circular economy product policies, and the vulnerability of small island states' tourism sectors post-COVID-19. It also warns of rising non-tariff protectionism and discusses India's potential as a hub for electric vehicle battery recycling, while detailing the complexities of trade agreements in Latin America and the EU's proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism.

The Climate Friendly Materials Platform argues that the EU's proposed CBAM design needs refinements to create an effective investment framework for the green transition. They propose a combined package consisting of a climate contribution on basic material production and imports, free allowance allocations for firms with climate neutrality transition plans, and EU-scale carbon contracts for difference to cover incremental investment costs. The researchers contend that while free allowances are controversial, they can achieve both environmental and industrial policy objectives when integrated with the other two elements. They suggest the CBAM's transition period and use of default values provide a mechanism to incorporate these refinements until an international agreement on carbon pricing is reached.

The Canadian Climate Institute evaluates Canada's diverse carbon pricing instruments, noting inconsistencies in emission coverage and price signals. It recommends establishing a common emission coverage standard, improving transparency, and harmonizing benchmarks for large emitters to enhance efficiency and equity.

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.