Search Climate Insights Directory

The document analyzes the EU's proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which aims to prevent carbon leakage by imposing a carbon price on imports in sectors like iron, steel, cement, aluminum, fertilizers, and electricity. It specifically examines the phase-out of free EU ETS allowances, the exclusion of export rebates, the scope of emissions (direct vs. indirect), and the crediting of third-country climate policies. Swedish stakeholders are divided: industry groups generally fear competitiveness losses due to the lack of export rebates and the exclusion of Scope 2 emissions, while environmental groups advocate for a faster phase-out of free allowances.

The document discusses the transition of carbon border adjustments (CBAs) from theory to practice, driven by initiatives in the European Union, Canada, and the United States. It emphasizes the necessity of international cooperation to improve design, counter protectionism, and encourage global climate action. Specifically, it examines two axes of cooperation: understanding equivalent carbon policies and evaluating system equivalences through legal and fair frameworks. The text recommends expanding discussions within the WTO, utilizing multilateral alliances, establishing best-practice working groups, and developing information documents on the average cost of carbon pricing programs.

The authors propose a two-pronged approach to reach net-zero electricity in Canada by 2035: removing the output-based pricing system (OBPS) for electricity to increase emission incentives while rebating revenues to consumers, and implementing a performance-standard regulation to limit emission intensity of new and existing facilities.

The Canadian Climate Institute proposes a two-pronged strategy to reach carbon neutrality in the electricity sector by 2035. First, it recommends enhancing carbon pricing by eliminating the Output-Based Pricing System (OBPS) for electricity and using financial instruments like the Canada Infrastructure Bank to reduce investment uncertainty. Second, it suggests a clean electricity standard that sets emission intensity ceilings for new plants and mandates full carbon neutrality for all plants by 2035, allowing for flexibility through carbon offsets to ensure grid reliability.

The document highlights a significant gap between the intended CO2 capture initiatives in Europe and the actual storage capacity available to accommodate them. While Europe possesses a theoretical storage capacity of over 500 Gt, the development of sites is slow. Analysis indicates that by 2030, available storage capacity will only cover approximately half of the captured CO2 from announced projects, with the gap narrowing slightly to 40% of demand by 2032. The author argues that meeting net zero targets by 2050 requires coordinated planning, investment in geological characterisation, and streamlined permitting to expand storage infrastructure, particularly for regions lacking access to the North Sea.

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.

Carbon Market Watch and signatory organisations argue that the European Commission's proposal for the EU ETS revision fails to apply the 'polluter pays principle' by continuing free pollution permits. They contend that free allocations have stagnated industrial decarbonisation, noting that over 200 billion euros in allowances have been distributed since 2008 while emissions reductions remained below 0.4% annually since 2013. The document calls for full auctioning of allowances to internalise carbon costs and generate revenue for clean technology, warning that the Commission's plan for 5 billion free allowances between 2021 and 2030 could represent a subsidy of approximately 400 billion euros at current prices.

The document examines the intersection of pandemic recovery and climate finance, highlighting that most global recovery funds are not contributing to greening economies. It emphasizes the failure of developed nations to meet the $100 billion annual climate finance pledge and advocates for a new goal of $1.3 trillion per year by 2030 to support African countries. The briefing identifies significant barriers to accessing finance, including complex procedures and a lack of climate data, and suggests using Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to hold governments accountable for the climate impact of their recovery spending.

The report finds overwhelming public and organizational support for priority climate legislation in Connecticut, yet a significant gap exists between this support and legislative outcomes. While 91.7% of testimony positions supported priority bills, most legislation died in committee. The study highlights a stark imbalance in lobbying resources, with electric and gas utilities spending over $24 million—far exceeding the spending of environmental groups and renewable energy firms. Opposition to climate action has shifted from denying climate science to employing 'climate delay' discourses, such as arguing that Connecticut is too small to matter or that policies would disproportionately harm low-income residents.

The report examines 'whole-of-government' approaches to climate change, emphasizing the need for central leadership, clear mandates, and transparency to overcome ministerial silos. Through case studies of the UK, US, and British Columbia, it highlights that while such approaches can foster collaboration, they are often fragile and dependent on the political will of the head of government. The author recommends that Canada establish a dedicated Cabinet committee and a central coordination secretariat to integrate climate considerations across all public policies.

The author contends that the proposed ETS2 for buildings and road transport risks exacerbating energy poverty and failing to drive decarbonization unless it is accompanied by complementary policies to remove renovation barriers and a reform of the current ETS to eliminate free allowances for heavy industry.

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.

The document advocates for a 'whole-of-government' approach to climate change in Canada, defined as the use of governance structures (like cabinet committees) and processes (like mandate letters) to coordinate action across departmental silos. Through case studies of the UK, US, and British Columbia, it identifies that success depends on sustained executive leadership, adequate resources, and empowered personnel. It warns that such structures are fragile and can be easily dismantled by changes in government. For Canada, the brief recommends establishing a Prime Minister-chaired Cabinet Committee on Climate Change and Net Zero, supported by a high-level coordinating Secretariat in the Privy Council or Prime Minister's Office.

Carbon Market Watch criticises the IMO's slow progress on shipping emissions and the insufficiency of its 2030 energy efficiency targets. It highlights a growing coalition of countries and companies calling for zero emissions by 2050 and advocates for a strong market-based measure, specifically a carbon levy, to bridge the price gap between fossil and sustainable fuels and support climate justice.

The We Mean Business Coalition welcomes the Glasgow Climate Pact as a vital framework for keeping global warming to 1.5°C, noting that it provides the certitude needed for business to scale up climate solutions. The coalition emphasizes the need to fast-track the implementation of national plans and pledges, specifically calling for the phase-out of coal-fired power by 2030 for advanced economies and 2040 for others, and the removal of fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. The statement highlights the importance of the Net-Zero Standard from the Science Based Target initiative (SBTi), the creation of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) for global reporting, and the agreement on Article 6 rules for carbon markets to drive deep decarbonization.

The We Mean Business Coalition calls on COP26 participants to align policies and finance with a 1.5°C trajectory, strengthen Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to halve global emissions by 2030, and finalize robust rules for Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to prevent double counting of emissions reductions.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) argues that G20 nations have failed to make their COVID-19 recovery spending environmentally sustainable, investing $262 billion in fossil fuels compared to $67 billion in clean energy. To address this, WRI introduces a typology of five policy levers—monetary policy, financial and real-economy policies and regulations, fiscal policy and budget support, public finance, and information instruments—to guide governments toward Paris-aligned investments. Analysis of recovery packages between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, reveals a preference for 'business-as-usual' interventions and a critical lack of investment in climate adaptation and resilience.

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 document argues that COVID-19 recovery efforts have remained largely piecemeal and short-term, missing the opportunity for deep structural reform. It proposes a nested framework of green structural measures—ranging from green fiscal reform and natural capital investment to green skills and governance—and categorises prioritisation criteria into conventional, advanced, and systemic/political brackets. The authors highlight significant gaps in current recovery agendas, particularly regarding gender integration, nature-based solutions, and the financing challenges faced by the global south.

The author asserts that the United States' ability to lead globally on climate at COP26 depends on the passage of the Build Back Better Act. The text highlights the Clean Electricity Payment Program (CEPP) as a key mechanism for accelerating renewable energy deployment and notes that 17 companies and the America is All In coalition have urged Congress to prioritize these climate provisions. The document warns that without legislative progress, the US will remain viewed with skepticism by the international community following its previous withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.