Steven P.M. de Waal, PhD’s Post

▶ Carbon markets: the difficult balancing act of pricing emissions 📰 Excited to share my latest article for Energy Connects, the source for up-to-the-minute global energy news and info brought by dmg events, on a ❗crucial topic in the fight against 🌟climate change 💬 Key highlights: 📈 The emergence of carbon markets as a crucial policy tool 🔍Scrutiny of their effectiveness in driving meaningful action ☑Insights from industry experts on the need to align markets' mechanisms with global climate goals 🎤 Featured experts: 🔹Victoria Cuming, Global Head of Policy at BloombergNEF: comparative analysis of carbon market effectiveness 🔹Emma Coker, Head of European Carbon at BloombergNEF: only 8% of carbon markets/taxes meet 2050 net-zero price levels 🔹Ben McWilliams, Affiliate Fellow at Bruegel - Improving economic policy: evolution of carbon markets, including the EU ETS benchmark 👉 Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/dJUpdPYV #CarbonMarkets #ClimateChange #SustainableEnergy #NetZero #Carbon Nour Eltigani Chiranjib Sengupta Previous stories and columns here: https://lnkd.in/dvCrkjuP

No what the EU needs to do is realise that the 2030 and 2050 carbon emmisions targets are unobtainable and should be changed to 2040 and 2060 respectively .

🌍 New Publication: How Asymmetric Policies Impact Emissions and Energy Trade 🌍 Sara Giarola Adam Hawkes David Daniels Ilkka Keppo Baltazar Solano-Rodriguez Peter Johnston Nick Macaluso Excited to share our latest work, "Effects of Asymmetric Policies to Achieve Emissions Reduction on Energy Trade: A North American Perspective". You can read the full-text here: https://lnkd.in/gCk_u__y Why this research matters: With U.S. elections signaling potential shifts under Donald Trump, this paper shows how uncoordinated carbon policies in North America can increase global emissions and disrupt energy markets. Key findings include: a) Policy misalignment raises emissions by over 10% in some scenarios. b) Asymmetric carbon pricing incentivizes coal use and fossil fuel trade distortions. c) Harmonized policies are more cost-effective and reduce inefficiencies. Collaboration across the U.S., Canada, and Mexico is crucial to avoid these pitfalls. This research underscores the urgent need for policy alignment to drive meaningful climate action. I’d love to hear your thoughts: Can North America align its climate strategies despite political divides? #ClimatePolicy #EnergyTrade #Decarbonization #EnergyModeling

Exciting and relevant: new publication by Dr. Ivan Garcia Kerdan I’m thrilled to revisit the work of Ivan Garcia Kerdan, who has just published an article tackling a crucial topic for emissions and energy trade dynamics in North America: "Effects of Asymmetric Policies to Achieve Emissions Reduction on Energy Trade: A North American Perspective." 🔗 You can read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gCk_u__y Why does this research matter? Misaligned climate policies could increase global emissions by up to 10% in some scenarios and create distortions in fossil fuel trade. This highlights the urgent need for harmonized policies to achieve meaningful and efficient climate action. I’d like to invite Andres Cardena,  Jose Alberto Perez, and Edmundo Gabaldon, whom I had the pleasure of working with and who have extensive industry global experience, to share their insights on these findings. I’m sure their feedback will enrich this discussion and help amplify the relevance of this important work. Looking forward to your thoughts!

It was a pleasure to host our first Cornell Club of the UK impact themed panel last week on mobilising capital for climate action as a warm-up event ahead of London Climate Action Week. Visiting Cornell professor Alissa M. Kleinnijenhuis shared her excellent latest research, showing that phasing out coal globally would result in a net benefit of $130-287 trillion in present value terms of a 2024-2100 time horizon (already yielding a net benefit by 2030). It would only "cost" 0.3-0.6% of G7+EU country GDP per year to reap these benefits. Alternatively we could finance it upfront with a 2-4% of GDP rise in sovereign debt. The question is no longer whether it's expensive or not to take climate action - empirically it is a clear choice to eliminate as much fossil fuel energy as possible - but rather why we continue to accept NOT taking action, and how we can reverse this. Basak Odemis and Ergem Senyuva Tohumcu shared their own excellent perspectives on the topic and related questions. A big thank you to all for joining and you can read the full writeup of the discussion below. Read the excellent research here: https://lnkd.in/e3Fe8eBb

Pleased today to have delivered copies of my new book, The Finance Sector and Climate Change: Constraining Credit for Coal, just published by #CambridgeScholars. As described on their website: A common claim is that fossil fuel interests thwart sound policy on climate change, but this book shows any funding of contrarian groups is outdone by the financial sector, supporting the conduct of science, the operation of environment groups, alarmist media reporting and the conduct of politics to serve the activities in which they have invested–initially natural gas but latterly renewables. This support is often channelled through ‘pass through’ funds in what has been described as ‘philanthrocapitalism’. One example is Covering Climate Now, a cartel of news media outlets, ensuring a perception of ‘climate crisis’ is maintained–despite the absence of evidence of a crisis. The result has been the imposition of restrictions of finance for coal by the World Bank and by the OECD, with the latter described for the first time in this book. This has worked to the advantage of China and harmed the developing world. https://lnkd.in/gETpGuJG

Business Day's view | The government has made it clear implementation of the just energy transition, which will see the country move to a low-carbon energy sector to help cut greenhouse gas emissions in line with its global climate commitments, will happen at an affordable and “appropriate pace” to ensure nobody gets left behind.  #justenergytransition #climatepolicy https://lnkd.in/dqeRZR46

There is an emerging consensus on the need for a “just” transition; but how to achieve it is not always clear.    To discuss, and respond to this need, the “Policy Dialogue for Just Energy Transitions: Identifying Pathways to Prosperity Post Fossil Fuels” was held in Salzburg, Austria between 8 and 12 September 2024, co-hosted by Climate Strategies and Salzburg Global, and organised alongside our partners from the Stanley Center for Peace and Security and the Windward Fund.   The programme brought together policymakers, decisionmakers, and leading researchers from ten oil and gas producing countries as well as representatives from international organisations. They shared evidence-based approaches to the transition from fossil fuel dependent economies to inclusive, equitable, and sustainable systems.   Building off the discussions, we published five in-country research briefs exploring just energy transitions in oil and gas producing nations, and one providing insights on international just energy transitions. Peter Newell, research lead and author of the international briefing, summarised the value of such dialogues.   Read the briefing on International O&G transitions here: https://lnkd.in/eZ2z3fev

Always nice to see international reporting on CCfDs and good to continue discussions on interesting topics with Michael Pahle, especially if it's via quotes of us both in the Financial Times as an intermediary ;). To sum up my view, and a bit longer than my quote in the article: - I don't see a water bed effect from CCfDs as an issue: 1) in the short-term volumes are small 2) in the medium to long-term CCfDs are political commitment device: falling CO2 prices are costly for governments. 3) Showing the viability of tech options in industry and higher sectoral decarbonisation speeds allow policy makers to tighten caps. 4) Looking back we never had a water bed effect even for huge renwable volumes - policy action, e.g. via the MSR, prevented that. - Electricity and hydrogen markets suffer from similar market failures as the ETS (which is why CfDs are also highly popular in electricity markets. And there basically is no real H2 market yet). It will probably be cheaper for the government to provide this hedge, rather than let the risks be priced in, and concluding 15 year contracts based on today's hydrogen prices. - Incentives for innovation are far from muted: hedging for fuels in the CCfDs is done according to values specified in the bids. If companies manage to run their process more efficiently/differently and achieve their 🎯, the better for them. If their CO2 strike price is to low for such innovation and they would profit from high ETS prices, there's an exit option with a 3 year notice period in the contracts once ETS prices exceed the strike price (but also lose their downside hedge).

There is no single pathway to decarbonisation. Amidst increasing geopolitical fragmentation, how can we leverage scalable policy levers and innovative climate solutions to fast-track the green transition? Hear from panellists like Tim Gould, Chief Energy Economist, International Energy Agency (IEA), on what needs to be done and how innovative business and investment models, new technologies and progressive policies can accelerate decarbonisation at #Ecosperity Week by Temasek on 15 April 2024. Learn more about the programme and speakers here: https://lnkd.in/gsFHYUru