Search Climate Insights Directory

The ACT 2015 consortium proposes five key ingredients for a successful 2015 global climate agreement: a clear long-term goal (including net zero by 2050), a commitment to non-regression of national targets, a five-year cycle for strengthening commitments, the integration of independent expert analysis, and a transparent progress assessment mechanism.

Carbon Market Watch warns that the leaked 2030 Council Conclusions could reduce the effective EU greenhouse gas reduction target from 40% to 26% due to the potential banking of 'hot air' (surplus allowances). The organization criticizes the 40% target as postponing urgent action, opposes the use of EU ETS allowances to meet non-ETS targets, argues against including transport in the EU ETS, and condemns the dynamic allocation of free pollution permits as an industry subsidy.

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%.

This executive summary evaluates over 40 studies on regional GHG reduction targets, highlighting how different effort-sharing approaches and equity principles lead to significantly different emissions allowances. It specifically examines targets for a 450 ppm CO2e stabilization level by 2030 and 2050 across various global regions and argues for more in-depth modelling to inform the 2015 international climate change agreement.

Carbon Market Watch and a coalition of NGOs urge Finnair to avoid using industrial gas offset credits (HFC-23 and N2O from adipic acid) for EU ETS compliance, arguing that such credits lack environmental integrity and undermine climate objectives.

A coalition of 109 civil society organisations calls for a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and the closure of carbon market loopholes. The letter demands that market-based mechanisms be tied to binding targets and proposes specific reforms to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), including human rights safeguards, a robust appeals procedure, and the exclusion of non-additional projects and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

The policy analysis examines Canada's progress toward its 2020 emissions target of 17 per cent below 2005 levels and suggests closing the gap through expanded regulatory frameworks and a renewed focus on domestic and international abatement offsets.

The report assesses the EU's Climate and Energy Package, concluding that the 20% emissions reduction target by 2020 is insufficient to reach the 2050 goal of 80% reduction without incurring extreme economic costs in later decades. It recommends increasing the 2020 target to 30%, establishing a stringent 2030 EU ETS cap of 45-50% reduction, and shifting energy efficiency focus toward absolute energy savings in buildings and transport. The authors argue that these measures would reduce oil and gas dependency, foster the Low Carbon and Environmental Goods and Services (LCEGS) market, and prevent high-carbon infrastructure lock-in.

The report identifies the 'Carbon Fat Cats'—ten companies, primarily in the steel and cement sectors, that amassed a combined surplus of 240 million emissions allowances between 2008 and 2010, valued at approximately €4.1bn. This over-allocation is attributed to inflated growth projections and the economic recession, allowing these firms to profit through windfall sales or banking permits for future use. In contrast, the power sector faces a significant deficit, effectively subsidising industrial surpluses. The report also highlights the use of cheap international offsets, some from direct rivals in China and India, which undermines industry claims regarding competitiveness and carbon leakage. Sandbag recommends increasing the EU emissions reduction target to 30%, implementing an allowance 'set-aside' for Phase III, restricting the use of offsets from rival industries, and improving data transparency regarding company ownership and waste gas transfers.

The report evaluates the EU ETS's impact on corporate investment behavior, finding that while it successfully reduced investment in carbon-intensive assets, its ability to trigger a shift toward low-carbon strategies is hindered by insufficient stringency and the use of free allowances. It highlights that the current cap reduction trajectory is insufficient to meet the EU's 80-95% emission reduction goal by 2050 and argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) creates uncertainty and reduces effective emission targets. The authors recommend tightening the ETS cap, phasing out offsets, reforming IFRS accounting practices to reflect the true value of allowances, and combining carbon pricing with technology-specific support schemes to create a more enabling environment for low-carbon projects.

The report argues that while precise surgical assessment of comparability is currently impossible, a common set of core indicators is necessary to define fairness and support domestic and international negotiations. It proposes an 'apples with apples' anchoring point based on economy-wide emissions excluding LULUCF and introduces 'trajectory indicators' to align 2020 targets with 2050 goals. The analysis categorizes Annex I Parties into 'New World' economies, 'Old OECD economies', and 'Transition economies' based on emissions, population, and GDP trends. Finally, it emphasizes the need for harmonized economic modelling to provide a rational basis for cost-comparability, especially following the global financial crisis.

The report argues that while developing countries often have domestic drivers for climate-beneficial policies (such as energy security and health), resource constraints and political priorities limit their scale. It suggests that international support should move beyond the Clean Development Mechanism's (CDM) project-specific approach toward supporting broader domestic policy frameworks. The authors advocate for the use of intermediate policy indicators and targets—rather than final emissions targets—to provide shorter feedback loops and early rewards for implementation. Case studies from Brazil, China, Ghana, India, and South Africa illustrate specific sectoral opportunities in transport, steel, wind power, and solar energy. The report concludes that such cooperation should be anchored in the UNFCCC to ensure transparency and a fair distribution of financial resources for incremental costs.

The report argues that to avoid dangerous climate change, the U.S. must reduce emissions by at least 80% below 2000 levels by 2050. This target is derived from a global stabilization goal of 450 ppm CO2eq, which provides a medium chance of limiting global warming to 2°C. The authors calculate a U.S. cumulative emissions budget of 160 to 265 GtCO2eq for 2000–2050 and warn that delaying reductions until 2020 would double the required annual reduction rate from 4% to 8%. An assessment of then-current federal bills found that only the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (S. 309) and the Safe Climate Act (H.R. 1590) were consistent with the upper limit of the proposed U.S. emissions budget.

The document examines the ongoing WTO negotiations on environmental goods, noting that current proposed lists of goods for liberalization primarily benefit developed countries, who account for 79 per cent of exports. To create a more balanced outcome, the author suggests expanding the definition of environmental goods to include environmentally preferable products (EPPs) of export interest to developing countries—specifically non-timber forest products and natural fibre products—and implementing Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) provisions such as delayed compliance and less-than-full reciprocity.

The report details the compliance framework of the Marrakech Accords, which includes a two-branch compliance committee (facilitative and enforcement) and specific penalties for Annex I Parties that exceed emissions targets. It highlights the tension between the European Union, G-77, and China, who sought a strong regime, and the Umbrella Group (Japan, Canada, Russia, and Australia), who pushed for concessions. A key unresolved issue is whether non-compliance consequences are 'legally binding' under Article 18 of the Kyoto Protocol, though the author argues the established procedures represent a robust achievement for multilateral environmental agreements.

The document describes a new compliance system for the Kyoto Protocol featuring a two-branch committee: a facilitative branch for all Parties and an enforcement branch for Annex I Parties. Key outcomes include equitable geographical representation for committee members and specific penalties for Annex I Parties exceeding emissions targets, such as a 1.3 tonne deduction for every tonne exceeded in the next commitment period. While the agreement establishes these procedures, it notes that the 'legally binding' nature of these consequences remains unresolved as it would require a Protocol amendment under Article 18.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) recommends amending Bill C-12 to include a 2025 emissions target, establish a truly independent scientific advisory body reporting to Parliament, and ensure explicit alignment with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). CAPE frames climate change as a critical health threat, noting that Canada is the only G7 country whose emissions have risen since the 2016 Paris Agreement.

The waste sector is the third largest source of human-driven methane emissions, contributing 18% of global anthropogenic methane in 2020, with municipal solid waste accounting for 11% and wastewater for 7%. Mitigation efforts are currently hindered by a lack of data on landfills and dumpsites and limited access to evidence-based best practices. To address this, the Clean Air Task Force and RMI are launching the Waste Methane Assessment Platform (Waste MAP), an open-source online tool designed to improve data availability, provide a heat map of emissions, and offer strategic playbooks for mitigation. In 2023, the initiative includes engagement in six countries: Mexico, Colombia, and Ecuador (via CATF), and India, Nigeria, and the United States (via RMI), providing technical assistance and capacity building to help these nations meet the Global Methane Pledge and other greenhouse gas targets.

The briefing argues for a compliance system where the enforcement branch's jurisdiction is based on the nature of a Party's commitments rather than its Annex I or Non-Annex I status. It advocates for strict limits on the facilitative branch's power, the removal of political bodies like the COP/MOP from enforcement proceedings, and the implementation of high transparency standards, including public dockets and the right for NGOs to submit information. Additionally, it proposes a Compliance Fund to help Parties cure emissions overages during the true-up period.

The document urges the European Parliament to amend the draft EU climate law to include a more ambitious 2030 emissions reduction target of at least 65%, binding climate-neutrality targets for individual Member States, and the establishment of an independent scientific advisory panel. It further calls for a mandatory EU roadmap for emissions reductions across all sectors, a review of all EU policies for climate consistency, improved access to justice, restrictions on fossil fuel lobbying, and the alignment of financial flows with climate goals.