Showing all results

Briefings
14 Mar 2016

Carbon leakage mythbuster: France

This policy brief interprets the findings of a new study by CE Delft that shows how energy-intensive companies in France have massively profited from their pollution to the count of €2.7 billion because they are deemed to be at risk of “carbon leakage”. “Carbon leakage” refers to a hypothetical situation where companies transfer production to countries with weaker climate policies in order to lower their costs. Under the current EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) rules, industrial companies that are believed to be at risk of “carbon leakage” are awarded free pollution permits.

Briefings
14 Mar 2016

Carbon leakage mythbuster: United Kingdom

This policy brief interprets the findings of a new study by CE Delft that shows how energy-intensive companies in the UK have massively profited from their pollution to the count of €3.1 billion because they are deemed to be at risk of “carbon leakage”. “Carbon leakage” refers to a hypothetical situation where companies transfer production to countries with weaker climate policies in order to lower their costs. Under the current EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) rules, industrial companies that are believed to be at risk of “carbon leakage” are awarded free pollution permits.

Briefings
14 Mar 2016

Industry windfall profits from Europe’s carbon market

This policy brief interprets the findings of a new study by CE Delft that shows how energy-intensive companies in 19 European countries have massively profited from their pollution because they are deemed to be at risk of “carbon leakage”. “Carbon leakage” refers to a hypothetical situation where companies transfer production to countries with weaker climate policies in order to lower their costs. Under the current EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) rules, industrial companies that are believed to be at risk of “carbon leakage” are awarded free pollution permits.

Briefings
21 Dec 2015

Analysis: The impact of the Paris agreement on the EU’s climate policies

Last December in Paris, a global climate deal was adopted in which all countries have agreed to take action on climate change. Ahead of the climate summit, almost 190 countries representing over 90% of global greenhouse gas emissions registered their climate commitments. Europe, which long thought of itself as the lone wolf in tackling climate change, is therefore no longer going it alone.

Briefings
30 Nov 2015

Policy Brief: Integrating the Sustainable Development Agenda into the 2015 Climate Agreement

The new global Sustainable Development Agenda (Agenda 2030), officially adopted on 25 September 2015 by all United Nations (UN) Member States, has for the first time produced a stand-alone and universal climate goal. This explicitly recognises that the solutions to climate change and sustainable development are inherently interconnected and calls for coordinated efforts to address both simultaneously. From ending poverty and hunger, to addressing health, water and energy insecurity, to protecting oceans, forests and other ecosystems and preventing conflict, addressing climate change is critical to our collective ability to deliver on the SDGs.

Briefings
5 Oct 2015

Carbon leakage myth buster

The current EU ETS rules have granted preferential treatment to industrial companies deemed at risk of “carbon leakage” in the form of awarding free pollution permits. The ongoing legislative process to revise the EU ETS rules for the post-2020 period provides an important opportunity to revisit the rules under which industrial sectors may be deemed at risk of carbon leakage.

Briefings
17 Sep 2015

Policy Brief: Four magic potions to turn the EU ETS into an effective climate mitigation tool

In July 2015, the European Commission presented a legislative proposal to revise the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) in order to implement the EU’s 2030 target of at least 40% domestic emission reductions. Although the proposal suggests a few improvements, it fails to introduce much needed provisions that improve the mitigation potential of the EU ETS.

Briefings
1 Sep 2015

Policy Brief: Social and environmental accountability of climate finance instruments

Climate change is a global injustice to present and future generations, and one of the greatest human rights challenges of our time. For one, climate change has a significant effect on several human rights, such as the right to safe and adequate water and food, the right to health and adequate housing, and the right to life. On the other hand, certain actions to address climate change can directly result in adverse impacts on human rights.

Briefings
5 May 2015

Towards a global carbon market – Risks of linking the EU ETS to other carbon markets

The number of regions and countries that are putting a price on carbon pollution is vastly increasing. Nearly 40 countries already price carbon or plan to do so, including China that will roll out a national carbon market from 2016 onwards. Linking these different carbon markets is being envisaged by several European policymakers.

Briefings
5 May 2015

REPORT: Towards a global carbon market – Prospect for linking the EU ETS to other carbon markets

Jurisdictions with carbon markets currently account for about 40% of global economic activity (GDP)[1]. Linking these different carbon markets with the ultimate goal of establishing a global carbon market is seen as an integral part of the future climate regime, since it can increase the pool of mitigation options available, thereby reducing costs and allowing countries to increase their climate ambition. These benefits however only materialize if the linked carbon markets have a similar level of ambition and a similar design of a number of key features, such as price controls, quantitative and qualitative restrictions on carbon offsets, and the type of allocation method used. Paradoxically, while lower abatement costs are an important economic motive for linking two emission trading systems, they can also constitute a significant political barrier, since citizens of the higher cost system might be reluctant to pay for emission reductions in the other jurisdiction.