Search Climate Insights Directory

The policy brief examines the potential for linking the EU ETS with other carbon markets, specifically focusing on ongoing negotiations with Switzerland. It argues that while linking can increase cost-efficiency, it risks reducing overall emissions abatement, lowering domestic investment, and undermining the EU's target of at least 40% domestic emissions reductions by 2030. The author highlights a lack of transparency and democratic oversight in current linking procedures and recommends that any future linking be accompanied by increased EU emission targets and strict criteria regarding target stringency, the use of offsets, and price/supply controls.

The report examines the feasibility of linking the EU ETS with various global carbon markets, highlighting that success depends on harmonizing design features such as target stringency, offset rules, and price controls. It analyzes the successful California-Quebec linkage and the failed EU-Australia attempt, while evaluating the compatibility of the EU ETS with markets in Switzerland, China, South Korea, New Zealand, Kazakhstan, and the US RGGI. The author recommends that the EU ETS adopt safeguards used elsewhere, such as auction floor prices and banking limits, to address oversupply and price volatility.

The report examines the feasibility of reaching the $100 billion annual climate finance goal by 2020 through four scenarios of varying inclusivity. It finds that relying solely on developed country climate finance is insufficient, while a combination of public flows—including multilateral development bank (MDB) finance and climate-related official development assistance (ODA)—alongside leveraged private sector investment makes the target achievable even under low-growth projections. The analysis highlights a persistent imbalance, with mitigation finance projected to significantly outweigh adaptation finance across all scenarios.

A coalition of 290 organizations and individuals opposes H.R. 1734, asserting that the bill would weaken the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2014 coal ash rule. The signatories argue the legislation would delay health protections, eliminate public access to information, and remove national standards for drinking water protection, thereby increasing risks to vulnerable communities and the environment.

Kaiser Permanente partnered with NextEra Energy Resources to procure 110 MW of solar and 43 MW of wind power, aiming to meet 50% of its California electricity consumption through renewable sources. The organization views climate change as a health issue and set a 2012 target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2008 levels by 2020. The deal is expected to avoid 215,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions in California, equivalent to removing over 45,000 cars from the roads. The case study highlights the importance of assembling a cross-functional team, balancing economic feasibility with mission-driven goals, and managing internal stakeholder engagement to successfully execute complex off-site renewable energy transactions.

The document presents a framework for achieving clean air in China, emphasizing the need for a robust air quality management system, the application of Best Available Control Technologies (BACT), and the alignment of fiscal policies with pollution goals. It advocates for the removal of fossil fuel subsidies, the implementation of a coal cap to reduce coal's share of the energy structure to less than 50% by 2030, and the adoption of Euro 6 fuel standards by 2018 for heavy-duty trucks and off-road vehicles. The experts highlight that integrating air pollutant and greenhouse gas reductions is more cost-effective than treating them separately.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) advocates for a stringent cap-and-trade system, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, and the integration of climate adaptation into infrastructure and building codes to advance Ontario's climate goals.

The document examines India's Accelerated Depreciation (AD) scheme, which served as a primary driver for wind capacity growth from 1994 until its withdrawal in 2012 and subsequent reinstatement in 2014. While the AD benefit successfully attracted private investment from corporations and high-net-worth individuals, it was criticized for incentivizing capacity additions over actual power generation and excluding large independent power producers and foreign investors. The report contrasts this with the Generation-Based Incentive (GBI) and the US experience with Production Tax Credits, concluding that future policies must link incentives to performance and improve grid infrastructure to ensure sustainable industry growth.

The report identifies the California water sector as a major electricity consumer, accounting for nearly 20 percent of the state's demand. It argues that while growing needs for groundwater pumping, desalination, and water recycling increase energy intensity, utilities can mitigate this by investing in on-site renewables, power purchase agreements, and demand response services. Key barriers include a lack of standardized electricity source data, regulatory misalignment, and financial constraints like Proposition 218.

The document examines how different hydrogen sourcing methods—ranging from fossil-fuel-based steam methane reforming to renewable electrolysis and biomass gasification—affect the total lifecycle emissions of fuel cell electric vehicles. It highlights that while current natural gas-based production already reduces emissions compared to gasoline vehicles, transitioning to renewable feedstocks and distributed production can further minimize the climate impact.

The document examines carbon pricing mechanisms, specifically carbon taxes and cap-and-trade programs, as a core strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. It details design features such as scope, point of regulation, and cost-containment mechanisms, while analyzing various ways to utilize generated revenues—including tax cuts, deficit reduction, and dividends—to offset economic impacts and increase political viability. The authors argue that a well-designed carbon price can provide a 'double dividend' of environmental benefit and economic efficiency.

The document explains that green bonds are fixed-income instruments where proceeds are earmarked for projects with environmental benefits, such as renewable energy and energy efficiency. It details four main types of green bonds—'use of proceeds' bonds, revenue bonds, project bonds, and securitized bonds—and notes that the majority are 'use of proceeds' bonds backed by the issuer's entire balance sheet. The market grew significantly from $11bn in 2013 to $36.6bn by the end of 2014, with major issuers including the European Investment Bank and the World Bank. While the 'Green Bond Principles' provide best practice guidelines, the document highlights a lack of universal definitions for 'green' projects, a gap the Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) is addressing with sector-specific standards. For investors, green bonds offer a way to meet ESG objectives without necessarily taking on additional project-specific risk, though the secondary market remains thin due to a 'buy-and-hold' investor base.

The document proposes replacing the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the Efficiency Savings and Performance Incentive (ESPI) with a system-wide carbon intensity standard and per capita energy sales standards. It argues that these reforms will align utility incentives with state climate goals, encourage low-carbon grid flexibility, and remove the conservative goal-setting and contentious evaluation processes currently hindering energy efficiency in existing buildings.

The document proposes replacing California's current electricity sector policies with a system-wide carbon standard and per capita energy intensity standards for electricity and natural gas. It argues that the existing Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and Efficiency Savings and Performance Incentive (ESPI) are insufficient for long-term goals due to siloed procurement and overly conservative efficiency targets. Key recommendations include a 2030 carbon standard of 393lb. CO2e/MWh, a 50 percent renewable energy procurement "backbone," and a performance-based energy standard targeting a 1.2 percent annual reduction in kWh/capita. The report also suggests expanding the Energy Imbalance Market (EIM) to a West-wide scale and expediting the implementation of AB 758 for existing buildings.

Energy Innovation proposes a post-2020 policy framework for California centered on a 2030 statewide carbon cap of 40 percent below 1990 levels. The recommendations include decarbonizing the electricity sector through carbon standards and a 50 percent renewable energy target, expanding transportation policies via the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and vehicle electrification, and establishing global benchmarks for methane emission standards in oil and gas operations.

The report proposes a 2030 target for California to reduce carbon emissions to 40% below 1990 levels, asserting that this is technically feasible and economically viable. It recommends maintaining a policy portfolio where a broad cap-and-trade program acts as an emissions ceiling over sector-specific policies. To manage costs and uncertainty, the author suggests extending current cost-containment tools, including a three-tiered allowance reserve and a forward-borrowing mechanism. The analysis incorporates both capped emissions and uncapped sectors—such as agriculture and waste—predicting that the state can reach the target through commercially available technology and induced innovation in clean tech industries.

California is working toward supplying 33 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2020 and considering a 50 percent target by 2030. To maintain grid reliability without relying on carbon-emitting natural gas plants for ancillary services, the state must address 'overgeneration'—where renewable supply exceeds demand—which currently leads to the curtailment of clean energy. The document proposes several grid integration solutions: targeting energy efficiency during evening hours, diversifying the renewable fleet (wind, solar, bioenergy, and geothermal), increasing coordination between regional grid operators, deploying energy storage (pumped hydro, compressed air, and batteries), and using demand response technologies to shift electricity consumption to peak renewable output periods.

The report examines the environmental and economic impacts of heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency in the U.S., arguing that standards increasing efficiency by 40% by 2025 would save billions in costs and reduce millions of metric tons of emissions.

The document defines electric vehicles (EVs) as cars or trucks powered by electric motors using batteries or fuel cells, distinguishing them from conventional hybrids. It categorizes EVs into battery-electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, noting that EVs generally produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than fossil-fuel vehicles. The guide highlights that battery-electric cars offer the lowest emissions and simplest maintenance, while plug-in hybrids provide a bridge for those with longer trips, and fuel cell vehicles offer fast refueling but suffer from limited infrastructure, particularly in the US.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles use hydrogen gas and oxygen to generate electricity for an electric motor, emitting only water and heat. They offer refueling times and driving ranges (200-300 miles) similar to conventional gasoline vehicles, making them suitable for long-distance travel or users without home charging. While hydrogen production can cause pollution, these vehicles can reduce emissions by over 30% compared to gasoline cars, even when using natural gas as a source.