Search Climate Insights Directory

The research analyzes how climate finance investments generate economic value added not only in recipient countries but also in third countries through international trade, termed 'spill-overs'. Using a GMRIO model, the study finds that on average 28.6% of the total economic impact spills over to other countries. The ability to retain value added varies by country, with India and Brazil retaining around 80%, while Mexico and Indonesia retain no more than two thirds. The EU is the primary beneficiary of these spill-overs. The study also identifies that different types of climate actions produce varying levels of spill-overs: renewable energy technologies often generate high spill-overs (exceeding 35% for some), whereas forestry and coastal protection generate fewer than 20%. The authors suggest that donor countries may be influenced by these spill-over prospects when allocating funds, and recipient countries should improve industrial competitiveness to retain more economic gains.

The report argues that the UK government is providing a comprehensive package of subsidies for Hinkley Point C that creates significant financial uncertainty and risk for the public. These include a long-term price guarantee, loan guarantees, and caps on waste disposal and liability costs, which the authors suggest could make nuclear power more expensive than renewable alternatives.

The report examines the South African utility-scale renewable energy market, primarily driven by the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (REIPPPP). It details the growth of wind and solar PV, the impact of local content requirements, and the role of the Western Cape as a greentech hub. It also identifies expansion opportunities within the SADC region and other African nations, while noting infrastructure constraints at Eskom.

The document assesses the progress of Germany's Energiewende, noting that while renewable energy shares have grown, coal still provided 42% of power production in 2015. It highlights the economic tension between the 'big four' utilities and decentralized renewables, the social and political challenges of phasing out hard coal and lignite, and the influence of industry unions in blocking a proposed climate levy on power plants in favor of a capacity reserve.

Global climate finance reached at least USD 391 billion in 2014, driven by a 26% increase in private investment in renewable energy and a steady rise in public finance. Private finance, totaling USD 243 billion, remains the largest source, with China emerging as a major hub for renewable energy investment. Public finance reached USD 148 billion, with Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) contributing the bulk of these funds. The report highlights a strong domestic preference, with 74% of total flows remaining within the country of origin. Mitigation projects dominated the landscape, accounting for 93% of total finance, while adaptation finance reached USD 25 billion.

The report argues that a "carbon market only" approach is insufficient for the cost-effective decarbonisation of the European power sector. While the EU ETS is an effective tool for driving fuel switching in the residual thermal generation mix, it cannot alone drive necessary investments in low-carbon technologies due to high capital costs, revenue risks, and the 'merit order effect'. The authors recommend a policy mix where the EU ETS is complemented by tailored national investment supports—such as feed-in tariffs or contracts for difference—to reduce the cost of capital. To ensure coherence, the report proposes an ex-ante cap adjustment process for the ETS based on Member State National Energy and Climate Plans and the development of long-term decarbonisation strategies back-casted from 2050.

The report examines clean energy financing tools used by six U.S. states and Germany to scale up renewable energy and energy efficiency investments. It highlights the role of 'green banks' and other mechanisms in reducing financial risks for the private sector and overcoming barriers like high upfront costs and limited technical understanding among financiers. Case studies include Connecticut and New York's green banks, Pennsylvania and Kentucky's use of the Warehouse for Energy Efficiency Loans (WHEEL), Iowa's revolving loans, and Massachusetts's Mass Save HEAT Loan. The report concludes that these tools can help states achieve Clean Power Plan targets by leveraging limited public funds to attract significant private capital.

The report examines the potential for China to use revenues from a national emissions trading scheme (ETS), expected by 2016, to fund renewable energy. While experts agree that earmarking is feasible, they suggest that funds should target less mature technologies like tidal and geothermal power rather than established wind and solar PV, which are already well-financed. Short-term revenues from auctioning allowances are expected to be small, but long-term potential exists if political will remains constant. Governance challenges include the need for transparency, the harmonization of monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) rules across regions, and the decision between centralizing or localizing fund management.

An open letter from Scientists for Global Responsibility to the UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change arguing that the Draft Energy Bill and current energy policies are unambitious and biased toward the nuclear industry at the expense of renewables and energy efficiency.

The Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and Friends of the Earth Europe argue that Europe can achieve a 40% reduction in emissions by 2020 and 90% by 2050 through radical energy system changes and lifestyle shifts. The study estimates the implementation cost at approximately 2% of Europe's discounted cumulative GDP between 2010 and 2020. To achieve climate justice, the report suggests Europe must also provide between €150 billion and €450 billion annually to developing countries by 2020. The proposed pathway excludes nuclear power, biofuels, and carbon capture and storage, focusing instead on wind energy, electrification, and energy efficiency.

Florida has the potential to generate an additional 40,000 GWh of electricity from renewable resources by the mid-term (through 2025), which would represent approximately 20 percent of current electricity sales. The document identifies biomass and solar PV as the primary contributors to this potential and argues that while renewable and conventional power options have comparable total costs for new generation, renewables offer superior performance regarding water use, air quality, and climate impacts. To achieve these goals, the document recommends establishing a renewable electricity standard (RES) with a target of 20 percent by 2020, providing financial incentives for third-party production, and improving grid infrastructure and permitting processes.

The document identifies that Georgia has the potential to generate an additional 49,451 GWh of electricity from renewable resources by 2025, which would represent approximately 40 percent of current electricity sales. It highlights biomass as the largest potential source of renewable power and recommends the establishment of a renewable electricity standard (RES) with a target of 25 percent by 2025, alongside financial incentives and grid infrastructure improvements.

The document identifies that South Carolina has the potential to generate an additional 25,000 GWh of electricity from renewable resources by 2025, which would represent approximately 30 percent of current electricity sales. It advocates for a renewable electricity standard (RES) with a target of 25 percent by 2025, alongside financial incentives and grid infrastructure improvements. The report compares various power resources, noting that while renewable and conventional options have comparable total costs for new generation, renewables offer superior performance regarding water use, air quality, and climate impacts.

Tennessee has the potential to generate an additional 45,500 GWh of electricity from renewable resources by 2025, which would represent approximately 40 percent of current electricity sales. The document recommends establishing a renewable electricity standard (RES) with a target of 25 percent by 2025, alongside financial incentives and grid infrastructure improvements.

The document provides a comprehensive overview of wind energy, detailing how turbines convert wind into electricity and the factors affecting power output, such as wind speed and turbine height. It examines the history of the US wind industry, noting the influence of federal tax credits and state renewable energy standards. The text argues that wind power is a cost-competitive, sustainable alternative to fossil fuels that can be integrated into the electric grid without compromising reliability, citing examples from Xcel Energy and various European nations. It concludes that achieving 20 percent wind energy in the US by 2030 is technically and economically feasible.

The document outlines the state of the US wind energy sector as of 2006, noting that installed capacity reached 6,740 MW in 2004. It highlights the role of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) in driving growth and reducing costs to between $0.03 and $0.06 per kWh. The text compares onshore and offshore wind potential, discusses the environmental benefits of avoiding carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide emissions, and notes that the US has been surpassed by Germany, Spain, Denmark, and the UK in wind capacity and technology development.

AESR and SGR argue for more aggressive domestic emission reductions in the UK, specifically targeting the transport sector through higher fuel duties and a renewable transport fuels obligation. They advocate for redirecting military R&D funding toward sustainable energy, implementing mandatory energy-efficiency ratings for home sales, and expanding the Emissions Trading Scheme to non-energy intensive sectors. The response emphasizes the need for a highly trained workforce for micro-CHP installation and warns against ocean-based carbon storage due to environmental risks.

The document provides an introductory overview of wind and solar energy, detailing how photovoltaic and turbine technologies convert natural elements into electricity. It highlights the transition from utility-scale to rooftop installations, the challenge of intermittency, and the significant cost reductions in solar and battery technology between 2009 and 2019. The text argues that renewables support more jobs per unit of electricity than fossil fuels and are essential for reaching net-zero emissions to avoid dangerous global warming.

The Barbados Energy Transition and Investment Plan (ETIP) identifies a net-zero emissions (NZE) target by 2035 as the most feasible pathway for the nation. Achieving this goal requires a total capital investment of BBD 19 billion by 2040, with the transport sector accounting for approximately BBD 17.3 billion of this total. The transition is expected to be driven by the widespread adoption of electric vehicles (EVs), onshore wind, solar PV, and blue hydrogen, while utilizing bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in the industry sector to offset residual emissions. The plan projects that NZE 2035 will result in fuel cost savings of BBD 15.6 billion and create approximately 1,500 new jobs above business-as-usual levels by 2035. Key policy recommendations include implementing mandatory building energy codes, establishing a national electric mobility roadmap, and developing a governance structure featuring an Energy Transition Office to coordinate cross-ministerial implementation.