Search

Begin New Search Topic Net Zero

1. EU’s Strategic Net-zero Technology Promotion Policies and Global Supply Chains

Author:
Youngook Jang
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
This brief examines recent trends in the EU's industrial and trade policies related to net-zero strategic technologies and their supply chains. It then analyzes the impact of these policies on global supply chain reshaping. As a major player in global supply chains and an active participant in the transition to a net-zero economy, the EU has recently been promoting industrial competitiveness through various industrial and trade policies. Quantitative analyses imply that these policies will likely increase intra-EU trade and reduce extra-EU trade. Korea should respond and adapt to changes in the global trade environment by drawing up Korean industrial policies using EU examples as a reference.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Trade Policy, Supply Chains, and Net Zero
Political Geography:
Europe and South Korea

2. Building Economic Security into Europe’s Clean Energy Agenda: Eight Recommendations for Europe’s Net-Zero Course Correction

Author:
Pawel Swieboda, Georg Riekeles, and Simon Dekeyrel
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Policy Centre (EPC)
Abstract:
A European consensus may still exist on the end goal of climate neutrality, yet there is no such consensus on the political, economic and social choices required to reach it. Each possible pathway carries a distinct set of costs and trade-offs across the energy trilemma of sustainability, affordability and security. An excessively benign reading of the international environment, political and economic negligence and a lack of sufficient action on key parameters of the trilemma have put Europe on a decarbonisation trajectory of high prices and low security. This has become increasingly untenable. The long-term reliance on Russian natural gas was a fateful symptom of this predicament but is not a stand-alone example. Europe’s situation is currently aggravated by a series of equations that do not compute, with targets being set not matched by the required efforts and investments across core areas of Europe’s ambitions, such as wind, hydrogen, nuclear, net-zero manufacturing and energy efficiency. Europe is, consequently, on paths towards endpoints that are inconsistent with the EU’s Fit for 55 and 2040 climate scenarios. All too often, the EU’s energy choices have been an outcome of inner-EU compromises, rather than a reflection of the long-term strategic approach. All this is happening in a stormy international environment, with President Trump abandoning international cooperation and climate ambitions while China’s overcapacities are taking global economic relations to the brink. Consequences are bound to be dire. Unless yearly energy system investments can be significantly ramped up, suggestions that Europe can no longer pursue its 2050 net-zero objective at the expense of cost competitiveness and economic security will only get stronger. Europe should not abandon its net-zero ambitions, but a significant course correction is required. Building on the former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi’s call for a joint approach to decarbonisation and competitiveness and adding an economic security perspective, this paper proposes eight recommendations for Europe’s net-zero course correction. We argue that the best course of action for Europe is to gain ‘escape velocity’ on the green transition: prioritising cost-effective investments in clean industry and energy infrastructure, which are essential to enable a transition to clean energy. While the competitiveness debate tends to focus on the more immediate ways of activating growth, economic security encompasses a broader, forward looking framework that emphasises resilience. This includes managing risks, reducing dependencies, and preparing for potential disruptions. Staying on track toward achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 must remain Europe’s overarching objective, coupled with a parallel goal of optimising economic value-creation and reducing the cost, uncertainty and risks of the energy transition. EIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EUROPE’S NET-ZERO COURSE CORRECTION Prioritise and coordinate large-scale investments to achieve ‘escape velocity’ in the energy transition. Set realistic targets and priorities using foresight and analysis recognising the interdependencies between policy levers at EU and national levels. Double down on electrification through proactive technology-neutral supply policies, grid investment, strategic industrial policy and enabling frameworks. Elaborate and implement a dedicated ‘masterplan for energy system flexibility, grid investment and energy storage’. Anchor the Clean Industrial Deal on an ‘economic security yardstick’ involving strategic funding for European ecosystems, enabling infrastructure and necessary shielding. Factor in nuclear power investments as an essential component in Europe’s net-zero scenario. Strengthen single market coordination, price differentiation and investment incentives while expanding long-term contractual solutions. Develop a comprehensive energy system risk management approach.
Topic:
Renewable Energy, Carbon Emissions, Economic Security, and Net Zero
Political Geography:
Europe

3. Fast, Fair, Funded and Feminist: A pathway to a just and transformative climate transition within and beyond the UK

Author:
Natalie Shortall, Chiara Ligouri, and Ruth Mayne
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Oxfam Publishing
Abstract:
The world is in the grip of a climate emergency. Urgent and equitable action is essential to prevent yet further escalating climate impacts that are devastating communities worldwide and to safeguard a liveable planet for future generations. For governments everywhere, including the UK Government, this is a defining test of leadership. But it is also a moment of opportunity—an opportunity to build economies and societies that are not only decarbonised and climate resilient, but that actively reduce inequalities, are more inclusive, and prioritise the wellbeing of people and the planet over short-term profit. In this report, we outline key steps the UK Government can take to lead the way toward a just and transformative transition—one that not only stabilises the climate but also delivers fairness and justice for all.
Topic:
Climate Change, Government, Transition, Climate Justice, and Net Zero
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

4. Net-Zero and Nonproliferation: Assessing Nuclear Power and Its Alternatives

Author:
Henry D. Sokolski
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
Nonproliferation Policy Education Center
Abstract:
Six years ago, NPEC ran a mock execution of a law Congress passed in 1978 but that the Executive refused to implement —Title V of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978. Title V called on the State and Energy Departments to conduct country-specific analyses of how developing states might best meet their energy needs without nuclear power. It also called for the creation of an energy Peace Corps and an assessment of what our government was spending on energy development aid-related projects. When NPEC started its efforts, the staff on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee asked to see what NPEC produced to use it to pressure the Executive finally to implement the law. NPEC commissioned a number of studies on how Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, and Taiwan might best meet their energy requirements without nuclear power. The center also contracted studies on the history and intent of Title V and on what government programs were already in play that aligned with Title V‘s stated objectives. As soon as NPEC’s project was completed, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff prepared a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking the Secretary finally to implement Title V and file the reports required by law. Then, something unexpected occurred. The committee’s legal counsel discovered that the Secretary was under no obligation to comply: Congress had eliminated Title V’s reporting requirements along with several hundred other Congressionally mandated reports back in 1995. Flummoxed, I quietly set the book manuscript aside. Why, then, release it today? Because it is again timely. In October, the Biden Administration announced it is still considering extending civilian nuclear cooperation with Riyadh that would allow the Kingdom to enrich uranium — a process that can bring states within weeks of acquiring the bomb. Administration officials no longer question if Saudi Arabia really needs nuclear energy to meet its energy requirements. Shouldn’t they? Meanwhile, Taiwan’s presidential election this coming Saturday will, among other things, decide if Taiwan will build more nuclear reactors or not. Again, is new nuclear Taiwan’s best energy bet? As for China, the Pentagon has become increasingly concerned that the two “peaceful” fast breeder reactors and plutonium reprocessing plants Beijing is building will be used to make hundreds of bombs worth of weapons plutonium. One of the two fast breeder reactors is already operating. The question these dangerous nuclear activities raise is just how necessary they are to meet China’s energy requirements. Then, there’s Iran, which is intent on building reactors of Iranian design. It plans on expanding its nuclear power program from roughly one gigawatt electrical capacity to 11. Given Iran’s renewables potential and oil and gas reserves, how much sense does this make? Finally, in its efforts to achieve net zero, the Biden Administration has joined 20 other nations in pledging to triple global nuclear generation by 2050. Again, how practical is this? This volume’s aim is to help provide answers. Of course, in light of how long our government has ignored Title V, demanding it be implemented now would be odd. Creating a clean energy Peace Corps, comparing the costs of different types of energy, and trying to determine what investments would reduce emissions quickest and cheapest, however, all should be discussed. It’s my hope that the release of Net-Zero and Nonproliferation: Assessing Nuclear Power and Its Alternatives today might prompt such discussion.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Nuclear Power, Nonproliferation, Legislation, Energy, and Net Zero
Political Geography:
China, Iran, Middle East, Taiwan, Asia, Saudi Arabia, North America, and United States of America

5. Geoeconomic fragmentation and net-zero targets

Author:
Shirin Hakim and Amin Mohseni-Cheraghlou
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The second half of the twentieth century experienced significant economic integration. International trade, cross-border migration, capital flows, and technological diffusion increased per capita incomes across countries and reduced global poverty. However, events such as the global financial crisis of 2007 to 2009, Brexit, and the COVID-19 pandemic—all against the backdrop of escalating great power rivalry and tensions between the United States and China—have demonstrated the rise of geoeconomic fragmentation (GEF). Since the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, a growing numberof world leaders have addressed the impacts of GEF on global energy and agricultural markets. For one, higher and increasingly volatile food and energy prices have made it increasingly difficult for developing nations to prioritize environmental concerns and implement sustainable development initiatives.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, International Trade and Finance, Economy, Economic Growth, Inclusion, Energy, Geoeconomics, and Net Zero
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and United States of America

6. Green Hydrogen for Decarbonizing Asia's Industrial Giants

Author:
Asia Society Policy Institute
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Asia Society
Abstract:
Asia’s transformation in recent decades into a global manufacturing hub has fueled economic growth and lifted millions out of poverty. However, this success has also massively increased the region’s emissions footprint, making it essential for Asia’s industries to rapidly transition to green technologies and processes. “Green Hydrogen for Decarbonizing Asia’s Industrial Giants” assesses the future potential and trajectory for electrolyzers needed to meet green hydrogen (H2) demand in Asia’s four largest economies: China, India, Japan, and South Korea. The report, which was commissioned by the High-level Policy Commission on Getting Asia to Net Zero and carried out by Global Efficiency Intelligence, highlights the role of manufacturers as agents of change in the Asia’s net zero transition. The study focuses on the role of green H2 in three priority industries — steel, ammonia, and methanol — under various decarbonization scenarios. In these sectors, green H2 has the capacity to significantly reduce emissions by replacing carbon-intensive processes with renewable energy-powered electrolysis. Should the four countries adhere to their declared net zero targets, the collective market potential of electrolyzers for these industries is expected to skyrocket to $180 billion by 2050, with a compound annual growth rate as high as 12% between 2030 and 2040. This is nearly five times as large as the market potential under a business-as-usual scenario. The report offers a suite of recommendations for policymakers, industry players, investors, and think thanks aimed at accelerating the development and adoption of green H2 and electrolyzer manufacturing. These targeted strategies aim to collectively support a robust ecosystem for green H2 production and use in these countries toward a net zero industry.
Topic:
Industry, Carbon Emissions, Decarbonization, Hydrogen, and Net Zero
Political Geography:
Japan, China, India, Asia, and South Korea

7. Cement and Concrete Companies Leading the Net-Zero Transition

Author:
Jamie Friedman
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
New technologies spurred by federal support show a cleaner path forward for the highly emissive cement and concrete industry.
Topic:
Climate Change, Industry, Carbon Emissions, Green Transition, Net Zero, and Concrete
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

8. Build Carbon Removal Reserve to Secure Future of EU Emissions Trading

Author:
Wilfried Rickels, Mathias Fridahl, Roland Rothenstein, and Felix Schenuit
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
Abstract:
• A carbon central bank (CCB) that translates carbon removals into allowances would transform the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) from a fiat allowance to a gold standard system, ensuring unchanged net emissions on the path to net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) targets. • Meeting such expectations would require a CCB with a clear commitment to a net-zero GHG target, but also with the capacity to manage the market on the path to that target. • This requires a strong institutional framework, which could be achieved by integrating the CCB into the European Central Bank (ECB), building on its reputation and capacity. • Given the long lead time to set up such an institution, the European Commission should already take the first steps to fulfil the other requirement, namely building up a large carbon removal certificate (CRC) reserve, which would provide the CCB with the credibility to stabilize the market in the future. • To fill the CRC reserve, the EU should emulate the US approach by immediately initiating resultbased carbon removal procurement as a first key step of a sequential approach to integrated carbon removal into climate policy. • This could be achieved by developing a centralized procurement program, supporting existing procurement programs, such as Sweden’s or Denmark’s, and incentivizing additional EU member states to initiate procurement. • An important prerequisite for this is the ability to bank CRCs that are not yet eligible for compliance with near-term EU climate targets and use them in later crediting periods.
Topic:
Climate Change, European Union, Carbon Emissions, Net Zero, and Carbon Central Bank
Political Geography:
Europe and Global Focus

9. Rebuild, Decarbonize, and Integrate: Ukraine, the EU, and the Road to a Net-Zero Energy Sector

Author:
Jacob Kirkegaard
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
More than half of Ukraine’s power production capacity has been damaged by Russia since February 2022. Reconstruction is already underway, but to meet EU accession requirements, Ukraine will have to rapidly decarbonize as it rebuilds. As the frontline situation points to a longer war than was projected early on, uncertainties about Ukraine’s long-term economic path and prospects have inevitably increased. At the same time, noticeable political progress has been made given the EU’s agreement to start negotiations for full Ukrainian membership. This step provides the fighting Ukrainian people with a long-term perspective and a destination point as a prosperous, democratic, European market economy. Anchoring Ukraine’s economic future in the EU will have transformative implications for the country’s economy, not least its energy sector. That sector, which is still exposed to Russian military attacks, is now compelled to assimilate into the rapidly decarbonizing EU. More than half of Ukraine’s power production capacity has been damaged by Russia since February 2022 or is situated on territory now controlled by Russia. The Net Zero World Initiative (2023) estimated that 43% of nuclear, 68% of coal-fired, and 33% of combined heat and power generation was lost to the war as of mid-2023. Despite continuing attacks, more than two gigawatts (GW) of electricity production capacity were restored during 2023. Reconstruction of the Ukrainian energy sector is already underway despite the war. With it, the country’s energy transformation has begun. Yet, in March 2024, Russia returned to large- scale saturation missile attacks against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including its large hydropower plants and thermal power stations, inflicting further long-term damage. Putin seeks to exploit the apparent drop in Ukrainian air defense efficiency as Western supplies of air interceptor missiles have grown scarcer. Military risk consequently continues to cloud the outlook for Ukraine’s energy production. It also reduces the interest of foreign and domestic investors in committing resources to the sector. Uncertainty plagues the prospects for Western public support for Ukraine, too. Despite the recent passage of a funding package, future US funding will remain hostage to domestic politics. In Europe, various veto players—led by Hungary—as well as other internal divisions pose an ongoing political challenge to the EU’s financial support for Kyiv. The scarcity of public and private investment funding sources for Ukraine stands in stark contrast to the level of ambition for the energy- sector transition inherent in Ukraine’s EU accession process. One of the major energy- sector challenges facing Ukraine will be the expectation in Brussels that Ukraine will either enter fully into the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) or implement an ETS-aligned national carbon-pricing system of similar ambition. It will not be possible for the Ukrainian economy to be granted a prolonged transition period here, and—for instance—enjoy free carbon-emission credits for affected industries, when these same industries will have been partially or fully phased out in the rest of the EU at the time of Ukraine’s EU accession. While the EU ETS price is currently adjusting to the new post-2022 energy shock demand level (for example, prices have declined so far in 2024 to around €60–65/ton), the ETS auction price forward curve slopes upward. This indicates that carbon market participants continue to believe that EU carbon prices will rise during Ukraine’s EU accession process. Adapting the economy to the EU’s carbon price level will require urgent action on the part of the Ukrainian government as it prepares the long-term National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) that will lay out the country’s energy strategy for the rest of the 2020s. Certainly, Ukraine’s Environmental Protection Minister, Ruslan Strilets, displayed the necessary ambition when he spoke after the UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai in late 2023. He reiterated earlier government statements from 2021 and committed Ukraine to launching a pilot emissions trading system in 2025 with a full launch in 2026. This would enable Ukraine’s entry into the ETS, and thus avoid negative effects of the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) for Ukrainian exports. This is a timetable that necessitates immediate and sizable climate investments in Ukraine. Ukraine has further committed itself in recent months to a significant scaling up of its already large nuclear power-generation capacity. The Ukrainian government has signed memoranda of understanding aiming at the construction of up to nine new power units using Westinghouse AP1000 technology. Just as the accelerated introduction of carbon pricing in Ukraine will be costly, construction of new nuclear power units, even if located at one of Ukraine’s existing nuclear plant facilities, will require large sums of capital investment upfront. The issue of upfront costs will similarly weigh on the broader issue of reconstruction of Ukraine, as more energy- efficient buildings will only gradually earn back the higher building and materials costs through lower long-term energy consumption. Ukraine must be applauded for aiming to seize the opportunity to rebuild its energy sector and integrate it with the EU as quickly as possible. This follows the recommendations of several expert groups, including GMF’s earlier (2023) report on this issue, which called for rapid Ukrainian adoption of carbon pricing and highlighted the need to phase in EU-level building codes expeditiously. This paper will focus on the implications for both Ukraine and the EU of the Ukrainian government’s recent energy-sector choices. What do these plans require institutionally and financially to succeed, and how will they alter not only the Ukrainian but the entire EU energy sector in the process?
Topic:
Climate Change, European Union, Decarbonization, Energy, Russia-Ukraine War, and Net Zero
Political Geography:
Europe and Ukraine

10. Triggering Investment in First-of-a-Kind and Early Near-Zero Emissions Industrial Facilities

Author:
Chris Bataille, Seton Stiebert, and Jonas Algers
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Among the most significant challenges to achieving the Paris Agreement goal of global net-zero CO2 emissions by 2055–2075 is addressing the so-called “hard-to-abate” heavy industrial sectors such as iron and steel, cement and concrete, ammonia, methanol, and high value feedstock chemicals like olefins. These sectors accounted for 7.5 Gt CO2 or 20.4 percent of global emissions in 2021, and global demand for their products will only rise until broad development goals are met everywhere. Moreover, nearly all heavy industrial plants being planned or in construction today are fossil based, with the exception being a handful of small-scale pilot facilities. Given that plants tend to operate for at least 20 years before their first deep renovation, and 40–80+ years overall, these new ones will likely still be in operation by the time global CO2 emissions must be net-zero (~2050–2060), after which heavy industry players that are still emitting will likely need to pay for CO2 removal (CDR) from the atmosphere. The cumulative CO2 emissions between now and then and the likely very high cost of CDR are driving society, governments, and firms to make near-zero emissions the default minimum standard for all new and retrofit facilities by the end of the 2020s. However, fulfilling that standard is no easy task. The main bottleneck is less technological in nature than financial and market based. At the current state of the art, near-zero emissions plants simply cost more than fossil-based plants, and meanwhile, no demand pull or market exists for lower-emission industrial products. Given the urgency of the task at hand amid the global climate crisis and the current lack of a business case to undertake it, strong policy signals can be used to incentivize early investment in near-zero-carbon heavy industry. This report, part of the Carbon Management Research Initiative at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA, explores financial policy instruments that can make first-of-a-kind (FOAK) near-zero emission industrial facilities viable. The report finds that such FOAKs can then be used as low-risk, replicable models for rapidly transforming the “hard-to-abate” sectors and ultimately facilitating a transition to full net-zero emissions for industry as a whole.
Topic:
Climate Change, Investment, Industry, Carbon Emissions, Net Zero, and Abatement
Political Geography:
Global Focus