Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of businesses calls on G20 leaders to lead the global climate transition by halving emissions by 2030, ending coal financing, removing fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, and mandating climate-related financial disclosures to drive investment toward sustainable solutions.

A coalition of businesses calls on G20 leaders to lead the global climate response by strengthening Nationally Determined Contributions, ending coal financing, aligning COVID-19 recovery funds with decarbonization, and implementing carbon pricing and mandatory financial disclosures.

Signatory companies call on G20 leaders to lead the global climate fight by aligning national contributions with a 50% emissions reduction by 2030, ending coal power financing, and reforming public finance to support a nature-positive economy.

The policy brief proposes that Indonesia adopt a coal tax of IDR 78,700 (USD 5.50) per tonne, similar to India's model, to address the fact that coal accounts for 40% of the country's energy-related emissions. Such a tax would generate approximately IDR 49 trillion (USD 3.6 billion) annually, which could fund clean energy investments and support vulnerable households and coal workers. The author emphasizes that this is a simpler, faster alternative to complex carbon pricing systems and would help mitigate the 7,480 premature deaths caused annually by air pollution from coal-fired power stations.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) welcomed the decision of the Climate Leadership Council (CLC) to separate from Exxon. WRI emphasized that carbon pricing is essential for an effective climate response and called on CLC member companies to ensure their lobbying and political spending align with their public climate commitments. Additionally, WRI urged these companies to support carbon pricing within the upcoming reconciliation package and future legislation due to the urgency of the climate crisis.

The Canadian Climate Institute outlines nine recommendations for the federal government to enhance its climate strategy. These include integrating climate resilience into government cost-benefit analyses, improving climate risk data dissemination, prioritizing 'sure-bet' solutions like energy efficiency, and implementing a national sales quota for zero-emission vehicles. The document also advocates for targeted support for clean-tech industries, regional transition strategies for workers, and mandatory climate risk disclosures for public and private entities to ensure Canada remains competitive in a global low-carbon economy.

The report examines how green bonds and transition finance can support South Africa's shift from a coal-dependent energy system to a low-carbon economy. It highlights the critical role of the two largest emitters, Eskom and Sasol, and proposes various financial models, including sovereign green bonds and asset-backed securities, to attract international capital while managing the social implications of a 'Just Transition'.

The briefing proposes a coal tax for Indonesia to address the environmental and health costs of coal, which accounts for 40% of the energy sector's carbon emissions. Drawing on India's experience with a coal 'cess', the authors suggest a tax of IDR 78,700 (USD 5.50) per tonne, which could generate IDR 49 trillion (USD 3.6 billion) annually. This revenue could fund a just transition, compensate vulnerable households for rising electricity prices, and incentivize clean energy investment. The document notes that while Indonesia is considering an emissions trading scheme (ETS) and a carbon tax, these take longer to implement, making a targeted coal tax a more immediate and administratively simpler solution.

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 author asserts that the failure of developed nations to meet the 2010 commitment to mobilise $100bn per year by 2020 for climate action in developing countries erodes international trust and hinders the transition to a net-zero world. Fulfilling this commitment is presented as a catalyst to trigger large-scale private investment in low-carbon solutions and climate-resilient industries, particularly within supply chains where 65-90 per cent of company emissions originate. The text emphasizes that only 21 per cent of these funds currently support adaptation, and argues that increasing this share would protect global economic stability by building resilience in developing nations. The author calls for G20 leadership to combine this funding with mandatory climate risk disclosure and carbon pricing to support the goal of halving global emissions by 2030.

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 2021 State of Cities Climate Finance report finds that annual urban climate finance averaged USD 384 billion in 2017/2018, which is significantly lower than the estimated annual need of USD 4.5 to 5.4 trillion. Investment is heavily concentrated in OECD countries and China, with critically low levels in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. The report emphasizes that while cities act as providers of infrastructure and stewards of regulation, their ability to mobilize finance depends on national-level governance, city-level capacity, and the alignment of climate-specific financial instruments. It recommends strengthening municipal finance fundamentals, integrating carbon pricing into capital planning, and utilizing catalytic funding to de-risk private investment in developing economies.

The authors argue that uncertainty regarding the future of Canada's carbon price—scheduled to reach $170 per tonne by 2030—discourages firms from investing in expensive, long-lived low-carbon projects. To close this 'certainty gap,' they propose that the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) act as a partner to share risk, effectively providing insurance against policy reversals. This could be achieved through payment exchanges based on actual versus expected policy costs or by making loan payback obligations conditional on future policy stringency. The authors contend this approach is superior to grants or subsidies because it targets the specific market failure of government risk and creates a financial deterrent for future governments that might seek to weaken carbon pricing.

The author uses the work of Marcel Boiteux and the 'three domains' framework to critique modern climate economics for neglecting the role of finance and the complexities of real-world implementation. By examining Boiteux's contributions to electricity pricing and the Ramsey-Boiteux rule, the text argues that economic analysis should serve as a 'negotiation language' to align technical efficiency with political goals and financial realities, particularly to bridge the gap between the 'North's' focus on carbon pricing and the 'South's' need for finance.

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's review of carbon pricing in Canada finds that while progress is being made, the current 'patchwork' of systems suffers from uneven price signals, inconsistent emissions coverage, and a lack of transparency. The report recommends establishing a common standard for emissions coverage, replacing point-of-sale rebates with direct revenue recycling, and aligning benchmarks for large emitter programs to reduce competitiveness risks and emissions leakage.

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 authors call on G7 finance ministers to move from commitments to decisive action by establishing a financial framework that includes mandatory climate risk disclosure across supply chains, carbon pricing aligned with the 1.5°C goal, and the delivery of overdue climate finance to developing countries.

The We Mean Business Coalition, representing over 1,800 companies with a combined market cap of US$24.8 trillion, calls on G7 heads of state to adopt specific climate policies. Key recommendations include phasing out coal by 2030, ending fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, and mandating climate-related financial disclosures. The coalition argues that a green recovery will better boost GDP and employment than traditional stimulus measures and urges the G7 to lead by example ahead of G20 and COP26.

ClientEarth contends that the German government's compensation for closing lignite plants is unlawful State aid. The organization argues that the plants would have closed sooner under market conditions, making the aid unnecessary and disproportionate. Furthermore, it asserts that using public funds to cover mine rehabilitation costs breaches the 'polluter pays' principle and EU environmental law. ClientEarth warns that the measure distorts competition and fails to provide significant environmental benefits, especially in light of a German Constitutional Court ruling requiring more ambitious climate targets.