Search Climate Insights Directory

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.

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, leaving developing regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia severely underfunded. The report emphasizes a critical gap in adaptation and resilience finance, which accounts for less than 10% of urban climate finance. To bridge this gap, the report recommends strengthening municipal finance capacities, aligning city and national climate policies, and utilizing innovative financial instruments like blended finance and green procurement.

The report finds that while urban climate finance averaged 384 billion USD annually in 2017/18, this is far below the estimated annual need of 4.5 to 5.4 trillion USD. Funding is heavily concentrated in OECD countries and China, with severe deficits in developing regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, and a critical lack of investment in adaptation and resilience, which accounts for less than 10% of tracked project data. The document argues that cities must act as both 'providers' of green infrastructure and 'guardians' of regulatory standards to attract private and public capital, requiring stronger alignment between municipal and national climate policies.

The 2021 report on the state of cities climate finance reveals a significant gap between current investment levels and the trillions of dollars needed for urban climate action. While global urban climate finance averaged 384 billion USD annually in 2017/2018, funding is heavily concentrated in OECD countries and China, leaving developing regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia severely underfunded. The report emphasizes a critical shortage in adaptation and resilience funding, which accounts for less than 10% of urban climate finance. It argues that mobilizing further investment requires 'enabling conditions' across national, city, and climate-specific levels, urging governments and international financial institutions to provide predictable funding and technical support to help cities transition to sustainable development paths.

The report establishes a conceptual framework for urban climate finance, emphasizing that mobilization depends on the alignment of country-specific, city-specific, and climate-specific enabling conditions. It details the five roles city governments play—consumer, provider, fundraiser, regulator, and champion—and argues that a lack of administrative capacity, fragmented authority, and limited revenue sources in developing countries create significant barriers. The document recommends integrating climate considerations into all levels of city planning (strategic, spatial, capital investment, and budgetary) and suggests using carbon pricing, land-value capture, and conditional intergovernmental transfers to close the urban financing gap.

The document analyzes how free emission allowances under the EU ETS led to up to 50 billion euros in windfall profits for energy-intensive industries between 2008 and 2019. It challenges the 'carbon leakage' justification for these allowances, noting a lack of evidence for industrial relocation. The author recommends transitioning to full auctioning of permits and utilizing the resulting revenues for climate innovation and a just transition.

The global steel sector, responsible for 11% of CO2 emissions, remains heavily reliant on carbon-intensive blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) pathways. While over 75% of global capacity is now covered by net-zero pledges, the report warns of significant stranded asset risks—estimated between 47 and 70 billion USD—due to the continued construction of BF-BOF plants. The analysis emphasizes a transition toward electric arc furnaces (EAF), green hydrogen-based direct reduced iron (DRI), and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS), while leveraging existing global overcapacity to retire inefficient plants.

Power Forward 4.0 finds that 60% of Fortune 500 companies have set at least one climate or energy target, a 12-percentage-point increase since 2017. While GHG reduction targets are most common (54%) and Science-Based Targets (SBTs) have increased sixfold, only 20% of the Fortune 500 have set or committed to an SBT. The report highlights a rise in net-zero commitments (17%) and 100% renewable energy targets (58 companies), though it notes significant gaps in the financial, fossil fuel, and retail sectors. Despite progress, the report argues that voluntary action is insufficient and calls for federal and state policies, such as carbon pricing, to align the US private sector with the Paris Agreement and the US Nationally Determined Contribution.

The document highlights the necessity of public-private collaboration to decarbonize heavy industry, which contributes approximately 30% of global CO2 emissions. It identifies the Leadership Group for Industry Transition (LeadIT), launched by Sweden and India, as a key arena for international cooperation toward net-zero emissions by 2050. The brief examines specific policy tools such as green public procurement, carbon contracts for difference, and carbon border adjustments, while referencing implementation experiences in countries including South Korea, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, and the UK.

The document identifies three primary discourses in Russia: a dominant 'keep coal' vision supported by political leadership, an economically-driven 'low-carbon trend' discourse, and a 'local environmental' discourse focused on pollution and health. It concludes that while external pressures like the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and declining demand may force long-term adjustments, there is currently no active 'coal phase-out' discourse or just transition planning in Russia, leaving coal communities vulnerable to economic instability.

The Framework for Sustainable Finance Integrity provides a structured approach to evaluate and drive the sustainability commitments of financial actors. It establishes 'Minimum Benchmarks' that all institutions should adopt—such as aligning portfolios with the Paris Agreement and eliminating new coal finance—and 'Leadership Benchmarks' for those seeking to drive transformative change, including science-based five-year emissions targets and comprehensive TCFD alignment. The report emphasizes the need for a 'whole-of-government' approach, the integration of biodiversity and just transition into financial mandates, and the necessity of cross-sector collaboration to avoid siloed efforts that fail to meet global climate goals.

Ember analyzes the German Ministry of Economics (BMWi) formula for lignite compensation, arguing that three key assumptions lead to a systematic overvaluation of payments. By adjusting power and CO2 prices to more recent data, accounting for avoidable fixed costs, and reducing the compensation period to three years, Ember suggests the total payment could be reduced from €4.4 billion to as low as €343 million.

The document argues that the restructuring plan for Complexul Energetic Oltenia (CEO) fails to restore long-term viability because it maintains unviable lignite assets and invests in fossil gas, which are viewed as stranded assets. The authors contend that the plan contradicts the European Green Deal and the Paris Agreement, and that the proposed State aid—including €241.4 million for 2020 CO2 allowances—violates EU law and the 'do no harm' principle. They highlight a lack of real own contribution from CEO and the absence of meaningful compensatory measures, suggesting instead a full lignite phase-out by 2030.

The author argues that the Supreme Court of Canada's focus on federal-provincial jurisdiction in its carbon price review erased critical Indigenous perspectives on sovereignty and climate justice. While the Court acknowledged that Indigenous peoples face disproportionate climate impacts, it failed to address arguments that Canada is not merely a bi-juridical state of federal and provincial powers, but one that must respect Indigenous laws and nation-to-nation relationships for reconciliation.

The European Commission has opened formal investigations into compensations provided to RWE (EUR 2.6 billion) and LEAG (EUR 1.75 billion) for the closure of lignite plants in Germany by 2038. The Commission preliminarily concludes these payments constitute state aid and expresses doubts regarding their proportionality, specifically whether the calculations for foregone profits and mine rehabilitation costs are realistic or lead to overcompensation. ClientEarth argues that the aid may violate the 'polluter pays principle' regarding mine recultivation and that declining market conditions and rising CO2 prices make the assumed long lifespans of the plants unrealistic.

The document analyzes the fiscal challenges facing Indonesia, specifically its low tax-to-GDP ratio and the burden of fuel subsidies. It uses India's experience—where gasoline and diesel subsidies were phased out and replaced by flexible excise duties—as a blueprint for Indonesia. The authors recommend that Indonesia implement a fixed fuel tax to raise revenue for social programs and pandemic recovery, suggesting that such a measure is more politically viable in the short term than immediate subsidy elimination.

The authors advocate for a diversified strategy to reach Canada's 2050 carbon neutrality goal, distinguishing between "safe bets" (commercialized technologies) and "risky bets" (emerging technologies). They argue that while safe bets can provide two-thirds of the emissions reductions needed by 2030, risky bets are necessary for cost-effective long-term elimination of emissions. The document calls for a combination of clear incentives for deployment and regulatory support for pilot projects, emphasizing public-private partnerships.

The report argues that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) should be treated as a public service, similar to sewage treatment, because most CDR technologies do not generate independent revenue. It identifies a massive implementation gap between projected removal volumes and current policies, noting that while nature-based solutions are cheaper, they lack the permanence of technological options like Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) and Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). The authors recommend a mix of public subsidies for research, design, development and demonstration (RDD&D), carbon pricing, and the use of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to create a credible investment environment. It also highlights the role of voluntary private sector commitments, though it warns of a 'wild west' situation in the voluntary carbon market due to inconsistent monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) standards.

The document advocates for a global carbon price on shipping to drive decarbonisation, suggesting that such a measure must avoid offsets and free permits while using revenues to fund green infrastructure and support vulnerable nations through rebates rather than exemptions.

The report finds a significant investment gap between Canada's current climate-related fiscal commitments and the funding required to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. While acknowledging positive steps in public transit and building energy efficiency, the authors argue that Canada is being outpaced by international peers, such as the US and EU, in per capita green spending. The analysis identifies critical funding shortfalls across seven sectors, including transportation, clean energy, and nature-based solutions, and calls for Budget 2021 to prioritize uncosted measures and scaled-up investments to ensure an equitable green recovery.