Carbon Critical

Efforts to mitigate climate damage are not going well ahead of COP26. But they could also be going much worse.

A Chinese announcement made clear that coal power is finished. But there’s a way to go before the same can be said of oil and gas.

Price-based or quantity-based mechanisms, which offer the more effective and fairer way to achieve carbon neutrality? In fact, the debate is somewhat artificial—EU climate policy needs both.

All the German parties want credit for raising climate targets. But none wants to be blamed for raising carbon prices to achieve them.

The ruling by the German constitutional court that the country’s climate law is unconstitutional is causing German politicians to press fast forward on the radical change needed to protect the climate.

Phasing out a particular fuel source can prove tricky. The experiences of the United Kingdom with coal and Germany with nuclear power are harbingers of fuel exit debates to come.

When it comes to climate policy, coal power and the EU’s proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism will likely cause friction within the EU-US-China triangle this year. But all sides have shown that they can work together.

Carbon dioxide removal is on the agenda, even if most politicians won’t admit it.

One of the reasons advanced for building the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline is that it’s needed for a cleaner hydrogen future. But such arguments don’t add up.

The European Union is getting ready to introduce a so-called carbon border tax. But such a mechanism will not be easy to implement and has some pitfalls.

In the Brexit negotiations presently on knife’s edge, climate issues play a minor role. However, concerns around them mirror the obstacles. Both sides should realize they are essentially on the same team.

In the bid to tackle global warming, achieving net-zero carbon dioxide emissions would be good. Net-zero greenhouse gas emissions would be even better.