Search Climate Insights Directory

The report assesses how a 30% GHG reduction target by 2020 would affect EU energy security compared to a 20% target and a business-as-usual scenario. It finds that more ambitious targets generally improve primary energy security by reducing overall energy demand and fossil fuel imports, particularly oil. However, it notes that the transition may increase risks for specific countries like Poland due to a shift from coal to imported gas, and could negatively impact electricity grid security due to the intermittency of renewables and the need for significant new capacity investments.

The document examines India's strategic shift toward Africa to diversify its energy imports and reduce dependence on the Middle East. It contrasts India's 'hybrid model' of engagement—which combines resource extraction with capacity building and infrastructure development—against the more mercantilist approaches of other powers. The author argues that for the partnership to be sustainable, India should leverage its expertise in renewable energy and rural electrification to support Africa's own development goals.

The document examines the evolving India-Africa partnership, highlighting energy as a primary driver due to India's rising import dependency. It details India's diversification strategy across coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium, while arguing that the relationship extends beyond energy into trade, defence, and capacity building. The analysis contrasts India's approach with that of China and the West, emphasizing the need for sustainable energy governance to avoid the 'resource curse' and energy poverty in Africa.

The research examines the long-run dynamics of external costs associated with coal in the United Kingdom from 1700 to 2000. It finds that during the nineteenth century, the externalization of social costs rose significantly, peaking in 1891 when damages were estimated at £17.5 billion (2000 prices), or 17.3% of GDP. The author argues that this period represents a massive market failure where marginal social costs far outweighed marginal social benefits, and that government failure delayed optimal mitigation by fifty years. The paper uses this historical case to caution that current greenhouse gas emissions may follow a similar pattern of delayed government action and high social costs.

The document provides a comparative analysis of U.S. renewable energy resources—including hydropower, wind, biomass, geothermal, and solar—alongside conventional coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. It details installed capacities, capital costs per kilowatt, and carbon displacement estimates as of 2009-2010, noting that renewables are generally lower in carbon emissions, more flexible in scale, and faster to construct than conventional plants.

The report examines electricity security in Southern Africa and South America, highlighting the heavy reliance of South Africa on coal and Brazil's dependence on hydropower. It argues that while both regions have vast renewable energy potential, adoption is hindered by technological lock-in, risk-averse financing, and restrictive government policies. The document advocates for regional energy integration and policy reforms to diversify energy mixes and improve sustainability.

South Africa's climate policy is shaped by a conflict between its role as an international 'bridge-builder' and domestic structural barriers. While the government pursues a leadership role in multilateral forums and the BASIC group, domestic progress is hindered by a 'minerals-energy complex' dominated by coal-reliant entities like Eskom and Sasol, alongside urgent priorities to expand energy access and employment. The document highlights the diplomatic challenge of balancing relations with major emerging economies and other African nations while managing internal political and industrial pressures.

India faces a growing gap between energy demand and indigenous supply, projecting it will become the world's third largest energy consumer by 2030. To address this, India is implementing an integrated energy policy focusing on diversifying sources—including increased imports of high-quality coal from South Africa and oil from Africa—while expanding nuclear, hydropower, and renewable energy capacities. Significant challenges remain, including unreliable infrastructure, high transmission losses, and geopolitical tensions affecting pipeline viability.

The document argues that South Africa must transition from a coal-dependent energy system to a low-carbon economy to ensure energy security and maintain competitive advantage. It highlights the need for institutional and regulatory reform to allow clean electricity suppliers to enter a market currently dominated by coal and the national utility. The text notes that current energy and climate policies are undermined by a lack of coherence across government departments. Additionally, it identifies a significant funding gap for local infrastructure, noting that South African municipalities receive less than 10% of the country's climate finance.

The paper analyzes the drivers of per capita CO2 emissions across U.S. states, noting a wide range from 76.5 mT in Alaska to 12.2 mT in Vermont. It identifies that high transportation emissions are linked to sparse populations, low gasoline prices, and limited public transit. High residential heating emissions are associated with cold climates, high average incomes, and the use of oil for heating. Additionally, high residential electricity emissions are driven by coal-based power generation, hot and humid climates, and low electricity prices. The authors highlight gasoline prices, electricity prices, and public transportation use as key policy variables.

The report identifies 38 U.S. states as net importers of coal in 2008, with 11 states spending over $1 billion each on these imports. It highlights a growing dependence on coal from Wyoming and international sources, particularly in the Southeast and Midwest. The authors argue that states can mitigate these economic losses and environmental damages by investing in energy efficiency and homegrown renewables.

In 2008, Alabama imported 79% of the coal used for its electricity generation, resulting in a net expenditure of $1.39 billion. The state's electricity mix was dominated by coal (51.1%) and nuclear (26.7%). Alabama spent the most per person ($297) and the most relative to gross state product (0.82%) on net coal imports compared to other US states. To reduce this dependence, the document suggests investing in energy efficiency—noting that Alabama spent only 49 cents per person on such programs in 2007—and utilizing renewable resources which could technically meet 56% of the state's 2008 power demand.

In 2008, Connecticut imported all the coal used by its power plants, spending $130 million on these imports, a significant portion of which came from Indonesia. While coal accounts for only 14.4% of the state's electricity mix, the state spent $37 per person on imported coal in 2007, exceeding the $27 per person spent on electricity efficiency programs. To reduce this dependence, Connecticut has implemented energy efficiency resource standards and renewable electricity standards, requiring utilities to source at least 23% of in-state power demand from renewables by 2020. The document notes that land-based renewables could technically meet 37% of the state's 2008 electricity needs, and offshore wind resources in New England could potentially supply over 24 times the region's power requirements.

In 2008, Delaware imported all the coal used by its power plants, resulting in over $161 million leaving the state. While coal provided 70 percent of in-state power generation, the state has implemented an energy efficiency resource standard requiring a 2.5 percent annual reduction in electricity use from 2010 to 2015 and a renewable electricity standard targeting 20 percent of power from renewable resources by 2019.

In 2008, Iowa imported all the coal used by its power plants, resulting in $496 million leaving the state, primarily to Wyoming. Coal accounted for 76.1% of Iowa's electricity generation, making the state the second most dependent on net imports as a share of total power use (78%). To reduce this dependence, Iowa is utilizing energy efficiency programs and renewable energy, specifically wind power, where it has over 3,600 megawatts of installed capacity.

In 2008, Kansas imported over 99 percent of the coal used by its power plants, primarily from Wyoming, resulting in a net outflow of $516 million. Coal provided 72.9 percent of the state's electricity mix. The document argues that investing in energy efficiency and leveraging the state's high technical potential for wind and bioenergy could reduce this dependence and boost the local economy.

In 2008, Massachusetts imported all the coal used by its power plants, primarily from Colombia, resulting in $252 million leaving the state economy. The state relies on coal for 24.5% of its in-state electricity generation despite having no domestic coal supplies. To reduce this dependence, Massachusetts has implemented aggressive energy efficiency targets, including a $1.7 billion investment from 2010 to 2012, and is expanding renewable energy through programs like Commonwealth Solar and the first US offshore wind facility in Nantucket Sound.

In 2008, Mississippi relied on coal for 34.6% of its electricity generation, importing over 70% of that coal and spending $457 million out of state. The document argues that the state can reduce this dependence by investing in energy efficiency—noting that 2007 ratepayer-funded efficiency spending was 1,400 times lower per person than spending on imported coal—and by utilizing local renewable resources such as forestry by-products, switchgrass, solar, and geothermal energy.

Missouri is highly dependent on imported coal, spending $1.13 billion in 2008 to import over 99% of the coal used by its power plants. The document highlights that this expenditure represents a significant economic drain, suggesting that energy efficiency standards and renewable energy resources, such as wind and bioenergy, could redirect funds back into the local economy.

In 2008, Nebraska imported all the coal used by its power plants from Wyoming, resulting in $198 million leaving the state. Coal provided 66.3% of the state's electricity mix that year. The document argues that Nebraska could reduce this dependence by investing in energy efficiency—noting that 2007 spending on efficiency programs was 200 times lower per capita than spending on net coal imports—and by leveraging its wind and bioenergy resources through a renewable electricity standard.