Climate Policy Consulting

🌍 We Can’t Afford to Get Climate Policy Wrong—A Look at the Data Behind What Really Works 🌍 In the race against time to combat climate change, bold promises are everywhere. But here’s the critical question: Are the policies being implemented actually reducing emissions at the scale we need? A groundbreaking study published in Science, cuts through the noise and delivers the insights we desperately need. Evaluating 1,500 climate policies from around the world, the research identifies the 63 most effective ones—policies that have delivered tangible, significant reductions in emissions. What’s striking is that the most successful strategies often involve combinations of policies, rather than single initiatives. Think of it as the ultimate teamwork: when policies like carbon pricing, renewable energy mandates, and efficiency standards are combined thoughtfully, the impact is far greater than any one policy could achieve on its own. It’s a powerful reminder that for climate solutions the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts. Moreover, the study’s use of counterfactual emissions pathways is a game changer. By showing what would have happened without these policies, it provides a clear, quantifiable measure of their effectiveness. This is exactly the kind of rigorous evaluation we need to ensure that every policy counts, especially when we’re working against the clock. If we’re serious about meeting the Paris Agreement’s targets, we need to focus on what works—and this research offers a clear roadmap. Let’s champion policies that have proven to make a difference, because we don’t have time to waste on anything less. 🔗 Full study in the comments #ClimateAction #Sustainability #PolicyEffectiveness #ParisAgreement #NetZero #ClimateScience

Only a fraction of climate policy interventions produces significant results, according to a big study published in 'Science' yesterday. The study assessed 1500 policies (e.g., changes in subsidies and taxes) implemented between 1998 and 2022 across 41 countries. Only 63 policies showed large effects on reduced emissions (so-called 'breaks'). ❗We have a 'climate ambition gap' (policies do not aim high enough), but we also have a significant 'climate outcome gap' (those policies that are implemented often do not produce significant enough results). ❗ Key take aways: 1️⃣ Taxation and price incentives are by far the most effective policy instruments to achieve emission breaks. "It [taxation] stands out as the only policy instrument that achieves near equal or larger effect size as a stand-alone policy across all sectors." 2️⃣ Successful emissions reductions usually rely on mixes of different interventions (with tax and price incentives being part of the mix). Market-based instruments and regulations (e.g., product bans) need to be aligned and work together (e.g., banning fossil cars, increasing the price of gasoline, and subsidising e-mobility). 3️⃣ Most successful policy interventions occur in the building sector, followed by transport , industry, and electricity. Success rates vary strongly by sector and policymakers should therefore contextualise interventions. Successful climate policies need the right mix of instruments and have to include taxation and pricing measures to show significant outcomes! Full study (open access): https://lnkd.in/d7GdU6v3 #climatechange, #sustainability, #esg

Potential synergies and trade-offs between climate action and the SDGs 🌎 Climate change mitigation measures can have varied impacts on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as illustrated by the matrix of blue and red bars. Blue bars represent potential synergies where efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions simultaneously contribute to SDG targets. Red bars highlight trade-offs that arise when mitigation strategies undermine certain development objectives. The length of each bar indicates the relative strength of the relationship, while the color shade reflects the level of confidence in that assessment. In the energy supply sector, the shift toward low-carbon technologies tends to yield positive outcomes such as improved air quality, economic diversification, and enhanced energy access. However, trade-offs may occur when large-scale infrastructure projects affect local communities, disrupt ecosystems, or require additional land and water resources. Similar complexities appear in energy demand interventions, where efficiency gains and electrification policies can support decent work opportunities but may demand significant up-front investment and workforce reskilling. Land-based mitigation options often provide notable climate and ecosystem benefits, but they also intersect with agriculture, land rights, and biodiversity protection. Excessive reliance on bioenergy crops, for instance, can challenge food security and local livelihoods if planted at scale without proper safeguards. Balanced policymaking is essential to ensure climate efforts do not negatively affect fundamental social and environmental priorities outlined in the SDGs. These considerations are particularly relevant for businesses, as the private sector increasingly aligns growth strategies with sustainability objectives. Assessing and addressing both synergies and trade-offs can inform risk management, long-term planning, and stakeholder engagement. Sound understanding of potential conflicts between climate goals and other development targets supports responsible investment decisions and can strengthen corporate reputation, reduce legal risks, and foster resilience in global value chains. Strategic approaches that integrate multidimensional impact assessments, stakeholder consultations, and cross-sector collaborations can enhance the positive interactions between climate mitigation and SDG outcomes. Such approaches also minimize unintended consequences that could arise from well-intentioned but narrowly focused interventions. By comprehensively evaluating the interconnections among climate measures and the SDGs, decision makers can guide future actions toward balanced, resilient, and inclusive pathways for sustainable development. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #SDGs

As batteries are deployed at scale in electric vehicles (EVs), their costs fall, enabling ever-wider deployment and further cost declines,. The relationship between clean power and transport electrification is a powerful example of that the energy transition is not a series of isolated changes in different sectors. Instead, it is an interconnected system, where progress in one area can catalyse shifts elsewhere. Shared technologies can create reinforcing feedbacks that accelerate decarbonisation across multiple fronts, generating cross-sector synergies. In our new article for Carbon Brief we argue that it is because the global shift to clean energy is far more than a simple technological transition. It’s a complex, dynamic process—full of feedback loops and non-linear change—that can either accelerate or impede progress. 🔄 We highlight how reinforcing feedback loops have driven exponential growth in solar and wind, and why early-stage policy support is so crucial for emerging clean technologies. ⚡ But we also discuss the “renewable cannibalisation” effect, where the very success of renewables can undermine their own economics—unless market design and flexibility solutions keep pace. 🔗 Most importantly, we show how cross-sector synergies—like the interplay between clean power, batteries, and electrification—can unlock even faster decarbonisation if policymakers take a systems-thinking approach. Our key message: Climate policy needs to move beyond linear models and embrace the complexity of real-world transitions. Recognising and harnessing feedback loops can help governments design smarter, more effective interventions. Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/eB2CV9-E The article was based on a briefing I shared yesterday that was led by Simon Sharpe at S-Curve Economics CIC, Max Collett 柯墨, Pete Barbrook-Johnson, me at Environmental Change Institute (ECI), University of Oxford & Oriel College, Oxford & the Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP) and Michael Grubb at UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources.

“About 10 years ago, in a meeting with oil CEOs in Calgary, I heard it for the first time - ‘It’s not about production, it’s about emissions.’ The statement had appeal. The idea was that if we focus not on limiting production of fossil fuels but on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, industry could work with environmentalists to mitigate climate change…. ….Focusing on capturing emissions is clearly failing us. What we produce today will be what we use tomorrow. This doesn’t mean turning off the taps overnight but it does mean stopping expansion of fossil fuels, and managing a planned wind down that leaves no one behind…. …We have to stop pretending we are “in a transition” and “phasing out fossil fuels” while we are building more of the problem. The obvious solution is to stop expanding fossil fuels in a world on fire. That is, it’s time to cut with both halves of the scissors: emissions and production. That means, as both the International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have confirmed, no new oil, gas or coal projects and a robust plan to decommission existing infrastructures. It means divesting from fossil fuels. It means absolute limits to emissions and a production decline. It means having the courage to break rank and lead with a new climate mantra, one that represents rather than buries the urgency of the crisis.” Must read from Tzeporah Berman. https://lnkd.in/eAyNZ5xA

A new study published in Science reveals that while 1,500 climate policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions have been implemented globally over the past two decades, only 63 policies, or about 4%, have substantially reduced emissions. Most successful emissions reductions were achieved through price instruments like carbon pricing, energy taxes, and subsidy reforms, often combined across multiple national policies rather than relying on a single approach. Researchers found if every country were to adopt best practices, up to 41% of the emissions gap could be closed by 2030. However, the study is not without its limitations, with researchers noting the analysis' exclusion of agriculture and land use policy due to insufficient data as well as the lack of representation of many countries Global South, especially those in Africa and Latin America. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/eqViJE59 via The New York Times

Scientists from PIK have delivered a groundbreaking evaluation of climate policy measures covering the last two decades. The study unveils the first comprehensive global evaluation of 1,500 climate policy measures from 41 countries across six continents, providing a detailed impact analysis of the wide range of climate policy measures implemented. The findings reveal a sobering reality: many policy measures have failed to achieve the necessary scale of emission reductions, with only 63 instances of successful climate policies, leading to average emission reductions of 19%, identified. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the key characteristic of these successful cases appears to be the inclusion of tax and price incentives in well-designed policy mixes. An accompanying interactive website, the “Climate Policy Explorer,” offers a comprehensive overview of the results, analysis and methods, and is available here: https://lnkd.in/efTeQBPb. Paper here: https://lnkd.in/eJu5vMuy

The success of climate policies hinges on the right mix of instruments, and taxation and price incentives are the most successful in reducing emissions. This concludes the recent PIK - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) gGmbH study that analyzed over 1,500 #ClimatePolicy instruments across 41 countries from 1998 to 2022 focusing on their effect on emissions reduction. The researchers identified only 63 policy mixes that achieved significant emissions reductions of at least 5%. This raises the crucial question: which national climate policies are truly effective? By examining the effects of pricing, regulation, subsidies, and information in the building, electricity, industry, and transportation sectors, the research shows that subsidies and regulation alone do not reduce emissions. Instead, they only do so in combination with tax and pricing incentives, as policy mixes work best. From my experience, energy and agriculture sectors demonstrate how sustainability and economic goals go hand in hand. Policymakers should focus on tax incentives and innovation, not just regulation. For example, promoting agricultural innovations that offer carbon-neutral alternatives to conventional fertilizers are a helpful measure for farmers and industry alike. These insights are crucial for policymakers, and anyone interested in #ClimatePolicy. To develop truly effective policies and reduce bureaucracy, we need more research like this to guide our efforts. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/eJPWQhmm #Sustainability #EmissionsReduction #ClimatePolicy #PIK #MCC

As the Albanese government gears up to announce its 2035 emissions target, it would do well to listen to climate scientists’ warnings that over-reliance on offsets isn’t good enough—and that a strong target will deliver substantial economic benefits. At the end of the day, the scientific reality of the consequences of rising emissions will prevail over politics, nor the creative, shonky accounting of many carbon offset technologies. Carbon offsets should be an absolutely last resort, and cannot substitute the bold, decisive action needed to slash emissions across our economy—something that will also help grow new export industries, and attract green investment. The science is clear on the need to phase out fossil fuels and quickly cut emissions—the only barrier is political will. It’s now up to the government to rise to the occasion with sorely needed leadership to stand up to vested interests, and deliver a safe future for us all. https://lnkd.in/gd9gK223