Search

Begin New Search Topic Climate Change Publication Year within 1 Year

31. Assessing the Achievements of COP29

Author:
Elnur Soltanov
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
Azerbaijan became the first country from the Silk Road region to host an annual session of the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change—in this case, the 29th session. Hence, COP29. This took place in Baku between 11 and 22 November 2024 and had something like 76,000 registered participants. And Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry has a document that says that COP29 “was attended by representatives of 196 countries and nearly 200 international, regional, and other organizations. More than 80 heads of state and government participated at the World Leaders’ Climate Action Summit organized within the framework of COP29 on 12-13 November 2024.” So, evidently, this was hard to pull-off successfully.
Topic:
Climate Change, Diplomacy, and Conference of the Parties (COP)
Political Geography:
Eurasia and Azerbaijan

32. Sovereigns on thinning ice: debt sustainability, climate impacts and adaptation

Author:
Matteo Calcaterra, Andrea Consiglio, Vincenzo Martorana, Massimo Tavoni, and Stavros Zenios
Publication Date:
05-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
A fundamental problem for sovereigns enacting climate policies is whether they can manage increasing debts as their economies suffer from adverse climate impacts. We develop stochastic debt sustainability analysis integrating a coupled climate-economy model with debt financing scenario optimisation, and stress test sovereign debt for representative countries globally under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change marker narrative scenarios of climate change. The stress test combines socioeconomic and climate pathways with calibrated aleatory scenario trees of economic, fiscal and financial variables to generate forward-looking debt projections over the century. These projections incorporate climate-induced damages to economic growth, spanning the broad spectrum of impact functions from the literature. Our findings reveal significant risks to sovereign debt sustainability, particularly under high climate damages, that are large from mid-century. Expected costs increase by up to 3 percent of GDP under high climate impact in a world of regional rivalries, or 0.25 percent under low impact in a middle-of-the-road narrative, with considerable variation between countries. The long-run debts of highly impacted countries are unsustainable. We assess whether adaptation investments or fiscal consolidation can mitigate potential climate-debt crises. Public financing of reactive adaptation is a justified expenditure that breaks even but does not fully restore the debt sustainability of highly impacted high-debt countries. Maintaining public spending while ensuring debt sustainability appears infeasible under climate impacts.
Topic:
Climate Change, Governance, Macroeconomics, Fiscal Policy, Public Debt, and Decarbonization
Political Geography:
Global Focus

33. Implementing the EU Nature Restoration Law: exploring pathways for member states

Author:
Heather Grabbe, Bas Heerma van Voss, Camille Mehlbaum, and Sjoerd van der Zwaag
Publication Date:
06-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
The European Union Nature Restoration Law (NRL) entered into force in 2024. The NRL sets quantitative restoration targets aimed at improving natural habitats that are currently in poor condition, with substantial leeway for countries to choose implementation pathways that fit their priorities. This Working Paper examines three pathways: (1) evenly spreading restoration efforts across all ecosystems; (2) prioritising cost-efficiency; and (3) maximising carbon sequestration. Each approach yields vastly different outcomes. This paper provides insights into the trade-offs. For countries seeking to minimise costs in the short run, an 81 percent reduction in costs over the period 2025-2030 is possible compared to a baseline scenario of an even restoration of all ecosystems. Countries that aim to maximise carbon sequestration benefits can achieve a 54 percent increase in climate impact over the same period. However, the different pathways converge after 2040. Prioritising cost minimisation in the early years could lead to higher costs later if delays in investment in the more costly restoration projects allow habitats to continue to degrade. Maximising cost-efficient carbon sequestration is possible, allowing relatively low investment costs and high sequestration. Countries should adopt a holistic approach to pathway selection, considering the full spectrum of ecological and societal gains alongside climate mitigation. Land ownership is an important factor that shapes feasible and effective pathways. In countries such as Spain and Germany, where private entities own substantial shares of agricultural and forest lands, policies should incentivise private investment, including through norms, subsidies or pricing mechanisms. Countries with substantial public landholdings, such as the Netherlands, may find it easier to implement direct restoration projects. These structural differences will influence the cost and pace of restoration and also the design of policies and governance mechanisms to ensure compliance with NRL targets.
Topic:
Climate Change, European Union, Decarbonization, Green Deal, Energy, and Carbon Sequestration
Political Geography:
Europe

34. Upgrading Europe's electricity grid is about more than just money

Author:
Conall Heussaff and Georg Zachmann
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Electricity network investment is essential for the energy transition, with annual investments of tens of billions of euros required across Europe. Network companies are already investing such amounts and delivering efficient grid investments requires more than additional money. Assessing infrastructure needs is the first step in grid investment. At local, national and European Union levels, network development planning is determined by policy choices and can greatly affect the efficiency of investments. Coordinated grid planning is crucial to set the right incentives for the efficient development of the European electricity system. An EU independent system operator could assume responsibility for network planning by providing regular, independent assessment of efficient network investment needs from a holistic European perspective. Although significant capital expenditure is undoubtedly necessary, network regulation should encourage network companies to invest in the most-efficient solutions. Current regulatory approaches may favour traditional capital expenditure, leading to system inefficiencies and higher-than-necessary consumer costs. Cross-border electricity transmission infrastructure is critical to integrate renewables into the electricity system at scale and reduce costs for European consumers. But such projects are often not built or are delayed because those that decide on and pay for the infrastructure are not necessarily those that benefit from it. A European fund could smooth negotiations between parties and accelerate the physical interconnection of the European electricity system. Fairly recovering the costs of grid investments from consumers is vital to maintain public support for the energy transition. National funds could smooth out cost impacts over time, keeping electricity affordable throughout the energy transition.
Topic:
Climate Change, Electricity, Decarbonization, and Energy Security
Political Geography:
Europe

35. How to improve the European Union’s sustainable finance framework

Author:
Silvia Merler
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
The European Union has sought to steer corporate behaviour to support its climate goals by adopting a large body of rules on sustainable investment, sustainability disclosures and sustainability labelling of financial products, underpinned by a taxonomy of activities considered sustainable. It is unclear, however, if this effort has had significant results. Examination of financial market data and metrics of investment flows towards green and sustainable investment shows up several weaknesses – both contingent and structural – in the EU sustainable finance framework, which could limit its effectiveness in aligning capital flows with climate objectives. The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) is aimed at making the sustainability content of financial products more transparent but rests on a concept of ‘sustainable investment’ that is too broad and loosely defined. Meanwhile, the EU Taxonomy Regulation has not yet become established as the reference framework for corporate bond issuance or sustainable investing. The EU also lacks a coherent framework for transition finance – or investment that is not yet classified as sustainable but that represents progress to greater sustainability – despite this being the market segment to which the largest volumes of investment will need to flow in the short to medium run. Five adjustments would make the EU sustainable finance framework more effective at delivering the desired alignment of incentives. First, the taxonomy framework should be completed and clarified. Second, the SFDR definition of sustainable investment should be toughened. Third, the neutrality of the framework across capital market instruments, in particular debt versus equity, should be ensured. Fourth, a dedicated framework for transition finance should be developed. Finally, formal sustainable and transition labels for financial products should be introduced. This approach would make the sustainable finance framework more easily applicable to all kind of companies and all types of capital market instruments, regardless of whether they limit the use of proceeds, and it would be naturally extendable into a framework for transition finance and into a transparent sustainability labelling regime for financial products.
Topic:
Climate Change, European Union, Regulation, Finance, Macroeconomics, and Sustainability
Political Geography:
Europe

36. Europe’s energy information problem

Author:
Ben McWilliams, Simone Tagliapietra, and Georg Zachmann
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Comprehensive information on energy-related topics, such as take-up of heat pumps, industrial natural gas consumption and prices, and battery connections to the electricity grid, is either not available in Europe in a timely manner, or not available at the level of granularity, reliability and consistency needed for informed decision-making. Certain information is simply not collected, while other information is collected but is not comparable or consistent across Europe, or is hard to access. European policy targets, such as greenhouse-gas emission reduction pathways, are evaluated using models for which input assumptions and parameters are not public knowledge. It should be a European Union priority to improve this situation. Doing so will enable better decision-making by policymakers and companies. This is especially relevant when Europe faces the triple challenge of decarbonisation, ensuring security of energy supply and growing its internationally competitive energy-consuming industries. The EU status quo is that good energy information is provided by a mix of institutions, agencies, national bodies, industrial associations and non-governmental organisations, but with substantial room for improvement. Lessons can be learned from the United States Energy Information Administration and the European Environment Agency, which was established to better coordinate climate data. Improving energy information will involve difficult political decisions. A process should be started to evaluate the options and to measure the continued cost of inaction.
Topic:
Climate Change, European Union, Institutions, Green Deal, and Energy
Political Geography:
Europe

37. Europeans still want climate action, but don't trust governments to deliver

Author:
Jan Eichhorn and Heather Grabbe
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
The vast majority of Europeans continues to support action to combat climate change, but many are losing faith in governments to deliver a transition that is effective and fair. Based on a large-scale questionnaire answered by nearly 8000 people in five EU countries in 2024, with a comparison to responses from 2020, we find that Europeans continue to worry about climate change and want effective action to combat it, even though the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine significantly increased their concerns about economic and physical insecurity. Scepticism about the causes of climate change has risen a bit, and concern about adapting to its impact has grown. People across all income groups, particularly in France, Germany, Italy and Sweden, feel negative about the outlook for their economic future and their governments’ ability to improve it. People who feel politically disaffected think that decisionmakers are not taking their views and interests into account when making economic and climate policies. Some people are now shifting their attention away from action against the climate crisis towards adaptation, but this does not mean they are less concerned about climate change. Instead, for some people, it is an expression of their disillusionment with state institutions – and this feeling is present among supporters of parties across the political spectrum. Worry about climate change is equally spread across all socio-economic groups. Closer examination of attitudes in Germany, using evidence from focus groups, which we also discuss in this Policy Brief, reinforces the finding of increasing scepticism about the German government’s ability to manage the climate crisis. If political leaders want the public to continue to support climate policies, they must engage proactively now to avoid even greater loss of confidence in government. If governments go soft on efforts to combat the climate crisis now or delay action, they will not meet voters’ demand for an effective and just transition. Moreover, hesitation and delay would boost populist and far-right actors’ efforts to sow doubt about the causes of climate change and whether policies will be effective.
Topic:
Climate Change, Elections, Populism, and Energy
Political Geography:
Europe

38. Making the best of the new EU Social Climate Fund

Author:
Eva Jüngling, Giovanni Sgaravatti, Simone Tagliapietra, and Georg Zachmann
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
The slow pace of decarbonisation of buildings and transportation threatens the European Union’s goal of reducing emissions by 55 percent by 2030 and achieving net zero by 2050. To address this, a new emissions trading system, ETS2, is being introduced to put a carbon price on fuels used in buildings and road transport. However, the resulting cost increases risk a disproportionate impact on vulnerable households and small and medium sized enterprises. The European Union has created the Social Climate Fund (SCF) to address these distributional challenges. This instrument redistributes a portion of auction revenues generated by the ETS2 among EU countries, in order to protect the most vulnerable. A much larger share of ETS2 revenues will flow directly to national governments, offering significant opportunities for social measures and investments in the green transition. The use of those revenues will dictate how successful EU countries are in managing the transition and protecting households, particularly in higher-income member states, which will receive relatively smaller shares of SCF funding. ETS2 is an essential part of the EU climate policy toolkit. Governments should employ good practices, as identified by the European Commission, to tackle emissions from buildings and transport and to gradually phase out income support, in line with the achievement of investment targets and milestones. Higher-income EU countries should develop additional targeted financing levers to protect the vulnerable and to introduce extra enablers to encourage private investment. Proper sequencing, outreach and communication will be essential to ensure the uptake of measures and public support for policy instruments. Cross-country learning should be leveraged, including through the creation of a European policy registry that will help countries compare their approaches and potentially amend their SCF spending plans on the basis of learning from policies that been successful elsewhere.
Topic:
Climate Change, European Union, Welfare, Transportation, Carbon Emissions, Decarbonization, and Protection
Political Geography:
Europe

39. Who should be charged? Principles for fair allocation of electricity system costs

Author:
Conall Heussaff, Eva Jüngling, Simone Tagliapietra, and Georg Zachmann
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
The high costs in the European Union of supplying electricity can only be structurally reduced through decarbonisation and deeper European electricity system integration. In the short-term, policymakers have few choices. They can redistribute system costs by shifting components from one consumer to another. Another immediate distributional option would be to reduce energy taxation, implicitly shifting costs to the taxpayer. Meanwhile, decision-making processes that translates electricity system costs into final consumer prices are fragmented. Rules on the short-term production, transmission and consumption of electricity are determined at EU level. National regulators and governments determine how the fixed costs of the system are recovered from consumers, while national policymakers also set energy taxes. This Policy Brief sets out options for shifting the fixed costs of the electricity system between consumers, for changing energy taxation to reduce prices and for evaluating systemic trade-offs between system cost and other characteristics, such as sustainability and reliability. We also estimate the quantitative effects of shifting costs between consumers and reducing taxes on electricity. We set out four principles for pricing electricity fairly. Policy interventions in the electricity system should not seek to achieve broader economic objectives at the expense of energy-policy goals. Consumer prices should incentivise efficient system operation. Carbon emissions should be priced in. The fixed costs of the electricity system should be primarily recovered from inelastic consumption. European policymakers should develop transparent analytical tools to assess the distributional effects of electricity-policy interventions. Lessons should be learned from the energy crisis, during which EU and national policies attempted to shield consumers from price impacts, and these lessons should form the basis of ongoing efforts to reduce prices. EU guidelines for electricity cost recovery should be established, following fundamental economic principles, and could form a policy toolbox for national governments to reduce energy prices. Finally, the long-term strategic goal of deeper physical and institutional integration of the European electricity should be pursued to structurally reduce electricity prices.
Topic:
Climate Change, European Union, Electricity, and Energy
Political Geography:
Europe

40. Building coalitions for climate transition and nature restoration

Author:
Jean Pisani-Ferry, Beatrice di Mauro, and Jeromin Zettelmeyer
Publication Date:
07-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Global climate and biodiversity outcomes will largely be determined in emerging and developing economies (EMDEs). We propose a four-pillar strategy to support climate and nature preservation in line with the economic interests of both developing and advanced countries. This would move beyond voluntary pledges to embed climate and nature objectives into the structures of trade, finance and industrial policy, creating a self-reinforcing system of cooperation and reducing the net costs of the green transition. Under Pillar 1, a coalition of advanced and developing countries would link tiered carbon pricing with a common carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM). Pillar 2 would create a climate-finance coalition to decarbonise the power sectors of developing countries. Pillar 3 would involve partnerships to develop clean energy-intensive industrial production stages in developing economies with rich renewables endowments; these would feed into the supply chains of the European Union and other energy-importing advanced economies. Pillar 4 would redesign markets to create scalable and credible mechanisms to fund carbon removals. Technology-based removals can be incentivised through the introduction of clean-up certificates into the EU emissions trading system, while nature-based removals would require improved market design centred on a new asset class: nature shares. The four pillars reinforce each other. A multi-country CBAM and carbon pricing coalition (Pillar 1) would reduce the cost of financing power sector decarbonisation (Pillar 2). Linking EMDE membership of the CBAM and carbon-pricing coalition to financial support for the decarbonisation of power sectors would also make it more attractive for EMDEs to adopt carbon prices. Decarbonisation of power sectors (Pillar 2) would be a precondition for developing clean, highly energy-intensive industry in renewables-rich EMDEs (Pillar 3). The Pillar 1 coalition should include the EU, China and as many other countries as possible. Advanced countries and China could underpin the Pillar 2 financier coalition. Pillar 3 would involve the EU and potentially other energy-poor advanced countries, along with EMDEs that are richly endowed with renewables. Pillar 4 would include the main custodians of the planet’s natural capital. Enabling these coalitions will require EU leadership.
Topic:
Climate Change, Economics, Industrial Policy, Trade, Sustainability, Decarbonization, and Green Transition
Political Geography:
Europe