Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines how carbon pricing can lead to 'carbon leakage' and competitive disadvantages for domestic industries. It categorizes policy responses into domestic measures (subsidies, cost containment, and flexibility) and international measures (border adjustments and policy extension). Using the EU ETS as a primary case study, it highlights the risks of free allowance allocation, such as windfall profits and political rent-seeking, while noting that empirical evidence often suggests competitiveness concerns are overstated. It concludes that while border adjustments are theoretically effective, they pose significant risks of trade disputes and diplomatic tensions.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) should not be established or piloted until the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) defines mitigation commitment requirements and common accounting rules. The author contends that carbon markets have failed to incentivize adequate national commitments and warns that without stringent eligibility criteria and international oversight, the FVA could facilitate the use of low-quality units and 'hot air' offsets. Key recommendations include linking market access to high ambition, eliminating all forms of double-counting to ensure a 'net atmospheric benefit', and excluding detrimental sectors like coal power and REDD+ activities from the framework.

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 Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) warns that TTIP may hinder public health and safety goals by promoting regulatory harmonization and mutual recognition that could lower chemical safety standards. The document highlights the divergence between the EU's hazard-based REACH approach and the US's risk-based TSCA approach, arguing that trade-driven 'regulatory coherence' often results in a 'lowest-common denominator' outcome. It further cautions against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which could allow corporations to sue governments over environmental laws, and warns that TTIP could preempt protective sub-national regulations in the US and EU. Finally, it suggests that a US-EU agreement could negatively influence the development of chemical regulations in other regions, such as the BRIICS countries.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), on behalf of several environmental organizations, warns the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance that TTIP may prioritize trade interests over public health. The document highlights the divergence between the EU's hazard-based REACH regulation and the U.S.'s risk-based Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), arguing that harmonization or mutual recognition could lead to a 'lowest-common denominator' approach to chemical safety. It specifically opposes investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which it claims allow corporations to sue governments over public interest laws, and warns that TTIP could preempt protective sub-federal laws in the U.S. and national laws in EU member states. Finally, it suggests that a restrictive TTIP could discourage other nations, particularly BRIICS countries, from adopting more stringent chemical safety standards.

The document urges hard goods retailers to drive the adoption of energy-efficient electronics and appliances to save consumers money and reduce electricity demand. It highlights that many products could be significantly more efficient for minimal additional cost, potentially unlocking $34 billion in annual consumer savings by 2040. The author suggests that retailers should develop procurement specifications based on energy data to influence manufacturers, as this approach can be faster and less political than government standards.

The document examines how international carbon offsets under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) have contributed to an oversupply of allowances in the EU Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS) and the Effort Sharing Decision (ESD). It highlights critical failures in 'additionality', noting that many projects would have occurred without offset funding, and points to a lack of sustainability and human rights protections. The author recommends a ban on industrial gas projects, large-scale power projects, and JI track 1 projects for the 2013-2020 period.

The report examines the risks associated with unconventional oil and gas development, specifically hydraulic fracturing, in the United States. It identifies significant threats to groundwater and surface water quality, air pollution, and induced seismic activity from wastewater injection. The authors highlight how corporate and political interference—including 'trade secret' exemptions and non-disclosure agreements—hampers scientific research and public knowledge. It critiques the 'patchwork' of state laws and federal loopholes, such as the 'Halliburton loophole,' and recommends mandatory baseline monitoring, full chemical disclosure, and the closing of federal regulatory gaps to protect public health and the environment.

The document examines the negotiations surrounding the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) ahead of COP-19, highlighting the tension between parties seeking minimal guidance and those calling for centralized oversight. It argues that for carbon markets to support a new climate deal, they must be predicated on ambitious mitigation targets, strict environmental integrity, and the prevention of double counting. The author specifically warns that a proposed FVA pilot phase, advocated by Poland, could set a dangerous precedent by allowing early action units to be recognized in a post-2020 regime before fundamental accounting rules are established.

The World Resources Institute supports the U.S. EPA's proposed emissions standards for new power plants as a key component of the President's Climate Action Plan. While the standards provide flexibility through carbon capture and storage (CCS) and reflect market shifts toward natural gas and renewables, the document emphasizes that addressing the existing power plant fleet is the most critical opportunity for emissions reductions, as electricity generation accounts for one-third of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Carbon Market Watch opposes a pilot phase for the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA), arguing that the lack of established rules on environmental integrity and accounting makes such a phase premature. The organization warns that recognizing "early action" from a pilot could undermine future post-2020 climate regime negotiations and set a dangerous precedent for low-quality market units. It suggests that the FVA process should instead be used to define rigorous standards for real, permanent, and additional mitigation and to resolve double-counting issues, particularly those seen in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The report identifies a significant range of estimated DPV values driven by differences in local context, input assumptions, and methodologies. While there is general agreement on estimating energy and capacity values, there is less consensus on grid support services and unmonetized values such as financial, security, environmental, and social risks. The analysis highlights that no single study comprehensively evaluated all DPV benefits and costs, and that costs associated with increased deployment are often inadequately assessed.

The report examines the transition of U.S. Navy bases in the Southwest toward microgrids to enhance energy security and integrate renewables. It identifies five key findings: the need for more granular design requirements, a conflict between utility-scale renewable goals and microgrid security, the immediate value of enhanced control systems, the complexities of participating in California's electricity markets, and internal Navy bureaucratic barriers. The document recommends that the Navy, grid operators, and regulators collaborate to define reliability needs, quantify the business case, and remove regulatory hurdles to enable microgrid adoption.

The document examines various energy storage technologies, ranging from established systems like pumped hydro and compressed air energy storage (CAES) to emerging solutions like flow batteries and flywheels. It highlights the critical role of U.S. federal initiatives, specifically Department of Energy (DOE) grants and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) orders, in reducing financial risks and reforming market access to encourage utility-scale implementation. The brief also details specific U.S. projects and proposed legislation, such as the STORAGE Act, aimed at incentivizing storage to support grid stability and the integration of variable renewable energy.

The document examines various energy storage technologies, from established methods like pumped hydro to emerging battery and flywheel systems, highlighting their role in integrating renewable energy and stabilizing the grid. It details the impact of FERC Orders 1000 and 755 and DOE initiatives, such as the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research (JCESR), in reducing technical and economic hurdles. Additionally, it profiles several large-scale U.S. projects and discusses proposed legislation, including the STORAGE Act, aimed at incentivizing storage deployment through tax credits.

The document serves as a guide for citizens and officials to navigate the complexities of unconventional oil and gas development. It outlines the technical process of fracking, identifies critical environmental and social risks—including water contamination, air pollution, and infrastructure strain—and provides a framework for assessing the reliability of scientific information. Additionally, it lists key stakeholders and potential regulatory responses at the federal, state, and local levels, while highlighting case studies of community-led actions in the United States.

The author argues that planning new market mechanisms like the NMM and FVA for COP-19 is 'careless' due to an 'astronomic over-supply' of existing offset credits from the CDM and JI. While regional compliance schemes are emerging in Japan, California, and China, there is a lack of common understanding regarding the scope and environmental integrity of the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) and the definition of non-market based approaches (NMBA).

The document warns that TTIP may prioritize trade interests over public health by promoting regulatory harmonization and mutual recognition that could lower chemical safety standards in the U.S. and EU. It specifically contrasts the EU's hazard-based REACH regulation with the U.S.'s risk-based TSCA approach, arguing that mutual recognition would effectively erase protections for chemicals restricted in only one jurisdiction. The author also cautions against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which could allow corporations to sue governments over public interest laws, and warns that TTIP could preempt protective sub-federal or sub-regional laws. Finally, the statement suggests that a low-standard TTIP could chill the development of stringent chemical regulations in other regions, such as the BRIICS countries.

The document warns that TTIP may prioritize trade over public health by promoting regulatory harmonization and mutual recognition that could weaken chemical safety standards. It highlights the divergence between the EU's hazard-based REACH approach and the US's risk-based TSCA approach, arguing that mutual recognition would effectively erase protections unique to one jurisdiction. The author also cautions against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and the preemption of sub-national laws, while noting that TTIP could negatively influence chemical regulations in non-member countries like the BRIICS nations.

Wildfires in the Western U.S. are becoming more frequent and the wildfire season is lengthening, driven by regional temperature increases that are double the global average and earlier spring snowmelt.