Search Climate Insights Directory

The statement criticizes the high profits of fossil fuel companies like Eni, Exxon, and Chevron amidst rising energy poverty in Europe, particularly in Italy. It advocates for the European Commission's REPowerEU plan to allow Member States to tax windfall profits, which the IEA estimates could generate €200 billion in 2022. Additionally, it calls for the EU ETS2 revision to ensure big polluters absorb carbon costs to protect vulnerable households.

An open letter from multiple environmental and industrial organisations calling for the EU ETS to be strengthened by increasing reduction factors, eliminating free allowances for industry and aviation, and reinvesting auction revenues into the green transition. The authors argue that free allocation creates market failures and windfall profits while slowing decarbonisation, and they specifically oppose the creation of a Carbon Leakage Protection Reserve in favour of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).

The report argues that while Europe has significant theoretical CO2 storage capacity, actual deployment is hindered by a funding gap, regulatory barriers to cross-border transport, and a lack of coordinated infrastructure. It recommends shifting from project-based funding to system-based approaches, implementing carbon contracts for difference (CCfDs), and establishing a market for low-carbon products. The authors call for a formal EU strategy to set milestone targets and coordinate the development of large-scale, open-access storage sites beyond the North Sea.

The MENA region is well-positioned to produce zero-carbon fuels due to its abundant solar, wind, and hydrocarbon resources, as well as existing industrial infrastructure. While 'green' hydrogen (from renewables) and 'blue' hydrogen (from natural gas with carbon capture and storage) are both viable, the report argues that hydrocarbon-derived fuels could provide a lower-cost catalytic role in scaling the market. However, significant barriers exist, including a lack of meaningful demand beyond industrial users, the absence of carbon pricing or regulatory requirements to reduce emissions, and a lack of common certification schemes for lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. The report recommends regional coordination, the development of fuel-neutral procurement policies, and the establishment of comprehensive regulatory frameworks for carbon management to attract investment and ensure environmental integrity.

The report contends that fossil gas cannot be considered a transition fuel due to significant methane leakage and the need for rapid decarbonisation by 2030. It argues that the EU's Complementary Delegated Act threatens the credibility of the EU Taxonomy by allowing fossil gas as a transitional activity. The document advocates for a rapid shift to low-carbon hydrogen, prioritised for hard-to-abate sectors, and warns against 'gas blending' as an inefficient decarbonisation strategy. It recommends the use of additionality requirements for electrolysers to prevent them from cannibalising renewable energy growth and suggests various financial mechanisms, including Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfDs) and green public procurement, to mobilise investment. The report also emphasizes the need for a Just Transition to protect workers and low-income households from the regressive effects of carbon pricing.

The report identifies four critical barriers to Canada's electricity transition: misaligned federal climate policies, lack of provincial institutional coordination, potential electricity rate increases, and insufficient interregional connectivity. To overcome these, it advocates for a combination of federal carbon pricing reform, the implementation of national performance standards, and the use of negotiated agreements where federal funding is tied to provincial governance reforms. Key recommendations include clarifying the mandates of provincial regulators to include climate goals, developing comprehensive energy plans, and utilizing the tax base rather than just electricity rates to fund infrastructure and support low-income households.

The report identifies four critical policy challenges in Canada's transition to a net zero electricity system by 2035: misalignment of federal climate policy, lack of coordination among provincial institutions, potential upward pressure on electricity rates, and weak incentives for interregional grid integration. To address these, the authors propose a framework of 'electric federalism' involving strengthened carbon pricing, the implementation of performance standards, and the use of government tax bases to fund infrastructure investments to protect low-income ratepayers. The report emphasizes the need for provincial regulators to have mandates explicitly aligned with climate goals and suggests that the federal government use negotiated agreements—similar to health transfers—to provide financial support conditional on provincial policy reforms.

The report analyzes how Canadian provinces are positioned to navigate the net zero transition, focusing on 'demand-creation' sectors. It identifies a performance gap between the four largest provinces—British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta—which are leading in innovation and investment, and smaller provinces that are just beginning to develop these markets. The document provides five strategic recommendations for provincial and federal governments to build investor confidence, connect innovators with buyers, support rural and Indigenous communities, leverage high-potential companies, and increase R&D investment.

The report analyzes how Canadian provinces are positioned to benefit from the global shift toward a net-zero economy, identifying leaders and laggards in the creation of clean-growth enterprises. It highlights that while Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta lead in company creation and investment, other provinces show varying levels of progress. The document outlines ten promising transition markets—including clean electricity, batteries, and hydrogen—and provides five strategic recommendations for provincial and federal governments to enhance competitiveness, attract private investment, and ensure a just transition for vulnerable rural and Indigenous communities.

The report argues that a 'big switch' to clean electricity is essential for Canada's net zero transition, requiring a substantial increase in generation capacity, the phase-out of unabated fossil fuels, and enhanced system flexibility. It identifies significant barriers, including uncoordinated federal and provincial policies, potential electricity rate increases, and limited interregional grid integration. To overcome these, the authors propose 'electric federalism'—a coordinated approach where the federal government provides financial support and a clean electricity standard in exchange for provinces updating institutional mandates and energy plans.

The report argues that Canada must transition to larger, cleaner, and smarter electrical systems to achieve net-zero emissions. It highlights the need for a massive increase in production capacity, the elimination of fossil fuel power, and enhanced grid flexibility. To overcome institutional and financial barriers, the authors recommend 'electro-federalism,' where the federal government provides strategic funding and standards while provinces manage regional implementation and integration.

The report argues that while Canada has a clean electricity advantage, it faces a significant risk of complacency. It identifies three cross-cutting barriers: a 'plug-or-socket' dilemma between supply and demand, policy uncertainty, and a focus on 'wild card' technologies over 'safe bets' like electrification. To overcome these, the report proposes five catalysts: business-led near-term electrification plans, net-zero mandates for utilities and regulators, alignment of utility planning with net-zero pathways, the implementation of performance standards and ZEV mandates, and the use of innovative public-private-Indigenous financing to crowd in private investment.

The document outlines a strategic framework for Canada to accelerate business electrification to reach net-zero by 2050. It identifies key barriers, such as the 'chicken-and-egg' dilemma between electricity supply and demand, and proposes five catalysts: short-term corporate action plans, integrating net-zero into utility mandates, aligning utility planning with net-zero trajectories, establishing clear performance standards and carbon pricing, and attracting private investment through innovative partnerships.

The report argues that while Canada has a competitive advantage in clean electricity, industrial electrification is stalled by technical gaps, grid reliability concerns, and the low cost of natural gas. It focuses on the manufacturing, mining, and construction sectors, noting that industry electricity use must increase from 25% to 41% by 2050. To accelerate this, the authors propose three primary catalysts: the development of near-term corporate electrification plans and pilots, the alignment of utility planning with net-zero pathways to ensure power supply, and the use of financial mechanisms like carbon contracts for difference to provide carbon pricing certainty.

The report identifies the manufacturing, construction, and mining sectors as having high potential for electrification to reduce Canada's industrial greenhouse gas emissions. It highlights three primary barriers: technical readiness for hard-to-abate sectors, concerns over electricity reliability and availability, and the low cost of natural gas. To overcome these, the report proposes three catalysts: the development of short-term electrification plans by companies, the alignment of utility planning with net-zero trajectories, and the implementation of guaranteed carbon pricing mechanisms, such as carbon contracts for difference.

The report finds that India's energy budgeting remains heavily skewed toward fossil fuels, with subsidies for coal, oil, and gas being nine times larger than those for clean energy in FY 2021. While fossil fuel subsidies have fallen 72% since 2014, public sector undertakings (PSUs) and public finance institutions (PFIs) continue to provide substantial support to fossil projects, often lacking clear net-zero roadmaps. The analysis reveals a stark gap between revenue and social costs: conservative externalities for fossil fuels in FY 2020 (INR 1,441,464 crore) were more than double the revenues generated (INR 6,52,564 crore). The authors recommend phasing out fossil fuel support, diversifying PSU investments, and using strategic taxation to fund a just transition and clean energy infrastructure.

The document identifies the current global financial system as a barrier to sustainability, noting a funding gap of USD 8.4–10.1 trillion for the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals in developing countries. It argues that financial flows are primarily driven by perceived profitability rather than sustainability, and calls for the 'greening' of market-based investments to move from voluntary ESG initiatives to standard working practices. The author recommends that governments use fiscal measures like carbon pricing and that multilateral development institutions make sustainability norms a condition for co-financing. Additionally, the paper emphasizes the need for international harmonization of financial regulations and the equal partnership of developing countries in shaping the global sustainable finance architecture.

The paper argues that developing countries lack the financial sector capacity to fund the scale of investment required for low-carbon transitions. It distinguishes between 'commercially viable technologies' that need scaled-up investment and 'financially underserved technologies' that require de-risking. Proposed solutions include the creation of a Global Clean Investment Risk Mitigation Mechanism (GCI-RMM), the implementation of sustainable taxonomies and corporate disclosures, and the use of carbon pricing. The authors emphasize that multilateral cooperation is essential to harmonize these regulations and increase grant-based concessional finance to catalyze private investment.

The document introduces the 'provisioning systems' framework as a tool to analyze how human needs are met without exceeding planetary boundaries. It argues that simple policy tools like carbon pricing are insufficient because they ignore the systemic interdependencies between material stocks, techniques, and institutional elements (households, markets, the commons, and the state). Through examples of cellphone charging and mobility (road vs. air transport), the authors demonstrate how different techno-economic paradigms create different barriers to decarbonization. The paper concludes that transformative change requires multi-scalar, reflexive governance and policy portfolios that address systemic lock-ins and ensure a just transition for both producers and consumers.

Carbon Market Watch outlines recommendations for the EU ETS II, emphasizing that emission allowances should be auctioned rather than allocated for free to ensure the 'polluter pays' principle. The author argues that the estimated annual average revenue of €47 billion (2026-2030) should be recycled into socially fair compensation schemes for energy efficiency and renewable energy to protect low-income households. Additionally, the document asserts that carbon pricing must be complemented by regulatory frameworks, such as vehicle emission standards and energy performance requirements for buildings, as pricing alone is insufficient to drive full decarbonization.