In recent months, a testcase with carbon pricing has been carried out with three medium sized enterprises (SME’s) from the province of North Brabant, the Netherlands. The participants calculated their carbon footprint and gained insight into what a price on CO2 means for their own business.
As the co-chairs of the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC), we want to accelerate climate action and reaffirm our commitment to carbon pricing. The discussions in Germany are a great opportunity to keep the momentum going.
I4CE has published a series of three Climate Briefs on the management of climate-related risks by financial actors, focusing specifically on three questions:
- Why should financial actors align their portfolios with a 2°C pathway to manage transition risks?
- How could financial actors manage their exposure to climate risks?
- How should financial actors deal with climate-related issues in their portfolios today?
This blogpost rapidly summarizes these three Climate Brief presents an overview of the topics covered and the main conclusions. The three briefs are available on the I4CE website.
As the leading business association dealing with climate change in Australia, the Carbon Market Institute has been at the centre of policy discussions to ensure a business voice is represented in the design and implementation of effective and stable climate policy. This article describes how the inevitability of reformed energy and climate policy in Australia, and new low-carbon developments in the Region, have reignited the debate about the country’s low-emissions future.
The Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC) launched a new initiative to progress the use of carbon pricing as a tool to enable the shipping industry’s decarbonisation and switch away from fossil fuels. The initiative will be co-chaired by Johannah Christensen (Director, Global Maritime Forum) and Tristan Smith (UCL/UMAS), supported by CPLC Partners including the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund.
What do HSBC, China, LafargeHolcim and California have in common? Despite the continuing debate in some corners about the ways and means of climate change, they are getting down to business — assigning a price to carbon pollution and then letting the market uncover profitable emissions reductions opportunities.
In recent years, proponents of clean energy have taken heart in the falling prices of solar and wind power, hoping they will drive an energy revolution. But a new study co-authored by an MIT professor suggests otherwise: Technology-driven cost reductions in fossil fuels will lead us to continue using all the oil, gas, and coal we can, unless governments pass new taxes on carbon emissions.
SkyPower “strongly supports any mechanism that encourages the generation or adoption of clean, renewable energy and dramatically reduces carbon emissions.”
How did Alberta, with massive oil reserves and a powerful industry pushing for growth, come to adopt progressive policies that made it the talk of the Paris climate change meeting just eight days after Notley’s announcement?
Having mapped the global spread of carbon pricing schemes since 2013 in the State and Trends of Carbon Pricing report that Ecofys writes annually with the World Bank, we find the proverbial glass remains both half-full and half-empty: unarguably, a carbon pricing wave is going on, but it has not yet resulted in a low carbon tsunami.
The Americas are well-positioned to lead the world on carbon pricing, with carbon taxes or emission trading already being implemented in Chile, Mexico, Colombia, California, the nine states of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Washington, Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec, and Ontario. Carbon pricing is under discussion in additional countries, states, and provinces.
Model-driven energy scenarios provide policymakers and investors with a powerful decision-support tool but should not be used as a decision-making tool due to several limitations. So argues a new study in the journal Energy and Environment by Sergey Paltsev, deputy director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change and a senior research scientist for both the Joint Program and the MIT Energy Initiative. The study shows that overall, energy scenarios are useful for assessing policymaking and investment risks associated with different emissions reduction pathways, but tend to overestimate the degree to which future energy demand will resemble the past.
On the eve of the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos, CDP announced the Carbon Pricing Corridor initiative, the world’s first industry-led initiative aimed at defining the investment-grade carbon prices needed for the power and industrial sectors to meet the Paris Agreement. The initiative seeks to address the emerging questions on how companies can manage climate change risk through the use of carbon price scenarios.
By Xie Zhenhua and Feike Sijbesma | China Daily
Most notably, a great opportunity lies in carbon pricing as a critical instrument to unlock the public and the private capital needed for the transition to low-carbon technologies. Putting a meaningful price on carbon, for instance, will stimulate energy efficiency technology and make renewable energy more competitive.
Low effective carbon prices in the context of energy taxation are the results of two factors. One is obvious: zero or low statutory rates on carbon and energy. The other one is more opaque, but significant: tax expenditures (TEs), i.e. government benefits granted through the tax code (such as exemptions, deductions, credits, rate reliefs or deferrals) that target a specific group of taxpayers as well as specific activities or regions.