Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines a strategy for Canada to achieve a net-zero electricity sector by 2050, noting a sharp divide between 'clean' provinces (e.g., Quebec, Ontario) and those reliant on fossil fuels (e.g., Alberta, Saskatchewan). It proposes five key technical trajectories: increasing variable renewable energy, securing clean firm capacity, enhancing interprovincial transmission, improving demand flexibility, and deploying long-duration storage. The author argues that while the economic cost of wind and solar has plummeted, the primary barriers are now financial uncertainty regarding carbon pricing and the technical need for firm capacity and seasonal storage to manage intermittency.

The document analyzes how climate change and the transition to net zero impact the reliability and resilience of Canada's electricity grid. It identifies risks across generation, transmission, and distribution, and proposes solutions such as infrastructure hardening, increasing system flexibility, and updating regulatory frameworks and building codes.

The document analyzes how climate change and the transition to a carbon-neutral economy threaten the resilience of Canada's electrical grids. It details risks to power generation, transmission, and distribution, while highlighting the danger of 'cascading effects' where power failures disrupt other essential services. The paper proposes mitigation strategies including infrastructure hardening, increasing grid flexibility through energy storage and decentralized resources, and improving energy efficiency. It also identifies systemic obstacles, such as regulatory frameworks that prioritize short-term reliability over long-term resilience and outdated building codes based on historical rather than future climate data.

The document argues that while Canada possesses a competitive advantage in clean energy, its electricity grids are often optimized for legacy technologies and lack sufficient planning for industrial growth. It compares Ontario, Alberta, Quebec, and British Columbia with international peers, highlighting that hydro-dominant provinces have a flexibility advantage, while others must proactively develop storage and interconnections. The report recommends that the federal government support interprovincial planning, provide targeted funding for grid development, ensure climate policy stability, and prioritize grid flexibility to avoid wasting renewable energy and to attract global capital.

The report identifies 5,500 hazardous facilities along U.S. coasts at risk of 100-year coastal flooding by 2100 under a high-emissions scenario. It highlights a significant environmental justice gap, finding that poorer and marginalized communities are 15-41% more likely to live near these at-risk sites. The analysis emphasizes the danger of 'NaTech' disasters, where natural events trigger technological failures, leading to toxic contamination of floodwaters.

The fact sheet proposes a California Green Bank to bridge the financing gap for low-carbon technologies. It suggests using carbon emissions auction revenues to provide credit enhancements, loan guarantees, and project aggregation to help homeowners, small businesses, and innovators access affordable capital. The document highlights specific barriers in electric vehicle financing, energy efficiency upgrades, and grid-scale storage, while citing existing green bank models in New York, Connecticut, and Hawaii as precedents.

The fact sheet proposes that a California green bank could overcome financing barriers for underserved homeowners, small businesses, and public entities. It suggests the bank act as a credit enhancer, direct lender, or project aggregator to lower costs and risks. Additionally, it argues that a green bank could support the state's energy storage mandate and bridge the gap between technology demonstration and commercial scale-up for clean energy innovations.

The fact sheet outlines how a California green bank could accelerate decarbonization in the transportation sector, which contributes roughly 40 percent of the state's GHG emissions. It proposes interventions across four areas: passenger vehicles, zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) infrastructure, goods movement, and regional planning. Key proposed mechanisms include providing credit enhancements to expand private lending for low-carbon vehicles and heavy-duty trucks, coordinating risk and financing for EV infrastructure to overcome the 'chicken-and-egg' challenge of adoption versus availability, supporting at-scale innovative freight infrastructure, and financing projects to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

The report analyzes the shift from stalled global climate negotiations toward national and subnational policy actions. It examines sectoral emissions drivers and the effectiveness of various policy instruments—including carbon pricing, renewable energy mandates, and energy efficiency programs—across Brazil, China, the EU, India, and the US, while emphasizing the role of innovation and finance in achieving low-carbon growth.

Carbon Market Watch outlines ten key elements for effective carbon pricing, arguing that such systems must be integrated into a broader policy mix, utilize absolute declining caps, and eliminate free allocations and offsets. The briefing emphasizes the need for transparency, the reinvestment of revenues into climate action and vulnerable communities, and the use of carbon border levies to prevent leakage without protecting polluting industries. It concludes that carbon pricing is a tool to be used alongside regulations and democratic engagement, rather than a standalone solution for decarbonization.

Carbon Market Watch argues for stringent rules to prevent double counting, 'hot air' credits, and the inclusion of REDD-plus in carbon markets. It advocates for a 'net atmospheric benefit' through discounting, the establishment of a share of proceeds for adaptation and loss and damage, and the integration of a human rights-based approach into the core agreement to protect vulnerable populations.

The report contends that carbon offsets in agriculture fail to reduce absolute emissions due to measurement uncertainties, lack of permanence, and issues with additionality. It highlights how these schemes often benefit agribusinesses while undermining food security, increasing land financialization, and locking in industrial farming models. The authors recommend excluding the land sector from international carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and redirecting finance toward agroecological practices.

Carbon Market Watch criticizes the EU ETS's free allocation of pollution permits, claiming it has generated over 25 billion euros in windfall profits and stalled industrial emissions cuts. The organization argues that the current approach fails to align with Paris climate goals and recommends a more rigorous impact assessment for the 2021-2030 carbon leakage list. Key recommendations include accounting for international climate policies (such as the Chinese and Californian ETS), focusing on direct emissions, and applying the precautionary principle to ensure only sectors at very high risk of carbon leakage receive free allowances.

The document asserts that fossil and biological carbon operate on fundamentally different timescales and cycles, making them non-fungible. While fossil carbon is permanent, biological carbon is subject to rapid fluxes and risks of reversibility from fires, pests, or rising temperatures. The author contends that relying on biological offsets to mitigate fossil emissions is scientifically unsound and practically limited by land area and nutrient requirements, concluding that emissions from both sources must be addressed in parallel rather than through offsetting.

The report by Carbon Market Watch provides a framework for implementing 'right' carbon pricing, arguing that such systems must be integrated into a broader policy mix, feature declining emission caps, and avoid loopholes like free allocations and carbon offsets. It emphasizes the need for transparency, the reinvestment of revenues into climate action and vulnerable communities, and the use of carbon border adjustments to prevent leakage while maintaining equity.

The document critiques agricultural carbon offsets, stating they risk harming farmers' autonomy, fail to provide permanent carbon sequestration, and may actually increase overall emissions. It recommends that governments and international bodies exclude land-based offsets from carbon markets and instead fund agroecological transitions.

The guide equips National Park Service (NPS) staff to communicate climate change by segmenting the American public into six audience types based on their beliefs and motivations. It provides tailored communication tips for each group—ranging from the 'Alarmed' to the 'Dismissive'—and details specific climate impacts across ten U.S. bioregions to help staff create place-based narratives. The document emphasizes using local park stories and scientific consensus to motivate visitors toward climate action and energy conservation.

A 2013 survey of 800 Californians reveals high levels of belief in global warming (79%) and its human cause (58%), with significant concern for its impact on the state's wildfires, heat waves, and droughts. While there is strong support for clean energy and government action, many residents remain uncertain about humanity's collective ability to successfully reduce global warming.

The report presents survey data from 2013 across four US states, revealing that while majorities believe global warming is happening, there are significant regional differences in perceived causes, levels of worry, and understanding of scientific consensus. It highlights a general trend where respondents view global warming as a distant threat and believe corporations and individuals should take more responsibility than government officials.

A 2013 survey of 700 San Francisco adults reveals high levels of belief in human-caused global warming (67%) and significant concern for its impacts. While residents expect severe future effects, including the potential abandonment of parts of the city due to sea level rise (66%), they are uncertain if humanity will successfully reduce warming. There is strong support for clean energy transitions and a preference for the U.S. to reduce emissions regardless of other countries' actions.