Search Climate Insights Directory

The document analyzes Japan's transition from voluntary climate instruments, such as the Keidanren Voluntary Action Plan and the Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme (JVETS), toward a mandatory ETS. It compares proposals from the Ministry of Environment (MoE) and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), noting that the use of intensity-based targets and lenient penalties in some proposals could hinder direct bilateral linking with more stringent systems like the EU ETS. The paper concludes that while direct links are unlikely before 2013, indirect links via the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) will remain primary until a mandatory system with absolute targets is established.

The document analyzes the foreign policy platforms of candidates John McCain and Barack Obama ahead of the 2008 US election, arguing that while Africa will likely remain a low priority for any new administration, South Africa can leverage its role as a 'pivotal state' to secure military resources, trade benefits, and health funding. It highlights diverging candidate views on energy—with Obama favoring a 'cap-and-trade' system and McCain supporting increased nuclear power and Alaskan drilling—and suggests South Africa could engage the US on carbon-trading opportunities.

The Union of Concerned Scientists argues that the United States must stop building new coal plants without carbon capture and storage (CCS) to avoid locking in decades of high carbon emissions. The report recommends funding 5 to 10 commercial-scale CCS demonstration projects, implementing a strong economy-wide cap-and-trade program, and shifting federal R&D funding toward energy efficiency and renewable energy. It also highlights the severe environmental and health costs of the coal fuel cycle, specifically calling for a ban on mountaintop removal mining and the elimination of subsidies for coal-to-liquid technology. Internationally, the report advocates for sharing CCS technological lessons with developing nations, particularly China and India, to curb their expanding use of conventional coal.

The paper concludes that linking the EU ETS with a US scheme based on the Lieberman-Warner proposal is unlikely to be acceptable to the EU due to significant design differences. The Lieberman-Warner scheme is characterized as systematically less stringent, featuring weaker caps, lower auctioning levels, and extensive cost-containment measures. Such a link would likely result in the EU ceding control over its allowance prices and emissions implications to the US, while also undermining the EU's policy of excluding carbon sink credits.

The document examines the role of land-based offsets in emissions trading systems across the EU, Australia, Canada, the US, and New Zealand, as well as voluntary standards. It identifies that differences in the stringency of additionality and the management of carbon reversibility (non-permanence) are primary obstacles to linking these systems. While most schemes use offset mechanisms, New Zealand's approach of including deforestation within the cap is highlighted as a way to bypass additionality and reversibility issues. The paper concludes that harmonizing the generation of forestry offsets is essential for successful future linkage.

The briefing identifies three primary financing categories for REDD: direct carbon markets, market-linked approaches, and voluntary sources. Direct carbon markets offer the highest funding potential (tens of billions of dollars annually) but risk a zero-sum effect on global emissions if offsets are not real and verifiable. Market-linked approaches, such as using auction revenues or dual markets, provide additional reductions and can fund capacity building and stabilization. Voluntary sources, including official development assistance, provide the fastest way to build initial capacity but offer the least reliable and smallest funding scale (hundreds of millions of dollars annually). The author proposes a phased timing strategy: utilizing voluntary funding in the short term, increasing market-linked funding toward 2020, and transitioning to direct carbon markets as the primary source in the 2020s once capacity and verification systems are established.

The document argues that REDD is a cost-effective method for reducing heat-trapping emissions, noting that $5 billion annually could protect nearly 20% of tropical forests at risk, while $20 billion could protect about half. It identifies opportunity costs as the largest expense and highlights that global models provide more conservative, comprehensive cost estimates than regional studies. Total implementation, administrative, and transaction costs are estimated at nearly $1 per ton of reductions, with separate stabilization costs estimated at $630 million per year for the ten most critical countries to prevent international leakage.

The document outlines the potential for California farmers to benefit from the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) through financial incentives, the sale of emissions offsets, and the production of bioenergy. It details specific strategies for reducing carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, while noting that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is tasked with developing the regulatory framework to meet 2020 emissions targets.

The document analyzes four scenarios for an international carbon market: global trading, formal linking of domestic ETS, indirect linking via credits, and a mixed approach. It focuses on the formal linking of the EU ETS with emerging systems in the US (RGGI, California), New Zealand, and Australia. The authors argue that for linking to be effective and environmentally sound, partners should share similar levels of ambition and strategic climate goals, such as the EU's 2°C target. The report identifies price caps, differing levels of ambition, and the treatment of Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) as primary barriers to linking. It proposes the creation of an international clearinghouse to coordinate regulation and suggests a 'no-regret' working program for the International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP) focusing on the harmonization of registries, monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) standards, and allocation procedures.

The report analyzes the voluntary carbon market, contrasting it with compliance markets and evaluating ten specific offset standards. It identifies structural flaws in project-based offsetting, such as the difficulty of proving additionality and inherent conflicts of interest where auditors are paid by project developers. The authors argue that while the voluntary market fosters innovation and participation, it requires more rigorous, transparent standards to ensure environmental integrity and the delivery of sustainable development co-benefits.

The document argues that the G-8 must ensure responses to high oil prices do not increase carbon-intensive energy investments. It proposes legally-binding cap-and-trade systems for international aviation and shipping, the creation of Low Carbon Technology Innovation and Diffusion Centres in developing countries, and a shift toward innovative, strategic funding for climate adaptation. It further advocates for a post-2012 UNFCCC framework with differentiated but legally binding emission targets for both developed and major developing nations, and suggests restructuring the International Energy Agency (IEA) to support a global energy transition.

The document outlines a strategic approach to air quality management (AQM) specifically for Asian cities, emphasizing the integration of health-based guidelines, clean air implementation plans, and multi-stakeholder governance. It details various policy instruments—ranging from 'command and control' regulations to economic incentives and voluntary agreements—and provides specific strategies for reducing emissions from transport, industry, and area sources. Additionally, it explores the synergies between urban air quality improvements and climate change mitigation, particularly through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The briefing examines the European Union's Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), and the Midwestern Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord. It argues that for cap-and-trade to be effective, the emissions cap must be sufficiently tight and the distribution of allowances should favor auctioning over free allocation to avoid windfall profits for firms.

Jonathan Lash, representing the US Climate Action Partnership (US CAP), advocates for a federal cap-and-trade program and a long-term emissions roadmap to transition the United States to a low-carbon economy. He emphasizes that clear federal rules are necessary to avoid a regulatory patchwork of state laws and to provide the market certainty required for large-scale private investment in clean energy technologies.

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 argues that shipping emissions are increasing at an alarming rate and that current IMO policies, such as voluntary indexing, are ineffective. It highlights the contribution of CO2, nitrogen oxides, and black carbon to climate change and Arctic melting, while warning that IMO inaction is prompting unilateral measures in the EU and US states like California and Washington. FOEI requests the IMO implement mandatory speed reductions, weather routing, and fuel economy standards, while insisting that these efforts remain separate from MARPOL Annex VI revisions regarding toxic air pollutants.

The document explains how wind energy integrates into the New England electricity grid to displace polluting fossil fuels, particularly natural gas, oil, and coal. It highlights the importance of siting turbines in high-wind areas to maximize pollution reduction and discusses policy mechanisms like cap-and-trade and renewable portfolio standards to accelerate the transition to clean energy.

The document outlines the environmental and economic benefits of wind energy in New England, noting that over 60 percent of the region's electricity was generated from fossil fuels in 2005. It explains how wind power integrates into the grid via ISO New England to displace more expensive and polluting plants, particularly oil-fired plants during winter peaks. The text highlights that 18 proposed wind projects with a total capacity of 1,890 MW could avoid millions of tons of pollution annually, including over 3 million tons of CO2. It also discusses the importance of siting for efficiency and the role of policy mechanisms like cap-and-trade and renewable portfolio standards in accelerating the transition.

The document asserts that new conventional coal plants are imprudent investments due to the certainty of future U.S. federal CO2 regulations, likely in the form of a cap-and-trade system. It argues that such regulations will significantly raise the cost of coal-fired electricity, making energy efficiency and renewables more competitive. The report urges state regulators to protect ratepayers by either denying the construction of new coal plants or requiring that shareholders, rather than customers, bear the financial risk of future carbon compliance costs.

The research finds that proposed Phase II NAPs likely result in an oversupply of allowances, potentially leading to very low carbon prices and a 'dead market'. This surplus is exacerbated by the potential inflow of CDM/JI credits, which would shift the cost of Kyoto compliance from the private sector to government treasuries.