Search Climate Insights Directory

The We Mean Business Coalition, representing over 6 million companies, argues that climate action is beneficial for business and essential for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. They urge governments to establish an ambitious agreement at COP21 in Paris that focuses on global decarbonization, transparency, carbon pricing, and climate resilience.

The We Mean Business coalition asserts that the economic case for climate action is now clear, with 200 international companies and over 100 investors already making ambitious commitments. The coalition calls for a Paris Agreement that ensures global decarbonization by the end of the century, establishes five-year update cycles for government commitments, and provides clear policy signals like carbon pricing to shift investment toward low-carbon assets.

The We Mean Business coalition asserts that the Paris Agreement must establish a collective long-term goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions well before the end of the century to keep warming below 2°C. The authors call for mechanisms to regularly strengthen country commitments every five years, implement transparent government accountability rules, and shift trillions of dollars toward low-carbon investment through policy signals like carbon pricing.

The policy brief identifies the EU ETS as currently ineffective due to a massive oversupply of pollution permits and a carbon price too low to incentivize low-carbon investment. It proposes four primary interventions: cancelling at least 2 billion surplus allowances in the Market Stability Reserve by 2020, increasing the linear reduction factor to at least 2.6% to align with 2050 decarbonisation goals, implementing a one-billion allowance ceiling on the Market Stability Reserve to account for technological progress, and shortening trading periods to five years to increase responsiveness to market and scientific changes.

The report defines climate exposure as potential portfolio gains or losses due to climate change, categorized into policy, physical, and market exposures. It analyzes the role of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) data as the primary information source for investors, while highlighting significant limitations in data quality and the prevalence of voluntary disclosure. The document evaluates various management tools, including ESG data aggregators and financial products such as exclusionary, non-exclusionary, and thematic indexes, as well as green bonds and YieldCos. It concludes that current tools are skewed toward risk mitigation rather than opportunity identification and recommends mandatory standardized disclosure to improve comparability and effectiveness.

Japan has committed to reducing emissions 26 percent below 2013 levels by 2030, a target the World Resources Institute describes as one of the least aggressive among developed nations. While Japan has a long-term goal of an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050, the 2030 target is inconsistent with this path and relies on fossil fuels for 56 percent of its energy supply. The document notes that Japan could achieve higher reductions through renewable energy and efficiency, and highlights risks associated with the use of international carbon credits and the continued investment in coal-fired power plants.

The European steel and cement sectors face substantial surplus production capacity and limited reinvestment, hindering the adoption of low-carbon technologies. While energy efficiency and fuel-switching have provided some gains, breakthrough process technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) require significant public funding and a credible, long-term carbon price signal for both producers and consumers to be viable. The report argues that a comprehensive policy package—combining the EU ETS, innovation funding, and updated building standards—is essential to transition these capital-intensive industries toward sustainable, high-value production.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the EU ETS review proposal prioritizes industrial interests over climate goals by earmarking at least €160 billion in free pollution permits after 2020. While the proposal increases the linear reduction factor to 2.2% to meet 2030 targets, the organization contends this is offset by the release of surplus allowances and the continuation of free allocations to prevent hypothetical carbon leakage.

The paper evaluates whether intensity standards for energy-intensive and trade-exposed (EITE) industries are an efficient alternative to uniform carbon taxes in the US. Using a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, the authors find that while lax standards may slightly reduce leakage, stringent standards can actually increase carbon leakage and lead to substantial welfare losses compared to economy-wide emission pricing. The study concludes that intensity standards are primarily driven by political economy considerations rather than economic efficiency.

The report argues that a "carbon market only" approach is insufficient for the cost-effective decarbonisation of the European power sector. While the EU ETS is an effective tool for driving fuel switching in the residual thermal generation mix, it cannot alone drive necessary investments in low-carbon technologies due to high capital costs, revenue risks, and the 'merit order effect'. The authors recommend a policy mix where the EU ETS is complemented by tailored national investment supports—such as feed-in tariffs or contracts for difference—to reduce the cost of capital. To ensure coherence, the report proposes an ex-ante cap adjustment process for the ETS based on Member State National Energy and Climate Plans and the development of long-term decarbonisation strategies back-casted from 2050.

The document outlines a framework called 'Planetary Economics' to address the inadequacy of traditional neoclassical economics in solving climate change. It proposes three domains of socio-economic processes: the First Domain (Satisficing), focusing on human behaviour and efficiency gaps; the Second Domain (Optimising), focusing on market trade-offs and pricing; and the Third Domain (Transforming), focusing on innovation and systemic change. These domains map to three policy pillars: standards and engagement for efficiency, markets and prices for carbon reduction, and strategic investment for infrastructure and innovation. The author concludes that only an integrated strategy combining all three pillars can effectively decarbonise energy systems and overcome systemic 'lock-in' and behavioural inertia.

The report presents seven 'deception dossiers' containing approximately 85 internal documents that reveal how fossil fuel companies and trade associations intentionally spread climate misinformation. It details tactics such as the secret funding of contrarian scientists, the creation of 'astroturf' grassroots groups, and the use of forged letters to Congress to undermine climate science and delay the transition to clean energy.

The document analyzes Mexico's 2015 INDC, which commits to unconditional reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 22% and black carbon by 51% relative to a 2030 baseline. While noting Mexico's leadership as the first developing country to submit an INDC and its identification of a 2026 emissions peak, the analysis warns that current policy trajectories projected by external sources suggest emissions would continue to increase without further action. The authors recommend formalizing a robust baseline policy to avoid high-carbon lock-in and improving transparency regarding the expected emissions trajectory and the specific conditions required to meet conditional targets.

Carbon Market Watch responds to the EU consultation on the 2030 Effort Sharing Decision (ESD), opposing the use of EU ETS and LULUCF offsets to meet non-ETS targets. The organization argues that such flexibilities risk reducing the EU's 2030 climate ambition and delaying necessary mitigation. Instead, it proposes enhancing transparency in annual emission allocation (AEA) transfers, introducing a central auctioning system for AEAs to support lower-income Member States, and implementing a project-based intra-EU offset mechanism for transformative projects. The response emphasizes the importance of early action and calls for a comprehensive package of EU-wide policies in transport, buildings, agriculture, and waste to ensure the 2030 targets are met without compromising environmental integrity.

We Mean Business welcomes the call for carbon pricing from CEOs of BG, BP, ENI, Royal Dutch Shell, Statoil, and Total, but argues that real leadership requires specific investment commitments and transparency.

The We Mean Business Coalition calls on climate negotiators to establish a policy framework that signals long-term decarbonization to guide capital investment. Key demands include a global net-zero objective before the end of the century, a five-year cycle of science-based commitments aligned with IPCC reporting, and shared accountability rules to ensure emissions reductions are accurately tracked.

The report assesses the global climate finance landscape, highlighting the critical role of public finance in catalyzing private investment. It examines various financial tools—including green bonds, carbon pricing, and risk mitigation instruments—and analyzes the performance of multilateral development banks and bilateral agencies. The document emphasizes that while global flows have increased, significant gaps remain in tracking private finance and achieving the USD 100 billion goal due to low carbon prices and a lack of stable enabling environments in developing nations.

The document analyzes the EU's Effort Sharing Decision (ESD), which sets emission targets for non-ETS sectors (transport, buildings, agriculture, and waste). It argues that the 2013-2020 period was characterized by weak targets and overgenerous flexibilities, leading to projected overachievement without new mitigation actions. For the 2021-2030 period, the EU aims for a 30% reduction compared to 2005. The brief warns that certain proposed flexibilities—specifically the use of EU ETS allowances and forestry offsets—could increase overall EU emissions by up to 28% by 2030. It recommends focusing on early action, implementing EU-wide mitigation policies, introducing auctioning based on the polluter-pays principle, and restricting borrowing to avoid delaying climate action.

The United States can meet its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26–28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 through a combination of existing federal laws and state actions. The report proposes a 10-point action plan focusing on the power sector, energy efficiency, HFCs, and methane reduction. For deeper reductions beyond 2025, the authors argue that new legislation, such as a carbon price, could reduce emissions by 40–42 percent by 2030 and 50–53 percent by 2040 without sacrificing robust economic growth.

The policy brief examines the implications of linking the EU ETS with external carbon markets, noting that while it may increase cost-efficiency, it risks undermining the EU's 2030 domestic emissions reduction target of 40%. It highlights the lack of transparency and European Parliament involvement in current negotiations and recommends that any linking be accompanied by higher emission targets and robust safeguards, such as the exclusion of international offsets.