Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines the evolution of the EU ETS through its first three phases, focusing on how carbon pricing affects the international competitiveness of energy-intensive industries. It analyzes the phenomenon of 'carbon leakage'—where production relocates to countries with laxer environmental rules—and argues that while this risk exists for specific sectors like steel and cement, it is often mitigated by free allowance allocations and broader economic restructuring trends. The author suggests that for countries like South Korea, the EU experience shows that the risk of leakage is manageable if policy focuses on the most vulnerable sectors and the decarbonization of the energy mix.

Carbon Market Watch asserts that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) undermines climate goals by allowing new coal power plants to earn emissions credits for efficiency improvements. The organization argues that these projects are not 'additional' because efficiency is driven by fuel cost minimization, not CDM support, leading to a net increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. The paper highlights the severe human and ecological costs of coal, citing high mortality rates in India and China, and calls for the UNFCCC to follow the lead of the Norwegian and British governments by ending CDM support for coal and other large-scale power projects.

Brazil has reframed its South Atlantic strategy to protect significant pre-salt oil and gas deposits, leading to a naval modernisation programme and a 'Blue Amazon' campaign to foster a maritime mentality. This strategy includes pursuing the expansion of its continental shelf through UNCLOS, developing a nuclear-propulsion attack submarine in co-operation with France, and establishing a 'goodwill belt' of defence ties with West African states. Brazil also seeks to revive the South Atlantic Peace and Co-operation Zone (Zopacas) to assert regional leadership and limit the influence of outside powers like NATO.

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 research paper evaluates Nandi Dlamini-Zuma's first year as Chairperson of the African Union Commission (AUC). It credits her with improving the Commission's administrative efficiency, enhancing the AU's global diplomatic visibility, and initiating the 'Agenda 2063' framework. However, it highlights failures in managing conflicts in Mali and the Central African Republic, tensions arising from the appointment of South African diplomats to senior roles, and the ongoing challenge of the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction in Africa.

A group of international organisations is calling on EDF Trading to clarify its relationship with CDM project 2716 ("Grid connected energy efficient power generation") in India. While the company issued a correction in Enerpresse stating it is no longer contractually associated with the supercritical coal plant project and has never purchased its credits, the signatories note that this information is missing from the company's website. The letter highlights concerns over the project's compliance with national legislation and sustainable development criteria, as well as impacts on local communities, and asks for details on when and how EDF Trading ended its involvement.

A group of international organisations has written to EDF Trading to seek clarification and public disclosure regarding the company's involvement in CDM project 2716, a supercritical coal power plant in Mundra, India. The letter references a statement in Enerpresse claiming EDF Trading is no longer contractually associated with the project, while noting that 25 Indian NGOs have called for the project's approval to be withdrawn due to non-compliance with national legislation and sustainable development criteria.

A coalition of organizations requests that the French government provide transparency regarding EDF Trading's involvement in and subsequently withdraw its approval for CDM project 2716, a coal-fired power plant in Mundra, India. The authors argue the project fails sustainable development criteria due to environmental damage, lack of community consultation, and flawed carbon crediting methodologies.

The author contends that the EU is abandoning government procurement (GP) as a fundamental industrial policy tool in favor of a neo-liberal model based on international competition and non-discrimination. While the EU pushes for openness to third countries and supports WTO rulings that restrict the use of local content requirements, some Member States, such as France and Italy, continue to use GP to incentivize renewable energy and domestic photovoltaic sectors. The text highlights a conflict between the EU's commitment to the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) and the needs of national governments to foster innovative sectors and create jobs during economic crises.

The authors critique current European economic strategies as failing socially and environmentally, advocating instead for a 'green conversion' of industry. Drawing on the 1970s Lucas Aerospace and LIP factory examples, they propose shifting production from energy-intensive consumption to resilient products through worker-led innovation and democratic work organization. The paper suggests implementing 'Ecological Enterprise Zones' in post-industrial areas of Britain and refocusing EU convergence funding to support circular economies and social ownership, arguing that moving away from corporate profit-driven models is essential for achieving a sustainable, low-energy economy.

The document examines the tension between the European Union's commitment to neoliberal public procurement rules and the need for strategic industrial policies to foster innovation and green energy. It highlights how the EU's adherence to international trade agreements, such as the GPA and GATT, limits the ability of member states to use local content requirements to stimulate domestic industries. The author contrasts the EU's approach with that of the US, Japan, and emerging economies like Brazil and China, who more aggressively use public procurement to support national industrial goals. A key example provided is the WTO dispute over Ontario's feed-in tariffs, where the Appellate Body's restrictive interpretation of 'public purpose' further limited the use of procurement for public policy goals. Despite this, some EU member states, such as France and Italy, have implemented local production requirements for photovoltaic energy to support their domestic sectors.

The document outlines the transition from an Interim to an independent Secretariat, focusing on securing privileges and immunities, adopting administrative policies based on the Asian Development Bank's model, and preparing the headquarters in Songdo, Republic of Korea. It details a phased approach to implementing human resources and financial guidelines, the search for administrative service providers, and a comprehensive ICT service roadmap spanning 2013 to 2015.

The study analyzes the impact of partial CCS deployment in Europe by 2030, categorizing countries as pioneers or laggards based on their R&D projects and national roadmaps. Using a dispatch model, the authors find that the economic outcomes of pioneering are heterogeneous: while electricity suppliers in Poland, the UK, and the Netherlands may see increased producer surpluses, consumers in the UK could face higher wholesale prices due to the high cost of gas-fired CCS. Conversely, Romania is projected to experience lower wholesale prices and increased domestic production. The results suggest that being a pioneer does not automatically guarantee an advantage, as benefits are unevenly distributed between producers and consumers.

The document examines Germany's 'Energiewende', a policy aimed at reducing CO2 emissions by 80 percent by 2050 and phasing out nuclear power. It highlights that while feed-in tariffs (FiT) increased residential electricity prices, they successfully reduced the cost of solar PV by more than 80 percent and wind by about half, benefiting global energy markets. The author notes that renewable growth has more than offset the reduction in nuclear power, though the transition requires new 'flexibility markets' to manage intermittency and new business models for utilities facing declining profits from conventional generation.

The report analyzes the costs and benefits of France's biofuel policies in 2011, finding that while bioethanol provides some emission reductions, conventional biodiesel often leads to net emission increases due to indirect land-use change (ILUC). Financial support for the sector, primarily through blending mandates and excise tax exemptions, is estimated between €782 million and €1.01 billion. The study also notes that biodiesel's reliance on imported feedstocks limits its contribution to energy security compared to bioethanol.

The report finds that EU biofuel policies have significantly increased palm oil consumption, with the biofuels sector accounting for 80% of the total increase in EU palm oil use between 2006 and 2012. It argues that the low cost and high yield of palm oil make it a 'marginal vegetable oil' that replaces domestic feedstocks like rapeseed. The authors warn that without reducing subsidies for food-based biofuels, the EU will likely see a 40% increase in palm oil consumption by 2020, potentially exacerbating deforestation and carbon emissions in tropical forests and peatlands.

The document updates the 2011 subsidy estimates for EU biofuels, reducing the total estimated support from €9,272–€10,653 million to €5,515–€6,896 million. This correction stems from an overestimation of the volume of biofuels eligible for fuel excise tax exemptions. While budgetary support figures for bioethanol and biodiesel were lowered, other support elements, such as market transfers, remain unchanged. The report also details the calculation methodologies for excise tax exemptions and market price support via blending mandates.

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.