Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that fossil-fuel subsidies disadvantage renewable energy by impairing its cost competitiveness, reinforcing incumbent fossil-fuel-based infrastructure, and distorting investment decisions. It details various subsidy mechanisms—including fuel input subsidies, funding of utility losses, and tax breaks—and highlights how these create an artificial advantage for thermal generation. The document also examines the role of underpriced externalities and the political economy of the energy sector in resisting reform. It concludes that reforming these subsidies is a priority for transitioning to a sustainable energy system, though it notes that governments often opt for 'second-best' renewable energy incentives instead of removing fossil-fuel supports.

The document argues that while the EU's 2030 target of at least 40% domestic greenhouse gas reductions is a positive step, it may conflict with plans to link carbon markets. The author warns that linking with external emissions trading schemes could introduce 'foreign' allowances that dilute domestic targets, especially given the existing oversupply of over 2 billion allowances in the EU market. To effectively participate in a future global carbon market, the document suggests the EU must scale up its ambition to at least 55% and permanently resolve the surplus of allowances from the pre-2020 period.

The United States and China have announced new climate targets to align with the European Union as the world's top three emitters. The U.S. aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, which would require doubling annual reduction rates. China intends to peak carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and increase non-fossil fuel energy consumption to around 20 percent by 2030. Both countries' targets represent a deviation from business-as-usual trajectories, though achieving a long-term 2-degree-C trajectory will require more aggressive policies, such as carbon pricing and stronger regulation of power plants.

The We Mean Business Coalition calls on G20 leaders to move beyond rhetoric and commit to specific policy actions to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions and hold global temperatures below 2 °C. The coalition advocates for the elimination of high-carbon energy subsidies, the enactment of carbon pricing, and the scale-up of low carbon energy and public finance. It further encourages the G20 to integrate findings on climate-compatible infrastructure investment into the establishment of a global infrastructure hub, asserting that climate action is compatible with economic growth.

The CFAS Guide outlines the state of climate finance negotiations leading up to COP20 in Lima, focusing on long-term funding goals, the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund, and the roles of various financial mechanisms under the UNFCCC.

The research paper examines the economic barriers to a green transition, specifically 'carbon lock-in' where existing high-emission infrastructure reinforces itself. Using a post-Keynesian 'brown-green capital' model, the author argues that a transition cannot be achieved through carbon pricing alone but requires sustained public investment and a dynamic policy mix. The paper finds that the macroeconomic impact of green investment depends on whether an economy is 'wage-led' or 'profit-led', and that investor uncertainty often leads to underinvestment in green capital even as it becomes more productive.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) faces significant legal, financial, and reputational risks due to its investments in fossil fuel companies. CIEL highlights that GPFG invests in 44 of the 90 'Carbon Majors' responsible for 63% of industrial greenhouse gas emissions from 1854-2010, increasing the likelihood of successful climate change litigation. The document specifically calls for immediate divestment from coal, citing the industry's financial decline, systemic demand drops in the US, and severe environmental and human rights abuses in India and China. Furthermore, CIEL asserts that continued fossil fuel investment contradicts Norway's international obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its commitment to inter-generational equity.

The document argues that the European Parliament's decision to uphold the European Commission's carbon leakage list, using a €30 per tonne carbon price, leads to an over-allocation of free emission permits. It claims this results in a loss of approximately €5 billion in taxpayer revenue over five years and provides windfall profits to polluters, despite a lack of evidence for actual carbon leakage.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the EU ETS has failed to drive decarbonisation due to a surplus of over 2 billion emission allowances, leading to carbon prices around 5 euros per tonne. While the proposed Market Stability Reserve is a necessary step, the author contends it is 'too little, too late' because it is scheduled for 2021 rather than July 2016 and fails to permanently cancel allowances, which could lead to an unstable carbon price.

The report identifies a portfolio of low-carbon opportunities for the European steel sector, ranging from energy efficiency and fuel shifting to breakthrough technologies like Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) and increased recycling. It argues that current EU ETS mechanisms, particularly free allocation based on historic volumes, fail to provide sufficient incentives for deep decarbonisation and high-value product innovation. The authors recommend a structural reform of leakage protection, specifically proposing a combination of output-based allocation and the inclusion of consumption in the EU ETS to create a credible business case for breakthrough technologies and material efficiency. The report also emphasizes the need for sustained public funding for process innovation to overcome the 'valley of death' in technology scaling and suggests strengthening links between steel producers and downstream consumers, particularly in the automotive and construction sectors, to drive demand for lightweight, high-strength steels.

The report argues that transitioning to a low-carbon economy can increase global financial capacity rather than deplete it. For the electricity sector, the transition could provide a net benefit of $1.8 trillion by 2035, as significant operating savings from avoided fossil fuel extraction and transport outweigh higher capital costs and stranded assets. In the transport sector, the impact is more policy-dependent, ranging from a $2.5 trillion cost to a $3.5 trillion benefit, depending on whether the transition is driven by taxes or innovation. The authors emphasize that reducing the cost of capital for low-carbon infrastructure through regulatory and financial reforms is critical to maximizing these benefits.

The briefing warns that loopholes in the EU's climate framework have created a 'bubble' of 4 billion tonnes of unused pollution credits. This surplus, split between the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and the Effort Sharing Decision, threatens to undermine the EU's proposed 2030 goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% compared to 1990 levels. The author argues that if these credits are carried over into the 2030 framework, the actual emission reductions could drop to 26%.

The document warns that a 'bubble' of 4 billion tonnes of excess emission rights threatens to undermine the EU's proposed 2030 climate target. It details how surpluses in the Effort Sharing Decision (ESD) and the Emissions Trading System (ETS) could be carried over into the 2030 framework, effectively lowering the actual emission reductions from a proposed 40% to 26% if not addressed by EU leaders.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) proposes a 'Demonstrated Growth Approach' to replace the EPA's conservative renewable energy targets in the Clean Power Plan. The UCS argues that the EPA underestimates the cost-effectiveness and deployment rates of wind and solar power. By adopting the UCS methodology, the EPA could increase the 2030 share of renewable energy in U.S. electric sales from 12 percent to 23 percent, potentially increasing total power sector emissions reductions from 30 percent to approximately 40 percent below 2005 levels. The brief asserts that these higher targets are affordable, with minimal impact on consumer electricity prices and a potential 9 percent reduction in the national average price of natural gas for the electricity sector by 2030.

The document warns that a 'hot air bubble' of 4 billion pollution credits across the EU ETS and ESD could reduce the actual effectiveness of the EU's 2030 climate target from 40% to as low as 26%. It details how 1.35 billion tonnes of surplus credits in the Effort Sharing Decision and 2.6 billion excess allowances in the Emissions Trading System are created by weak targets, international offsets, and free permit allocations to industry. The author calls on EU Heads of State to disallow the banking of ESD surpluses and permanently cancel excess EU ETS allowances to prevent these 'phantom rights to pollute' from carrying over into the 2030 framework.

The document argues that the world must move beyond incremental change to a systemic low-carbon transformation. It identifies commercially available technologies in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and land-use practices that can be scaled immediately. It emphasizes the need for carbon pricing, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, and a rapid phase-out of unabated coal to avoid catastrophic climate feedbacks and high future mitigation costs.

The document frames climate change as a mainstream public health crisis and advocates for a transition to clean energy and active transport to reduce early deaths and healthcare costs. It highlights the importance of health-aligned investment choices, citing the British Medical Association's divestment from fossil fuels and HESTA's restrictions on thermal coal. The guide also lists several high-level events in New York, including a WHO-ILO session on 'Climate, Health and Jobs' and a forum on sustainable diets.

The workshop focused on leveraging international funds like the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) to drive low-carbon investment in Brazil. Key discussions highlighted that a lack of long-term governmental strategic vision and internal organizational cultures in banks act as barriers to green investment. The event presented innovative financial instruments and case studies from Colombia and Mexico to demonstrate how blending concessional finance with private resources and risk mitigation tools can unlock climate-relevant investments.

The Green Economy Coalition (GEC) argues that while the green economy narrative is gaining traction, it requires a shift toward moral and economic storytelling, local 'heroes', and systemic financial reform to become mainstream. The document identifies key narrative 'storylines'—such as economic revival, community empowerment, and financial crisis—and emphasizes that emerging economies are currently adopting these frameworks more enthusiastically than developed nations. It specifically calls for the reform of central banks and monetary policy to address systemic risks like 'stranded assets' and 'carbon bubbles', suggesting that civil society must lead this change to overcome political apathy in the North.

The document outlines a proposal to introduce a 'Charge' for carbon-intensive goods, such as steel and clinker, based on the EU ETS permit price and Best Available Technology (BAT) benchmarks. Drawing on the European excise system, it suggests a 'Production Sphere' where registered 'Carbon Keepers' and 'Carbon Warehouses' can handle goods under duty suspension, and a 'Consumption Sphere' where the charge is triggered upon sale to unregistered entities or final consumers. The report recommends a Carbon Monitoring and Control System (CMCS) for tracking movements and the use of de minimis thresholds for imports based on the ratio of carbon value to product value.