Search Climate Insights Directory

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) argues that COVID-19 recovery spending provides a critical opportunity to shift public finance away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy. The proposed blueprint includes stopping public funding for fossil fuel production, reforming subsidies and implementing taxes to raise an estimated USD 553 billion annually, and incentivizing private investment in clean electricity. The framework emphasizes a just transition involving dialogue between workers, employers, and governments to ensure no one is left behind during the energy transition.

The research uses a welfare model based on consumer surplus to analyze how energy price hikes under a Kyoto Protocol scenario disproportionately affect low-income households in Canada. Through simulations in Alberta and Ontario, the authors find that while high-income groups reduce energy consumption the most, low-income groups suffer the greatest loss in welfare. The paper proposes an income-differentiated pricing system and carbon-reduction tax rebates for high-income groups as mechanisms to ensure equity and protect the basic energy needs of the poor.

The document identifies three primary areas of potential conflict between the Kyoto Protocol and WTO rules: flexibility mechanisms, domestic policies and measures, and compliance enforcement. It analyzes how emissions trading, carbon taxes, efficiency standards, and subsidies could be interpreted as violations of WTO principles such as the most-favoured nation (MFN) principle or the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM). The author argues that while these conflicts are serious, they can be avoided through proactive treaty design and the creation of institutional bridges between trade and environmental governance.

The SAVi assessment of the N’Diaye wind farm in Senegal demonstrates that while coal-fired power may appear more financially attractive under traditional business-as-usual scenarios, the wind farm provides superior societal value and lower costs when climate risks and externalities are integrated. The wind project is estimated to generate 158.7 MW of electricity and create significantly more employment (66 FTE/year) with substantially lower life cycle emissions (0.1 million tonnes of CO2) compared to coal (6.1 million tonnes) and HFO (2.2 million tonnes). When accounting for climate risks and externalities, the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for the wind farm is CFA 43,266 per MWh, making it more affordable than coal (CFA 52,998 per MWh) and HFO (CFA 155,728 per MWh).

The SAVi assessment of the Taïba N’Diaye wind farm demonstrates that while traditional financial metrics may favor fossil fuels due to lower initial capital costs, the wind project provides superior societal value and lower long-term costs when climate risks and externalities are integrated. The wind farm is projected to generate 158.7 MW of electricity and create significantly more jobs with far lower lifecycle emissions than coal or HFO alternatives.

The SAVi analysis demonstrates that while a coal power plant appears more profitable under a Business-as-Usual (BAU) scenario, the offshore wind farm becomes the superior financial option when externalities and climate risks are integrated. Specifically, accounting for externalities reduces the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for offshore wind to EUR 65 per MWh compared to EUR 171 per MWh for coal. When physical risks (1.5°C temperature increase) and transitional risks (a carbon tax of EUR 16.27/MWh) are added, the coal plant's internal rate of return (IRR) drops to 0%, while the wind farm maintains an IRR of approximately 17%. The analysis also estimates that the offshore wind project would create 2,780 full-time equivalent jobs.

The document details India's use of a coal cess to raise funds for clean energy, noting that while it generated nearly USD 12 billion, much of the revenue was diverted from its original purpose. It also compares this to coal tax reforms in China.

The document analyzes how Saudi Arabia, China, and South Africa have implemented various taxes on fossil fuel consumption to address budget deficits and fund renewable energy. It highlights China's Renewable Electricity Surcharge, which raised USD 16 billion in 2016, and South Africa's multi-layered approach including fuel and electricity levies. Saudi Arabia's 2018 introduction of a 5% VAT is noted as a move to diversify revenue away from oil dependency.

The assessment concludes that the onshore wind portfolio is a more resilient and profitable investment than a comparable gas-fired power plant when climate risks and externalities are internalized. While the wind portfolio's performance slightly diminishes when externalities are monetized, the gas-fired plant becomes financially unattractive, with its internal rate of return (IRR) turning negative under a carbon tax scenario.

The report advocates for a 'solve for pattern' approach to global crises, using energy efficiency and renewable technologies as a model for broader resource management. It argues that the U.S. and other nations can achieve significant reductions in oil and electricity use through technical innovations like 'hypercars' and efficient lighting, which are often cheaper than expanding supply. The authors contend that these efficiencies can simultaneously improve economic health, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, slow nuclear proliferation by removing the need for civilian nuclear power, and enhance global security by reducing dependence on foreign oil.

The text examines the ideological divide in environmental debates and proposes 'natural capitalism' as a synthesis that integrates economic viability with ecological health. It argues that businesses must shift from incremental improvements to systemic innovations in resource productivity to avoid catastrophic environmental failures. The author highlights a growing global movement of organizations and a shift in corporate strategy—exemplified by companies like OK Petroleum—that view environmental sustainability as a competitive advantage rather than a regulatory burden. Ultimately, it calls for a fundamental reevaluation of how society values natural and social capital to ensure long-term stability.

The report examines how Benin, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Nigeria, and South Africa responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. It finds that wealthier, more open economies like South Africa and Senegal were most vulnerable to shocks, while countries like Tanzania and Benin experienced marginal growth deceleration due to minimal or delayed government reactions. Fiscal capacity varied significantly: South Africa and Senegal implemented the most substantive stimulus packages, whereas Nigeria was constrained by a volatile tax base. Most countries focused on industry support and tax relief, though South Africa uniquely allocated 60% of its package to social security. The document highlights a looming 'debt repayment wall' peaking in 2024 and argues for a transition toward green infrastructure, diversified revenue bases, and a common African negotiating position to secure concessional finance and Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) from higher-income nations.

The paper finds that while Senegal has made progress in renewable energy and direct access to climate finance, its overall NDC implementation is unsatisfactory. Key obstacles include a significant funding gap, the lack of a national measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) system, and a strategic shift toward oil and gas exploitation that threatens carbon-reduction goals.

The Reimagine our Future Declaration, authored by over 150 South African youth aged 14-24, calls for systemic reforms to address youth unemployment, climate change, and social inequality. The authors advocate for a 'youth-centred green recovery' from the COVID-19 pandemic, urging the South African government to divest from fossil fuels, invest in renewable energy, and integrate climate education into school curricula. Economically, the declaration highlights a youth unemployment rate of 32.5% and demands greater transparency, accountability in public spending, and increased funding for youth-led businesses. Socially, it emphasizes the need for free, decolonised education and urgent action against gender-based violence and femicide.

The document analyzes the role of renewable energy in the Southern African mining sector, highlighting how energy instability and the high cost of diesel generators drive mining firms toward hybrid and private renewable solutions. While South Africa faces challenges from a reliance on coal and potential 'bridging' fuels like shale gas and nuclear power, the declining cost of solar and wind technologies, supported by the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Programme (REIPPPP), offers a viable path to reduce operating costs and increase energy security.

The document finds that most African countries failed to maximize the opportunity for a green recovery following COVID-19, primarily due to a massive financing gap and a lack of mainstreaming climate action into national economic planning. While South Africa and Nigeria adopted recovery plans with green components, others like Senegal, Uganda, and Benin showed little overlap between their pandemic responses and NDCs. The author argues for reforming global development finance, implementing carbon taxes, and creating green sovereign wealth funds to bridge the gap between climate ambitions and available resources.

The document examines Tanzania's transition from socialist policies to a market-determined economy, noting a sustained GDP growth rate of 7% between 2010 and 2019. It analyzes how the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted this growth, causing a decline in tourism and traditional exports, while highlighting that a 'business as usual' approach helped the country avoid a recession in 2020. The paper details fiscal and monetary interventions, such as increasing health spending and lowering discount rates, and recommends further macroprudential policies and social protection to support vulnerable populations and ensure a climate-resilient recovery.

The report evaluates the fiscal responses of six African nations to the COVID-19 pandemic through a climate lens, categorising policies as green, red (unfriendly), or grey (neutral). It finds that most stimulus packages were climate neutral, with Nigeria being the only country to implement an overall green package. In contrast, Uganda's response was deemed 'red' due to investments in carbon-intensive industrial parks, and South Africa's package was neutral despite its high emissions profile. The author argues that green spending is more effective for job creation than fossil fuel investments and recommends that African governments utilise Pigouvian taxes and green financing to achieve a sustainable economic recovery.

South Africa has increased its climate ambition by lowering its 2030 emission target upper limit from 614 Mt CO2-eq to 420 Mt CO2-eq. While the country leads Africa in green finance and has established a carbon tax, implementation of climate strategies remains slow. The COVID-19 pandemic initially diverted focus toward immediate socioeconomic needs, but later spurred the Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan. Conversely, the Ukraine war has increased global demand for South African coal, potentially incentivizing a rollback of decarbonization. The Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) provides critical financial support, but the transition is hindered by ongoing power shortages, reliance on new coal plants like Medupi and Kusile, and political sensitivity regarding job losses in the coal sector.

The document argues that the EU27 must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2020 and nearly 90% by 2050 relative to 1990 levels to meet its climate obligations. This requires a radical transition to renewable energy, the phase-out of fossil fuels and nuclear power, and significant improvements in energy efficiency across housing, transport, and agriculture. Additionally, the EU has an international obligation to finance mitigation in developing countries, estimated at 1% to 3% of its projected 2020 GDP. The brief concludes that while the costs are considerable, they are bearable and far lower than the potential economic losses from climate inaction.