Search Climate Insights Directory

The report critiques carbon trading as a 'risky, irresponsible and dangerous' tool that diverts attention from viable solutions. It proposes a comprehensive package of alternatives: investing US$100 billion annually in renewable energy feed-in tariffs, transitioning to small-scale sustainable agriculture, protecting forests by addressing drivers like agrofuels, and implementing international industrial standards for the 'best available technologies'. For climate finance, it suggests a combination of a global financial transaction tax, combating tax evasion, redirecting fossil fuel subsidies, issuing Special Drawing Rights, and implementing carbon and energy taxes, which could collectively provide at least US$420 billion annually for developing nations.

The report critiques carbon trading as a high-risk distraction that allows developed nations to avoid domestic emissions reductions and undermines the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. It proposes a comprehensive package of alternatives, including a global feed-in tariff for renewable energy, a transition to small-scale sustainable agriculture, and the implementation of common industrial standards for best available technology. To fund these transitions and support developing countries, the report suggests generating at least US$420 billion per year through a global financial transaction tax, cracking down on tax evasion, redirecting fossil-fuel producer subsidies, issuing new Special Drawing Rights, and implementing carbon and energy taxes.

The document critiques carbon trading as a 'dangerous obsession' that allows developed nations to avoid domestic emission reductions and fails to provide predictable financing for developing countries. It proposes a transition to a low-carbon economy through a 'Just Transition' framework, emphasizing the historical responsibility of rich nations. Key mitigation alternatives include a global feed-in tariff program for renewables, sustainable small-scale agriculture, and the adoption of 'Best Available Techniques' in industry. For financing, the report suggests a combination of a global financial transaction tax, combating tax evasion, redirecting fossil fuel subsidies, and issuing new Special Drawing Rights, estimating a potential for US$420 billion in annual new climate finance.

The paper examines the carbon trading landscape, focusing on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the potential for South Africa to establish a local carbon market. It highlights that while South Africa is the only African country among the top 20 CDM host countries, it remains underrepresented in carbon credit generation due to financing and technical hurdles. The authors argue that a shift from coal dependence to renewable energy is necessary to meet domestic and international targets, and that policy certainty is required to attract further investment.

The research examines the interaction between local flow pollution and global stock pollution, specifically focusing on abatement activities that can target one or both. By comparing symmetric and asymmetric internalization scenarios, the authors demonstrate that the degree of internalization affects the capital-abatement ratio and long-run pollution stocks. The paper argues that achieving a first-best global welfare optimum requires two distinct policy instruments—such as taxes on both local and global pollutants—and that in asymmetric cases, subsidizing pollution reduction is superior to subsidizing abatement because the latter fails to correct for negative externalities from capital accumulation.

South Africa faces a conflict between its development goals—focused on poverty alleviation and economic growth—and its climate targets, as 90% of its electricity is generated from coal. While the country has proposed ambitious emission cuts of 25% by 2020 and 42% by 2025, it continues to expand coal capacity through projects like the Medupi and Kusile plants to address electricity supply constraints. The document argues that development and climate mitigation can converge through an innovative economic agenda that exploits green market opportunities to create a new labour-absorbing industry.

The document examines the 'source problem' (energy supply) and 'sink problem' (pollution) within endogenous growth frameworks. It argues that while resource scarcity can drag down growth, it also creates incentives for directed technological change and efficiency gains that can sustain long-run development. The authors compare stylized analytical models with complex CGE-models, noting that the latter are better for sector-specific policy analysis but often act as 'black-boxes'.

The author advocates for a shift away from oil in the United States by implementing carbon or petroleum taxes to reduce demand and replacing petroleum-based fuels and materials with sustainable alternatives. The text highlights the potential for biofuels in transportation and heating, as well as the use of biomass for industrial chemicals and building products, emphasizing that such a transition must be grounded in sustainability to protect ecosystems.

The document examines the barriers to clean energy investment in South Africa, highlighting the dominant role of the state-owned utility Eskom and a heavy reliance on coal. It analyzes the national policy framework, including the 2003 White Paper on Renewable Energy and the 2008 National Energy Act, while evaluating incentives such as the Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff (REFIT) and Tradable Renewable Energy Certificates (TRECs). The report concludes that while macroeconomic stability is favorable, institutional barriers and a lack of political will are the primary hurdles to scaling renewable energy.

The report critiques the Obama Administration's interagency working group for endorsing a 'central' social cost of carbon (SCC) of $21 per ton of CO2, arguing this value is too low to drive meaningful emissions reductions. The authors contend that the reliance on three specific models (DICE, FUND, and PAGE) introduces bias, as these models often underestimate damages or make morally questionable assumptions, such as valuing lives in poor countries less than those in rich ones. Furthermore, the report argues that using discount rates of 2.5% to 5% unfairly diminishes the value of future climate damages and that the failure to account for worst-case catastrophic scenarios leads to ineffectual policy. The authors recommend moving toward a cost-effectiveness framework based on science-based safety standards, citing the United Kingdom's higher carbon price range of $41–$124 per ton as a more appropriate benchmark.

The report argues that fossil-fuel subsidies lock economies into carbon reliance, exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions, and divert funds from social services. It concludes that while reform is politically difficult due to interest group influence and administrative path dependence, it would lead to aggregate GDP increases and significant CO2 reductions. The document emphasizes that transparency—both through improved national accounting and a new international reporting regime—is essential for successful de-subsidization. It provides a framework for reform based on research, clear objectives, coherent policy design, and the prevention of backsliding through independent pricing bodies.

The document analyzes fourteen historical energy substitutions in the UK, concluding that transitions are complex, sector-specific processes rather than single events. It finds that most transitions were driven by the promise of 'better' services (e.g., cleaner or more flexible) but only achieved broad diffusion once the cost of the service became competitive with incumbents. The author argues that a transition to a low carbon economy is likely to be very slow, as historical data since the Industrial Revolution suggests an average innovation chain of over 100 years and a diffusion phase of nearly 50 years.

The response argues that while a UK carbon price floor aims to increase the viability of low-carbon investments, a unilateral approach may be discounted by investors due to regulatory instability and inconsistency with the EU Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS). It suggests that strengthening the EU ETS targets would provide greater clarity, regulatory stability, and market scale for low-carbon technologies like CCS and nuclear power, compared to a national tax-based supplement.

The report finds that Hispanics, African Americans, and other minority groups are often as supportive of, or more supportive of, national climate and energy policies than white Americans, challenging the perception that climate change is primarily a concern of the white upper-middle class.

The report examines South Africa's energy security, highlighting a critical over-reliance on coal-fired power generated by the state utility Eskom. It argues that this dependency creates a conflict with the country's climate mitigation goals and international commitments. The author identifies structural and institutional barriers—specifically Eskom's market dominance and a lack of coordinated government policy—that hinder the adoption of renewable energy. The report suggests that South Africa must shift from a 'business as usual' fossil-fuel path toward a 'business unusual' approach, leveraging regional hydroelectric and gas potential within the Southern African Power Pool (SAPP) to ensure a sustainable and secure energy future.

The report evaluates two scenarios for the UK transport sector's CO2 emissions by 2050: Business-as-usual (BAU) and Maximum Impact (MI). While road and rail transport can achieve total decarbonisation through a combination of demand reduction and a shift to carbon-neutral electricity, aviation and shipping remain problematic. The MI scenario achieves a 76% overall reduction in transport CO2 emissions compared to BAU, but falls short of zero carbon due to the technical challenges of the aviation and shipping sectors. Key recommendations include the re-introduction of a fuel price escalator, urban densification, and the complete electrification of the rail network.

The paper evaluates the feasibility of implementing a Personal Carbon Trading (PCT) scheme in Sweden, comparing it to existing UK-based models and current Swedish climate policies. It concludes that a standard PCT scheme would not be an efficient approach for reducing emissions in Sweden's housing and transport sectors due to high administrative costs and the effectiveness of existing policies. However, it suggests that PCT-like concepts could be explored to address emissions embedded in global supply chains.

The Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and Friends of the Earth Europe argue that Europe can achieve a 40% reduction in emissions by 2020 and 90% by 2050 through radical energy system changes and lifestyle shifts. The study estimates the implementation cost at approximately 2% of Europe's discounted cumulative GDP between 2010 and 2020. To achieve climate justice, the report suggests Europe must also provide between €150 billion and €450 billion annually to developing countries by 2020. The proposed pathway excludes nuclear power, biofuels, and carbon capture and storage, focusing instead on wind energy, electrification, and energy efficiency.

The document examines China's heavy reliance on coal-fired power, which makes it a global leader in sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions. It analyzes the 'big up/small down' strategy to replace inefficient small thermal units with larger, cleaner ones and reviews international best practices—including carbon taxes, feed-in tariffs, and emission trading—to suggest policy options for China to reduce its carbon intensity and protect its exports from future climate-related trade barriers.

The study demonstrates that the EU can achieve domestic emission cuts of 40% by 2020 and 90% by 2050 through radical energy efficiency, a shift to renewables, and the phase-out of fossil fuels and nuclear power. It argues that such a transition is technically possible and economically bearable, costing approximately 2% of the EU's cumulative discounted GDP between 2010 and 2020. To achieve climate justice, the report asserts the EU must also provide between €150 billion and €450 billion annually by 2020 to support mitigation in developing countries.