Sustt: Polluters to pay, Long arm of the law, plenty more fish? Farewell to single-use, West Virginia vs EPA.

Polluters to pay

Denmark has introduced the highest corporate carbon tax in Europe

by Katie Chan (Sustainability Specialist)

What’s happening??Denmark has?set the highest carbon tax?in Europe to help the country reach its 2030 target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 70% compared to 1990 levels. The levy will be DKK1,125 ($159) per mt by 2030 for companies participating in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). Firms not subject to the ETS will pay a DKK750 carbon tax.?

Why does this matter??Taxes like these have significant potential to accelerate corporate climate action, which is needed given MSCI’s latest Net-Zero Tracker report notes just 46% of listed companies are?on track?to reach the goals outlined in the Paris Agreement. Listed firms currently produce emissions at a rate that would increase temperatures by 2.9C compared to pre-industrial levels.

Targeting emissions generated by corporates, Denmark’s levy is expected to play a key role in contributing to its efforts to achieve its national emissions targets and broader EU climate commitments. As a result of the new tax, the country’s carbon emissions could be reduced by 3.7 million tonnes annually by 2030, according to government estimates.

Initially?proposed?in April this year, the tax will apply on various scales to companies both inside and outside of the EU ETS. The updated price is a substantial step up from the country’s previous?regulations, which taxed companies around DKK180 per mt of CO2.

How does this fit into Denmark’s climate strategy??Emissions saved under the tax could?make up?around one-third of the 9.4 million tonnes of CO2 that must be cut for Denmark to achieve its 2030 emissions goal. Financially, the tax would impact around 0.15% of Denmark’s GDP, or DKK4bn, from 2030.

While the tax will mostly affect corporates in energy and heavy industry, a similar carbon tax plan targeting sectors such as transportation and agriculture is also expected to be outlined later this year. ???? Read more on the Sustt blog

____________

Long arm of the law

Climate litigation is on the up

The cumulative number of legal cases related to climate change has more than doubled since 2015. About 25% of these have been filed between 2020 and 2022.

As you can see from the infographic above, the majority of climate cases have been filed in the US. Elsewhere, 576 have been filed in 43 other countries or before international/regional courts – including those in the European Union.

Climate litigation is on the rise. ????Read what we've previously written about such lawsuits.

____________

Bite-sized insights

What else we're seeing this week ??

• There aren't plenty more fish in the sea?– The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has called for?stricter regulation?around fishing. Like several foods, the price of fish has risen 25% this year. The rising price increases the risk of oceans being overfished, the FAO said.?Recent studies?have also shown that fisheries are just as likely to be impacted by climate change as agriculture. Against this backdrop, it's perhaps worth paying attention to developments in?lab-grown fish?and?seafood alternatives.
• Farewell to single-use plastic?– Phasing out single-use plastic has been on the?agenda?of many governments in recent times. This past week saw two substantial developments. California's governor signed a law mandating the state to reduce single-use plastic use 25% by 2032 and make 30% of all plastic sold recyclable by 2030. Additionally, India?announced a ban?on using single-use plastic for certain products. The move ignored the lobbying efforts of major food and beverage companies that had argued the ban would be detrimental to them.?
• What does West Virginia v. EPA mean for US climate policy??While the recent Supreme Court decision to limit the EPA’s ability to regulate power sector emissions is certainly a setback for the climate – and could set a precedent for the restriction of federal powers in?other areas?– there is still hope. Legal experts have said the ruling does not prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions in general, although it will take?more work. In the meantime,?scientists?have called on the EPA to classify CO2 as a harmful substance so that it can be regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Here’s?our summary?of the ruling’s implications.

____________

Like what you're reading??Find out more about Curation's services, joining the dots to help you make sense of sustainability. ?????Visit our website.