Search Climate Insights Directory

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 report argues that Anglo American and other dirty energy corporations have 'captured' climate policy-making, particularly within the UNFCCC, to protect their business models. It highlights the severe social and environmental damage caused by the El Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia, including water scarcity and the displacement of indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities. The document details Anglo American's use of a 'web of influence'—including memberships in groups like the ICC, WBCSD, and EUROMINES—to lobby for market-based mechanisms such as carbon trading and carbon capture and storage (CCS), which the authors term 'false solutions'. It concludes by calling for the removal of corporate privileged access to climate negotiations, the end of public subsidies for dirty energy, and increased lobby transparency.

The document argues that success at COP20 in Lima depends on rich nations delivering climate finance, specifically filling the Green Climate Fund, which has only seen "USD 2.3 billion in pledges" despite a "USD 100 billion a year by 2020" goal. It emphasizes the need for an international accounting framework to prevent "double counting" and ensure that only countries with "stringent targets" can access carbon markets to avoid the "hot air" issues seen under the Kyoto Protocol. The author calls for the accounting framework to be embedded in the new climate treaty separately from the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) and highlights the need to streamline human rights safeguards for the CDM, REDD+, and Green Climate Fund.

The document critiques the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) mechanism, asserting that it prioritizes private finance and corporate interests over indigenous rights and genuine climate mitigation. Through case studies in Indonesia, Mozambique, and Peru, it demonstrates how REDD projects can exacerbate land conflicts, threaten food security, and fail to achieve carbon reduction goals. The report concludes that REDD is a 'false solution' that allows industrial polluters in the Global North to continue emitting via carbon offsets. It proposes an alternative based on community-led forest management, the resolution of land tenure issues, and a systemic reduction in the consumption of resources by rich countries.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) contends that REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) fails to deliver permanent emissions reductions and often harms Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Through case studies in Indonesia, Mozambique, and Peru, the report illustrates how REDD+ can exacerbate land tenure conflicts, threaten food security, and facilitate continued pollution in industrialised countries via carbon offsets. FoEI proposes replacing these market-based mechanisms with community-led forest management based on traditional knowledge and a global reduction in the demand for forest-derived products.

California's climate strategies, centered on the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, are reducing oil use and emissions from the transportation sector, which accounts for nearly 40% of the state's global warming emissions. Key mechanisms include a cap-and-trade program, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), and stringent vehicle emissions standards. These policies have led to a 12% drop in oil consumption between 2006 and 2012 and are projected to save drivers money through increased fuel efficiency. Additionally, the state is investing carbon permit proceeds into disadvantaged communities and seeing a boom in clean technology investment and patent registrations.

The report argues that EPA's regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act will not jeopardize electric system reliability. Unlike the unit-specific MATS rule, Section 111(d) employs a 'cooperative federalism' model, allowing states to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) with significant flexibility. This includes 'inside the fence' options like heat-rate improvements and 'outside the fence' options such as emission-averaging, carbon budgets, and demand-side reductions. The author notes that current industry conditions—including low natural gas prices, underutilized natural-gas-fired combined-cycle (NGCC) capacity, flat electricity demand, and the growth of renewables—provide a buffer that supports reliable compliance. The report concludes that as long as EPA, states, and industry engage in timely planning, the regulatory framework provides sufficient latitude to maintain power system adequacy and security.

The document reports a significant decline in federal political will to regulate carbon emissions in Canada during 2013, specifically noting the delay of oil and gas regulations. In contrast, provinces took leading roles: Ontario phased out coal-fired electricity, Quebec launched a cap-and-trade system linked to California, and British Columbia maintained its carbon tax. The brief highlights the 'Keystone effect,' where U.S. market access for the Keystone XL pipeline became linked to Canada's GHG performance. It concludes that federal 'equivalency' agreements—intended to align provincial and federal standards—have stalled due to complexity and lack of political will, recommending that Canada embrace a bottom-up approach to subnational policy alignment.

The policy brief warns that the EU's 2030 Climate Framework must account for the poor performance of existing international carbon markets, such as the CDM and JI, to avoid undermining climate targets through low-quality offsets and price instability.

The document discusses the shift toward regulatory-based climate policies in both Canada and the U.S., emphasizing the need for 'equivalency' in measuring carbon reductions across different provincial and state systems. It analyzes the economic impact of proposed Canadian oil and gas regulations, noting that a 40/40 target (40% reduction with a $40 price ceiling) would cost significantly more than a 20/20 target. Finally, it suggests Canada is unlikely to meet its 17% emissions reduction target for 2020 due to delayed oil and gas regulations and increasing energy sector emissions.

The document evaluates the potential for carbon leakage in South Korea as it implements the Korean emission trading scheme (KETS). Using methodology from the EU ETS Directive, the analysis finds that several manufacturing sectors face a moderate to high risk of leakage, primarily driven by high trade intensity rather than additional production costs. The report highlights that while energy efficiency and fuel switching have historically reduced emissions intensity, the recovery of emission-intensive industries like steel and cement has increased structural risks. It recommends that the South Korean government consider mitigation policies such as free allowances, border adjustments, or import taxes to prevent the displacement of emissions to regions with less stringent climate policies.

The document examines the evolution of the EU ETS through its first three phases, focusing on how carbon pricing affects the international competitiveness of energy-intensive industries. It analyzes the phenomenon of 'carbon leakage'—where production relocates to countries with laxer environmental rules—and argues that while this risk exists for specific sectors like steel and cement, it is often mitigated by free allowance allocations and broader economic restructuring trends. The author suggests that for countries like South Korea, the EU experience shows that the risk of leakage is manageable if policy focuses on the most vulnerable sectors and the decarbonization of the energy mix.

Carbon Market Watch argues that international carbon offsets have failed to deliver promised climate benefits and have undermined the EU's domestic abatement efforts. The brief recommends a legally binding EU domestic GHG reduction target of at least 55% below 1990 levels for 2030, the total elimination of international offsets for meeting mitigation obligations post-2020, and the implementation of safeguards when linking the EU ETS to other trading schemes. It further suggests that climate finance should shift away from carbon markets toward regulation, standards, and incentive programs, such as performance-based financing for Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs).

The document examines how environmental taxes and fiscal reforms can fund renewable energy, analyzing eight international case studies to provide policy recommendations for China. It argues that dedicated (earmarked) tax revenues can increase transparency and investor confidence, and that well-designed EFR measures do not necessarily hinder economic growth. For China, the report suggests transitioning from electricity surcharges toward a system based on natural resource and carbon taxes to ensure long-term funding stability for renewable energy.

Carbon Market Watch argues that a cap-and-trade scheme with a stringent cap and limited offsets is the only viable market-based measure for reducing aviation emissions, warning that 100% offsetting would delay in-sector reductions and potentially increase climate impacts if offsets are of low quality.

The document analyzes President Obama's 2013 climate strategy, which shifts toward EPA sector-regulation for electricity due to congressional inaction on carbon pricing. It compares this approach to Canada's regulations, examines the potential for continental equivalency in emissions trading, and discusses the plan's impact on the Keystone XL Pipeline and international climate negotiations.

The policy brief examines the climate impact of aviation, which contributes between 5% and 14% of global climate emissions. It critiques the reliance on offsetting, arguing that only a cap-and-trade system with a strict cap can deliver real in-sector reductions. The document analyzes ICAO's proposed measures, including a 'basket of measures' and various market-based options, while warning that low-quality offsets from mechanisms like the CDM and JI undermine environmental integrity. It also details the EU's attempt to include international flights in the EU-ETS and the subsequent 'stop the clock' derogation to allow ICAO to find a global solution.

The document examines the environmental and social challenges of international aviation, highlighting that the sector may be responsible for up to 14% of man-made climate change. It criticizes the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for a lack of binding measures and analyzes the European Union's attempts to unilaterally regulate aviation emissions via the EU-ETS. The brief argues that offsetting is not a long-term solution and warns against the use of low-quality credits from mechanisms like Joint Implementation (JI) or oversupplied cap-and-trade systems. It recommends that any global aviation scheme must prioritize in-sector reductions and generate finance for climate action in developing countries.

The document critiques the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) progress toward a market-based measure (MBM) for international aviation emissions. It argues that the industry's preference for 100% offsetting fails to incentivize actual emission reductions within the sector and warns that low-quality offsets could exacerbate climate impacts. The author advocates for a cap-and-trade scheme with a stringent cap and strict quality restrictions on eligible offset credits to ensure environmental integrity.

China is implementing seven regional pilot emissions trading systems (ETS) in Beijing, Chongqing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Guangdong, Hubei, and Shenzhen to test the framework for a national ETS after 2016. These pilots could regulate between 0.8 and 1 billion tonnes of CO2 and may incorporate price control mechanisms to ensure market stability. Additionally, the pilots are expected to allow the use of Chinese Certified Emissions Reductions (CCERs), a government-administered offset program based on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), with potential demand reaching 100 million offsets per year by 2015.