Search Climate Insights Directory

Carbon Market Watch argues that the European Parliament's industry committee has failed to fix fundamental flaws in the EU ETS, specifically regarding the oversupply of pollution permits and the continued provision of free allowances to heavy industry. While the committee strengthened exclusions for future coal investments and permanently cancelled a small portion of surplus allowances, the organisation contends these measures are insufficient to drive a low-carbon transition or meet Paris Agreement commitments.

The open letter argues that the EU ETS currently sustains coal infrastructure through low carbon prices and the misuse of Article 10c and the Modernisation Fund. The signatories call for a tighter ETS cap to increase carbon prices and the explicit exclusion of coal-related investments from funding mechanisms to avoid locking Central and Eastern Europe into coal dependency.

The document examines the tension between WTO non-discrimination rules and national climate policies, such as renewable energy subsidies and carbon pricing. It analyzes recent WTO disputes over local content requirements and proposes solutions including authoritative interpretations of GATT Article XX, the use of regional trade agreements (RTAs) to test new rules, and increased institutional coordination between the WTO and UNFCCC.

The document examines the tension between international trade rules and national climate policies, arguing that while trade rules are often seen as barriers to climate ambition, they can also facilitate the deployment of clean technologies. It proposes five key steps to create a more climate-friendly trade regime: an authoritative interpretation of GATT Article XX, the inclusion of climate expertise in WTO dispute settlement, the use of regional trade agreements to test climate rules, the pursuit of plurilateral deals like the Environmental Goods Agreement, and increased institutional coordination between the WTO and UNFCCC to enhance transparency.

A coalition of networks and organizations calls for an ambitious revision of the EU ETS to stop the use of Article 10c and the Modernisation Fund for fossil fuel capacity, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. They advocate for a higher carbon price to disincentivize coal and the redirection of funds toward energy efficiency and renewable energy.

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated BP on 30 metrics, finding that while the company acknowledges climate science and supports a carbon price, it fails to distance itself from trade associations that spread disinformation and lacks a company-wide emissions reduction plan.

The report evaluates the climate risk disclosure practices of several major fossil fuel companies, including Arch Coal, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, CONSOL Energy, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Royal Dutch Shell. It scores companies across four categories: regulatory risks, physical risks, market/indirect risks, and corporate governance. While most companies provide detailed analysis of regulatory risks, the report finds widespread failures in disclosing the specific role of climate change in physical risks and a near-total absence of disclosure regarding corporate governance on climate issues.

The report evaluates the climate policy engagement of several major fossil fuel companies, including BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Arch Coal, CONSOL Energy, and Peabody Energy. It uses a scoring system to measure their support for federal carbon reduction policies, their responses to the EPA Clean Power Plan and Methane Rule, and their participation in climate-supportive business alliances. Findings range from 'Good' scores for companies like BP, which supports carbon pricing and the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, to 'Poor' or 'Egregious' scores for companies like Peabody Energy, which the report claims used climate science disinformation to oppose the Clean Power Plan.

The Climate Accountability Scorecard evaluates the climate-related actions and disclosures of several major fossil fuel companies, including BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Arch Coal, CONSOL Energy, and Peabody Energy. The report assigns scores based on criteria such as support for the Paris Agreement, the use of internal carbon pricing, and the transparency of greenhouse gas emissions reporting. Findings indicate a widespread lack of company-wide emissions reduction plans and varying levels of transparency regarding low-carbon research and development investments.

The Union of Concerned Scientists developed a scorecard to assess eight major fossil fuel companies—including Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips, Peabody Energy, CONSOL Energy, and Arch Coal—on their climate responsibility. The methodology employs 30 metrics across four areas: renouncing disinformation, planning for a carbon-free world, supporting effective climate policies, and disclosing climate risks. The assessment focuses on the period from January 2015 to May 2016, utilizing public filings, corporate reports, and third-party data. Notably, the document states that no assessed companies met the standard required to be scored on the execution of their carbon-reduction plans.

The report analyzes the compatibility of Carbon Market Clubs (CMCs)—networks of emissions trading schemes (ETSs) sharing rules and services—with various 'climate clubs' consisting of governments, cities, and businesses. It explores whether standardized CMC services, such as mitigation value assessments and international asset reserves, can reduce transaction costs and political barriers to linking diverse carbon markets. While the Paris Agreement's Article 6.2 encourages voluntary cooperation, the report finds that political concerns over sovereignty, environmental integrity, and the 'not invented here' syndrome often outweigh technical efficiencies. Case studies of the EU ETS, WCI, RGGI, and ICAO illustrate the tension between the desire for centralized control and the economic benefits of networked markets.

The report analyzes 35 climate and energy policies for China using the Energy Policy Simulator (EPS), comparing a Reference Scenario (RS) with a Low Carbon (LC) and an Accelerated Low Carbon (ALC) scenario. It finds that carbon pricing, renewable energy standards, and enhanced building codes are among the most effective tools for reducing CO2e emissions. While the LC scenario aims to peak CO2 emissions between 2025 and 2030, the ALC scenario focuses on cost-effectiveness to peak CO2 as soon as possible, achieving a peak in 2022. The analysis highlights that regulatory policies generally drive the majority of emissions reductions, though carbon pricing has the highest overall abatement potential. The report recommends a carbon price of at least 60 RMB per ton, increased renewable energy targets beyond 30% by 2030, and the adoption of MOHURD One Star as the minimum building code standard.

The report analyzes various policy scenarios for China's energy transition, highlighting that carbon pricing and renewable energy standards are the most powerful tools for reducing emissions. It emphasizes that regulatory policies, particularly energy efficiency standards in buildings and industry, are highly cost-effective. The analysis suggests a transition toward a service-based economy and a decarbonized electricity grid to meet emissions peaking goals by 2030.

The Paris Agreement is projected to significantly impact the global economy and private sector as the international community aims for net zero emissions by the second half of the century. The report examines how the agreement and NDCs influence renewable energy markets, carbon pricing, and climate risk management, with a specific focus on clean energy investments, energy efficiency, and the competitiveness of renewables.

The document outlines a carbon offset mechanism designed to allow South African firms to reduce their carbon tax liability by investing in external GHG mitigation projects. It establishes a framework where offsets can provide a tax-free allowance of 5% or 10%, primarily relying on international standards like the CDM, VCS, and Gold Standard. The scheme is restricted to projects located within South Africa and those outside the direct scope of the carbon tax to prevent double counting. Administration is tasked to the Designated National Authority (DNA) within the Department of Energy, supported by an Independent Expert Committee and a national registry to track the transfer and retirement of credits.

Carbon Market Watch asserts that the proposed 2.2% annual emission reductions in the EU ETS are inadequate to meet the 2°C or 1.5°C warming targets, potentially leading to 2 billion tonnes more CO2 than the EU's Paris pledge. The briefing highlights that carbon prices remain too low to drive decarbonisation and that free permit allocations have allowed heavy polluters to profit, with over 24 billion euros made between 2008 and 2014. To address these failures, the author recommends steeper emission cuts, phasing out free allowances, and ensuring the next trading period starts at actual emission levels.

The document outlines the need for Ontario to remove environmentally harmful fossil fuel subsidies to align with Canada's G-7 commitment to end such subsidies by 2025. It references a national estimate of CAD 2.9 billion in production subsidies and notes that while Ontario has phased out coal and implemented carbon pricing, further action is required regarding preferential tax treatments for fossil fuels.

The report explores the concept of 'policy crediting'—crediting emission reductions resulting from policy actions—as a means to encourage the implementation or strengthening of energy pricing and carbon pricing reforms. While noting that no real-world case examples of this currently exist, the study uses case studies from Morocco, Indonesia, Mexico, and Beijing to propose three generic options for policy crediting: supporting reductions at the policy margin, supporting reductions within the policy instrument, and overcoming implementation barriers. The author concludes that further work is required to develop monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) frameworks and to understand the political economy challenges associated with these approaches.

The authors call for an immediate shift from the commitments made in 2015—specifically the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement—to concrete implementation. They identify three primary challenges: reorienting economies through investment and consumption changes, making the reduction of inequalities a central objective, and translating international agreements into national strategies. The text emphasizes the need for policy signals to redirect financial flows, the role of innovation coalitions, and the necessity of ensuring an equitable transition for workers and regions affected by the shift in energy and food systems.

The report proposes 'Inclusion of Consumption' (IoC) as a way to ensure carbon prices are reflected in the cost of materials like steel and cement, which are currently shielded by free allowance allocations in emissions trading schemes. By adding a charge to the consumption of these materials based on benchmarks, the IoC aims to incentivize material efficiency and innovation without harming competitiveness. The authors argue that IoC is administratively feasible, compliant with WTO law, and qualifies as an environmental regulation under EU law.