Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that while Canada has made positive climate commitments, there is a significant investment gap between current budget allocations and the funding required to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. By comparing federal spending with recommendations from expert coalitions, the document identifies critical funding shortages across seven sectors: transport, building retrofits, clean energy, nature and adaptation, agriculture, industry and innovation, and workforce development. It highlights that Canada's per capita climate spending during the pandemic is more than eight times lower than the promises made by the US under Joe Biden. The report calls for the 2021 Budget to prioritize deficit spending on green infrastructure, eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, and implement a just transition for workers, particularly in the coal, oil, and gas sectors.

The paper argues that a low-carbon product standard—a market-based regulation establishing emissions intensity benchmarks with tradable credits—can incentivize the U.S. steel industry to adopt abatement technologies. It recommends regulating finished steel products (sheets, plates, bars, beams, pipes, and tubes) at the point of first sale, covering Scope 1, Scope 2, and significant upstream Scope 3 emissions (coke, lime, and direct-reduced iron). To prevent carbon leakage and maintain competitiveness, the authors suggest applying the standard to all steel products sold or imported into the U.S., including indirect steel products above a certain value threshold. The paper emphasizes that while such a standard is a powerful tool, it must be complemented by R&D funding, government procurement, and other policies to achieve full decarbonization.

Carbon Market Watch recommends strengthening the EU ETS by increasing the Linear Reduction Factor to 5.8% (or 3.1% with a cap reduction), raising the Market Stability Reserve intake rate to 36%, and ending free allowances for aviation and energy-intensive industries. The organization advocates for the inclusion of international maritime transport and waste incineration, while opposing the inclusion of road transport, buildings, and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) credits.

The document analyzes Canada's 2020 COVID-19 recovery spending, noting a higher commitment to clean energy (CAD 14.7 billion) than fossil energy (CAD 3.6 billion) according to Energy Policy Tracker data. However, it highlights significant transparency gaps regarding credit support from public finance institutions like EDC and BDC. Compared to France, Germany, and the UK, Canada's per capita investment in electric vehicles is lower, while its investment in building retrofits is relatively high. The brief warns that Canada's hydrogen strategy leans toward 'blue hydrogen' (fossil-based) while European peers prioritize 'green hydrogen'. It recommends applying strict 'green strings' to stimulus, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, and aligning ambition with international standards.

The Canadian government provided at least CAD 1.91 billion in federal fossil fuel subsidies in 2020, representing a jump of over 200% from 2019 levels. This increase was primarily driven by COVID-19 recovery measures, specifically funding for orphan and abandoned well reclamation and support for Newfoundland's offshore oil industry. The report argues that these subsidies are inconsistent with Canada's net-zero emissions by 2050 target and G20 commitments to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. It highlights significant data gaps regarding tax-related subsidies and public finance provided through Export Development Canada (EDC). The author recommends a transparent roadmap for subsidy phase-out by 2025, the alignment of EDC policies with climate goals, and the inclusion of subsidy reform in Canada's next Nationally Determined Contribution to the Paris Agreement.

The document highlights the environmental impact of natural gas flaring, particularly in the US, and outlines a seven-step framework for abatement including prohibiting routine flaring, increasing transparency, and implementing carbon pricing.

A joint letter from civil society organizations calling on the European Commission to prevent the adoption of unsustainable fuels in the maritime and aviation sectors. The authors argue that crop-based biofuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG) may increase emissions or create stranded assets, and instead advocate for the promotion of green electro-fuels produced from renewable electricity to support the European Green Deal's 2050 carbon neutrality goal.

The author contends that expanding carbon pricing to the transport and buildings sectors would shift the burden of emission reductions from polluting companies to consumers and undermine the EU's goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030. The text argues that the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR), which covers approximately 60% of EU emissions, should be improved by raising binding national targets and removing 'loopholes'—specifically flexibilities related to the EU emissions trading scheme and the land-use sector—rather than being repealed or reduced in scope.

The report finds a stark contrast between public support for climate action in Massachusetts and the actual legislative outcomes. While approximately 90% of public testimony supports environmental priorities, ambitious legislation is frequently blocked by powerful industry coalitions—most notably regulated utilities and the Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM). The study identifies four primary opposition coalitions: utilities, fossil and chemical companies, real estate, and power generation companies. It highlights that utilities are uniquely successful in steering policy, often opposing decentralized solar energy while supporting large-scale wind and hydro projects that benefit their business models. Furthermore, the report notes a shift in opposition rhetoric from climate denial to 'discourses of delay,' such as policy perfectionism and appeals to social justice. The authors conclude that the lack of transparency in the State House, combined with the immense spending power of corporate lobbyists, creates a hostile environment for ambitious climate policy.

The UK is implementing a tiered 'Cluster Sequencing Process' to deploy industrial CCUS and low-carbon hydrogen, aiming for 10 GW of hydrogen production and 6-9 Mt CO2 per annum of industrial capture by 2030-2035. While the government has developed five distinct business models to provide capital and revenue support, industry stakeholders report that delivery is 6 to 12 months behind schedule. The UK possesses a significant competitive advantage in storage capacity, with an estimated 78 Gt of CO2 storage potential, the largest in Europe.

The policy brief positions carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as a public good and service, similar to wastewater treatment, because most approaches do not generate independent revenues and are avoided by commercial finance. It recommends that governments implement specific absolute volume targets for CDR within Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), provide dedicated subsidies, and eliminate regulatory barriers such as underground storage permitting. To ensure long-term scalability, the brief advocates for a universal carbon price, the integration of CDR into Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, and the development of robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) methodologies to maintain environmental integrity.

The document details the 'externalities' of fossil fuels—costs not reflected in market prices—across climate, environmental, and health dimensions. It highlights significant U.S. impacts, including $606.9 billion in extreme weather costs (2016-2020) and 350,000 premature deaths in 2018. It also emphasizes the disproportionate burden on communities of color and low-income areas, such as 'Cancer Alley' in Louisiana. Proposed policy solutions include eliminating subsidies, increasing the social cost of carbon, implementing a federal clean electricity standard, and establishing carbon pricing.

The annex evaluates the gap between the economic mitigation potential of forests and the quantitative targets set in NDCs for 32 high-potential countries. It identifies a global annual finance need for forest protection and restoration ranging from USD 45 billion to USD 460 billion, while noting that current 'green finance' flows are significantly lower than 'grey finance' flows directed toward sectors like agriculture.

The document argues that the financial system's current inertia and short-term bias prevent the redirection of private capital toward net-zero, climate-resilient economies. It emphasizes that limiting warming to 1.5°C is technically feasible but requires a dramatic scale-up of investment in energy, land, urban, and industrial systems. The report advocates for a dual approach of 'market fixing' (carbon pricing and risk disclosure) and 'market shaping' (de-risking and policy support) to overcome investment barriers. In the context of Covid-19, it highlights the risk of 'colourless' recovery packages entrenching fossil fuel dependence and proposes integrating NDCs into investment plans, alleviating debt through climate swaps, utilizing multi-sovereign guarantee funds, and expanding green bond markets to support developing nations.

The report provides a comprehensive overview of energy transition progress in Brazil, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, and Vietnam. It highlights the role of independent think tanks in driving policy breakthroughs, such as coal phase-outs and renewable energy targets, while identifying systemic barriers including political resistance, grid limitations, and financing gaps. The document argues that while technology strategies (renewables and electrification) are converging, national implementation is shaped by distinct local political and social factors.

The document serves as an FAQ for an open letter initiative by the We Mean Business Coalition, targeting G20 nations. It outlines the necessity for G20 countries to increase their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to halve global emissions by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050. The letter calls for specific policy shifts, including an immediate end to new coal projects, the removal of fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, and mandatory climate-related financial disclosures. It emphasizes the G20's unique responsibility given they represent approximately 90% of global GDP and nearly 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The document is a FAQ for businesses on an open letter to G20 leaders, calling for strengthened Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to halve global emissions by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050. It outlines key policy demands, including ending coal financing, removing fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, and implementing climate-related financial reporting.

The proposal seeks USD 593,760 over 18 months to improve the operationality of Uruguay's National Designated Authority (NDA), facilitate direct access to GCF funding for national entities, and integrate climate change into subnational planning and private sector business models. Key activities include updating the Country Programme, developing a sustainable finance roadmap, and supporting the accreditation of the Corporación Nacional para el Desarrollo (CND) and Banco de la República Oriental del Uruguay (BROU).

The Canadian Climate Institute states that Canada now has a credible climate plan aligned with its 2030 goals. The centerpiece is a carbon price increasing to $170/tonne by 2030, which the Institute argues minimizes overall economic costs while maintaining industrial competitiveness through production-based pricing. While the plan includes regulations for fuels, vehicles, and electricity, and supports low-carbon technologies, the Institute identifies a lack of a comprehensive national adaptation strategy as a remaining gap.

The Canadian Climate Institute asserts that Canada now possesses a credible climate plan capable of meeting its 2030 targets. The centerpiece of this strategy is a nationwide carbon price projected to reach $170/tonne by 2030, which the Institute claims minimizes overall economic costs while driving low-carbon innovation. The plan includes output-based pricing to maintain industrial competitiveness and quarterly rebates to ensure household affordability. While the document notes the inclusion of regulations for fuels, vehicles, and electricity, it identifies the lack of a national adaptation strategy as a current gap in the overall strategy.