Sandbag

What do you know about Sandbag? Our LinkedIn community is growing, and we’d like to (re)introduce ourselves to all of you who have recently joined us! Who are we? ➡️ We are a climate policy think tank conducting data-driven, evidence-based advocacy aimed at driving impactful #EU climate policies. How do we do it? ➡️ We produce reports, policy briefs, and recommendations, covering areas from carbon markets to industrial emissions reductions. ➡️ We develop advanced tools to model emissions, track the impacts of EU policies, and test various decarbonisation scenarios. ➡️ All of these efforts support our advocacy for smart and effective EU #climatepolicy (e.g. through our contribution to expert groups with the European Commission). Swipe through the carousel to learn more about our approach, current work areas, and the tools we’ve developed. 👇

Amidst further dither and delay, rumours continue to circulate around a softening of the EU’s climate targets. The European Commission is seemingly considering adding in “flexibilities” in how it achieves its #2040target of a net 90% reduction in GHG emissions relative to 1990. ❗However these flexibilities would contravene clear recommendations from the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC) and could compromise the EU’s progress towards achieving its climate ambitions. 👇Here we outline the issues with the four "flexibilities" being considered. #EUClimateTargets #EuropeanGreenDeal #ClimateActionNow

📢 Our reaction to The Steel and Metals Action Plan #SMAP 👇 ✅ We welcome that the Commission identifies key areas for competitive #steelmaking, such as: 👉Increasing affordable renewable electricity and PPAs. 👉Accelerating grid connections and the uptake of renewable and low-carbon hydrogen. 👉Enhancing circularity for low-emission steelmaking. 👉The importance of public procurement and lead markets. ⚠️ Yet, the plan contains significant limitations: 👉 It ignores the reality and limitations of these policies to enable competitive #ironmaking capacity in the current industrial regions at the necessary scale and speed. 👉 It does not advance strategic partnerships for green iron trade. Hence, the solution space is narrowed to trade defence measures and massive state aid, pushing the costs onto consumers. This limitation will not enable a phase-out of Blast Furnaces in line with the Paris Agreement. While the plan is supposed to provide a pathway for the European #industry to decarbonise competitively, it removes critical options for transition pathways. The industry stalemate continues – prolonging emissions. Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe Beyond Fossil Fuels E3G EPICO KlimaInnovation European Environmental Bureau SteelWatch Constantin Johnson

Let’s discuss the European #steel transition! 2025 is a pivotal year for Europe’s steel sector. With the recent communication on the Clean Industrial Deal (#CID) and the upcoming Steel and Metals Action Plan, it’s time to dive into how policies will impact the future of European steel. In this context, Sandbag - alongside a broad coalition of civil society organisations - has signed The State of the European Steel Transition report. This report informs the policy debate and guides the shift toward a climate-neutral steel #industry. Curious about its content? ➡️ Join us for the report launch and be among the first to know what’s next. The event will feature high-level speakers from civil society, political institutions, and industry, offering diverse and informative perspectives. Event details 👇 📅 March 25, 2025 🕙 10:00 AM (CET) 📍 Brussels / Online Learn more and register here 👉 https://lnkd.in/ezVz4au6 The event is organised by E3G and Beyond Fossil Fuels with the support of the European Climate Foundation. #climatepolicy

We're #hiring! 💼 Do you want to enhance your experience in #communications while contributing to climate policy? We're looking for an enthusiastic #intern to strengthen our communications and expand our outreach. Key responsibilities: ➡️ Oversee and reinforce our digital communications (social media, website, newsletters) ➡️ Collaborate with policy officers and data analysts on key campaigns, policy briefs and reports What we’re looking for: ➡️ Experience or qualifications in communications ➡️ Proficiency with essential tools (WordPress, Canva, Microsoft Office) ➡️ A proven track record in growing social media visibility ➡️ Bonus: Web development or data visualization skills, NGO experience, or some knowledge of EU climate policy Interested in learning more? Click here to apply now 👉 https://lnkd.in/eRYwWvs4 #vacancy #brussels

🚨 The #CleanIndustrialDeal is here! 🚨 We welcome the Clean Industrial Deal to strengthen EU’s ambition on climate action. The Clean Industrial Deal will set the framework for unlocking investments, creating lead markets for low-carbon products, and accelerate deployment of affordable renewables.     ➡ FINANCING  ✅ The Commission will support investments by: (1) increasing EU-level funding, (2) mobilising private capital, and (3) simplifying State aid rules. However:  ❗ If not tied to strict conditions and strategic coordination for cost-effective and competitive emission reductions, public funds and Innovation Fund money risk becoming stranded capital or new gas-based lock-ins.    ➡ CIRCULAR ECONOMY  ✅ We support the ambition of the EU to become a world leader on circular economy by 2030 by adopting a Circular Economy Act in 2026 to increase the circular material use rate from 11.8% today to 24% by 2030.    ➡ ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE ELECTRICITY  ✅ The swift implementation of the Action Plan for Affordable Energy is key to lower European electricity costs and improve grid infrastructure, energy system integration and system flexibility.  ❗ Parts of the proposal risk having the opposite effect, such as supporting the development and deployment of small modular reactors (SMRs) and foreign LNG export infrastructure. The proposal also lacks a strong commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.    🔎 We will be closely following the implementation of the Clean Industrial Deal and its legislative components, and advocate for competitive climate action efforts. Constantin Johnson

Today the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change published its much-anticipated 329-page report “Scaling up Carbon Dioxide Removals – Recommendations for navigating risks and opportunities in the EU” Our reaction to recommendations on the subject of possible ETS integration: ✅ The report reassuringly states that “direct and unconstrained integration of removals into the EU ETS is not a viable option” due to the high risk of mitigation deterrence ✅The unsuitability of temporary removals for ETS integration are also recognised: ”integrating temporary removals into the existing EU ETS would create significant risks and governance challenges that cannot be effectively managed in the short term” ❓ The Advisory Board also recommends “gradually” integrating permanent removals into the EU Emissions Trading System but the recommendation is notably vague and several issues relevant to integration are not well addressed: - The recommendation for integration is short of practical details and anticipated timescales beyond the need for "gradual and conditional integration". This is a telling reflection of uncertainties associated with the development of permanent removal technologies. - Chair of the ESABCC Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer states in the accompanying press release: ‘Once a robust certification framework is in place, integrating permanent removals into the EU ETS will help balance reductions and removals in a cost-effective way". This narrative is a worrying oversimplification of the path ahead for CDR in the EU. While putting a robust monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) framework in place is a crucial (and sizeable) step, several other obstacles must also be overcome. Most notably permanent removals need to mature and demonstrate real net removal benefits at scale before integration can be considered. Sustainability constraints must also be carefully considered and the “conditional” aspect of integration must not be overlooked. - The Advisory Board recommends an intermediary institution which “should manage supply and demand of removal credits, including the conditions, volumes and timing by which different removal methods are integrated”. However, several issues related to this are not addressed: o  The presence of an intermediary institution does not automatically prevent mitigation deterrence. Managing the supply and demand of removals will be difficult in practice and negates the benefit of integrating them in the first place. o  The key advantage of using a market is to let 'natural' forces attract private investment where it is most cost-effective, by arbitrage between technologies. If supply of removals is controlled, this optimisation role is lost and the on-sale of removal units in the market is not a driving force for investment, calling into question the benefits of integrating removals at all.

We were pleased to participate in ERCST’s roundtable for the launch of their report on the future of the #EUETS. We made the following remarks: ➡️Using #CarbonDioxideRemovals to reduce costs of ETS compliance (until 2040) is a bad idea: -         We’ve done the maths: there should be enough surplus allowances for the ETS to meet its cap without #CDR. -         Carbon credits could harm the environmental integrity of the ETS. -         We’ve made that mistake in the 2010s, when the import of CERs sent carbon prices down to €3: it took 10 years for the market to recover. ➡️Losses in EU competitiveness/production can’t be blamed on the ETS: costs to EU industry plants so far have been very low or even negative, thanks to free allocation and indirect cost compensation. This is not to say the ETS is perfect, there are still things to fix: ➡️#FreeAllocation sets bad incentives: -         FA rewards plants that do not transition more than those that do. -         FA rewards processes like blast furnaces and not the use of scrap, which increases our dependence on imported ores, while the EU exports 20m scrap every year. -         Distortions created by FA trickle down the value chain, as finished products made from materials that grant more free permits are more competitive, e.g. houses made from concrete rather than from bricks, stone, timber etc. -         FA based on output results in productivism, as it rewards the production of large quantities and discourages savings or #circularity. -         FA carries some degree of absurdity, as the production of intermediary products (e.g. hydrogen) is rewarded even if they are wasted or don’t improve the overall carbon footprint. -         FA is a source of bureaucracy, as demonstrated by the complexity of the Free Allocation Regulation and Activity Level Change Regulation. -         FA tends to push prices up, not down, as the allowances distributed for free often end up sitting in the registries of industry plants and fail to circulate towards the demand. Moreover, FA dampens the carbon price signals that industry should respond to.   ➡️Replacing free allocation with the CBAM will not cost industry: when EUA are no longer free and the CBAM kicks in, costs will be recouped thanks to higher selling prices in EU, as both domestic and foreign producers will bear those carbon costs. ➡️The CBAM and free allocation phase-out are good for EU competitiveness, the EC should go ahead with this plan! https://lnkd.in/eMiTvatd

Dive deep into the latest research on #carbonremovals 👇 This Wednesday, Sandbag's industrial decarbonisation analyst, Duncan Woods, will join Anne Merfort and Jessica Strefler for an in-depth #webinar around the paper "Separating CO2 Emission from Removal Targets Comes with Limited Cost Impacts". This webinar is part of the UPTAKE EU-funded research project on #CDR methods and knowledge, coordinated by the CMCC Foundation - Centro Euro Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici. 🗓️ Click the link below to register now!

Want to stay up-to-date on the latest published research on #carbonremovals? 🗓️ Join us next Wednesday 12 February, from 14:00 to 15:00 CET for the next UPTAKE webinar on carbon dioxide removals (#CDR)! ➡️ Duncan Woods, Industrial Decarbonisation Analyst at Sandbag, will be joining Anne Merfort and Jessica Strefler from PIK - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research for a discussion on their new paper “Separating CO₂ Emissions from Removal Targets Comes with Limited Cost Impacts”. Register here and join an in-depth discussion on CDR 👉 https://lnkd.in/daxvb9Wj CMCC Foundation - Centro Euro Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici #uptakewebinar