Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that the ETS Innovation Fund should be scaled up by recycling auctioning revenues instead of providing free emission allowances. It recommends prioritising transformational projects in industrial clusters, mandating additionality for renewable electricity to avoid grid-emission accounting errors, and limiting CCS funding to non-abatable process emissions while excluding fossil-based hydrogen and gas.

The report by WWF and Carbon Market Watch argues that the EU Industrial Strategy lacks the specific targets, timelines, and governance structures necessary to achieve climate neutrality in energy-intensive industries. While it welcomes the focus on circularity and the Just Transition Mechanism, the authors highlight critical gaps regarding emission performance standards, the phase-out of free carbon allowances, and the lack of civil society inclusion in new industrial alliances.

The paper examines the 'valley of death' in industrial innovation, specifically for the HYBRIT initiative's transition to fossil-free steel. It compares two hypothetical demonstration plant scales: a 'small' option (200,000 t/annum) and a 'large' option (800,000 t/annum). The authors argue that a larger plant is preferable because it better addresses non-technical risks such as supply chain coordination, grid integration, and business model validation, despite higher capital costs and regulatory hurdles regarding permitting.

The document examines the European Commission's Industrial Strategy and Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) as tools for achieving climate neutrality and maintaining industrial competitiveness. It advocates for a policy framework that targets net-zero emissions by 2050, promotes a circular economy for low carbon materials, and accelerates clean innovation.

The policy brief examines the gap between the EU Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) and the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), noting that the IED's exclusion of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limits its effectiveness. It argues that the IED and ETS are complementary rather than duplicative, and recommends that the European Commission remove the exclusion of GHGs from the IED and introduce binding energy efficiency standards to drive industrial decarbonisation.

Energy Innovation modeled a subset of the U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis's recommendations, finding that these policies could reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 40% below 2005 levels by 2030 and 89% by 2050. The analysis projects that net carbon dioxide emissions would reach zero by 2048, avoiding 62,000 premature deaths annually by 2050 and generating approximately $8 trillion in monetized health and climate benefits (at a 3% discount rate). The modeling covers sectors including electricity, transportation, buildings, industry, oil and gas, agriculture, and natural climate solutions, assuming a transition to 100% clean electricity by 2040 and 100% zero-emission vehicle sales for light-duty vehicles by 2035.

The authors contend that EU stimulus plans must prioritize a zero-carbon future to avoid exacerbating climate risks. They highlight broad business support for this transition, citing various corporate coalitions and analysis suggesting that green projects offer higher short-term returns and more job creation than traditional stimulus. The statement calls for the strengthening of the European Green Deal, specifically targeting a 2030 emissions reduction of at least 55%, and recommends targeted investments in green infrastructure, innovation, and workforce reskilling.

The document exposes lobbying efforts by large polluters and the aviation industry to undermine climate action during the pandemic. It details attempts by groups like BusinessEurope and national trade associations in France, Germany, and the Netherlands to delay legislation and carbon taxes. It specifically critiques the aviation industry's push for unconditional bailouts and efforts to weaken the CORSIA carbon market baseline. The author argues that the pandemic should be used to accelerate a green recovery rather than return to business-as-usual, recommending the phase-out of free pollution permits and the introduction of fuel taxes.

The author contends that the EU carbon market (ETS) fails to drive industrial decarbonisation because over 90% of industrial emissions are covered by free allowances, leading to stagnating emissions since 2012 and windfall profits for companies. To address this, the document proposes that the upcoming revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) should remove the explicit exclusion of greenhouse gases (Article 9.1), allowing carbon emission limits to be integrated into environmental permits based on 'best available technology' (BREFs).

The We Mean Business coalition calls for governments to integrate a climate and resilience lens into economic stimulus packages and public financial support for companies. The author argues that recovery efforts must avoid 'business-as-usual' and instead incentivize zero-carbon technologies to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Specifically, businesses receiving public assistance should be required to adopt TCFD-aligned risk disclosures, set science-based targets consistent with a 1.5°C temperature limit, and prioritize investments in low-carbon solutions such as building retrofits and renewable energy.

The document argues that fully decarbonizing global industry is essential for limiting global warming to 2°C, noting that 33% of global anthropogenic emissions in 2014 came from industry. It identifies a small number of industries as the primary sources of these emissions and proposes a blueprint involving energy efficiency, carbon capture, electrification, and zero-carbon hydrogen, supported by policies that ensure a just transition and economic development for low- and middle-income countries.

The document details Carbon Market Watch's efforts to ensure a 'green recovery' following the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically by countering corporate lobbying and pushing for more ambitious EU climate targets. It critiques the lack of progress in global carbon market rules (Article 6) and the perceived irrelevance of the CORSIA aviation scheme. The briefing advocates for expanding the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) to include international shipping and phasing out free pollution permits for heavy industry. It also assesses the inadequacy of national energy and climate plans in several EU member states and warns against the misuse of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies as a substitute for emission cuts.

The document analyzes how the falling costs of variable renewable energy (VRE) and batteries impact the bioeconomy. It identifies competitive tensions in ground transport and power generation, where electrification may disrupt biofuel demand or create infrastructure lock-in. Conversely, it highlights complementary roles for biomass in 'hard-to-abate' sectors like aviation, marine transport, and heavy industry (steel and cement), as well as its value as a dispatchable energy source. In low-income countries, the brief suggests 'clean stacking' for cooking and the use of solar-powered appliances to enable bioeconomy value chains. Finally, it notes synergistic opportunities where low-cost renewable electricity can reduce the carbon footprint of biofuel production via electrolysis-based hydrogen.

The document examines the relationship between the bioeconomy—defined as sectors based on biomass production and processing—and the rapid growth of variable renewable energy (VRE) and electrification. It argues that while electrification competes with biofuels in some areas, such as road transport, it offers complementary and synergistic opportunities in others. For instance, biomass provides dispatchable power to balance VRE, and low-cost solar energy can enable critical infrastructure for agricultural bioeconomies in low-income countries. The text emphasizes that the bioeconomy should be designed to support and benefit from electrification to achieve deep decarbonization.

The report proposes a policy framework to reach U.S. net zero emissions by 2050, projecting an annual abatement of over 6 Gt of emissions and 120,000 lives saved from reduced pollution. It details sector-specific strategies: industrial decarbonization through electrification and hydrogen; transportation via electric and hydrogen vehicle mandates; a 100 percent carbon-free electricity standard by 2050; and an all-electric building sales mandate by 2035.

The document asserts that carbon border taxes must be contingent on the removal of free pollution permits under the EU ETS to avoid double-protecting industry and to provide a real incentive for emissions reductions. It argues that carbon leakage is not evidenced and that free allocations have historically functioned as subsidies. The author suggests that border measures should be temporary, non-protectionist, and complementary to global climate policies, while advocating for the use of enforceable environmental chapters in trade agreements to drive global ambition.

The report argues that current carbon pricing and innovation funds are insufficient to transform the basic materials sector. It proposes a five-part policy package: a Climate Contribution to ensure full carbon cost internalisation, project-based Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfDs) to hedge investment risks, Contracts for Difference (CfDs) for renewables to lower electricity costs, Green Public Procurement (GPP) to create lead markets, and long-term Product Carbon Requirements to phase out carbon-intensive materials.

The 2019 Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Reduction Study finds that the state can feasibly reduce emissions by 70-80% by 2030, 2040, or 2050 by focusing on electrification, efficiency, and transitioning the power grid to renewables. The report updates previous 2016 baseline estimates, finding that 2017 emissions were approximately 45% higher than previously thought due to updated science on methane leakage and its short-term global warming potential. While substantial reductions are possible, the study notes that pathways stall at around 4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, leaving a 20-30% gap that requires further research into industrial decarbonization and carbon sequestration.

The document criticizes the veto by Poland, the Czech Republic, Estonia, and Hungary against the EU's long-term climate strategy, arguing that such political obstruction harms businesses by removing investment certainty. It highlights that energy-intensive industries—specifically steel, cement, and chemicals—account for approximately 40% of greenhouse gas emissions under the EU emissions trading system and have seen no decrease in pollution since 2012. The author asserts that a formal commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050 is essential to signal a clear decarbonisation path, enable the development of financial frameworks, and inform the EU 2030 industrial strategy.

The report argues that to meet the Paris Agreement's long-term temperature goals, most countries must reach net-zero emissions by 2050 or shortly thereafter, requiring immediate sector-specific planning. It identifies five critical sectors—power, industry, transport, buildings, and agriculture, forestry and other land-use—and warns that delaying strategic choices until after 2030 risks 'carbon lock-in' and inefficient, costly infrastructure transitions. The document advocates for a multi-disciplinary approach to planning, combining scenario modelling to translate global goals into feasible policies, Political Economy Analysis (PEA) to navigate stakeholder interests and political feasibility, and a focus on transparency, finance, and governance to mobilise investment and ensure systemic implementation.