ABSTRACT In a landmark decision from 2024, Denmark became the first country in the world to introduce carbon pricing on agricultural emissions. The ambition of getting to net-zero carbon emissions requires substantial reductions in the agricultural sector. But reducing emissions here is not straightforward. As Danish agriculture is a major industry with substantial exports, it raises the question: what brought about this dramatic and surprising policy change? Based on document analysis and interviews, this article explores explanations from historical institutionalism, political economy and politicization literature. The article finds that adopting long-term and clearly formulated net-zero targets required all sectors to contribute to emission reductions. This changed the political economy, allowing for sectoral cost profiles for climate transitions to be compared, with policy discussions on how to utilize first-mover advantages. Climate policy was high on the governmental policy agenda, and positive politicization created an opportunity for radical climate policy development. Crucially, a green transition of the agricultural sector is seen as a competitive advantage by the sector itself. Findings indicate that carbon pricing in agriculture needs to be part of a larger policy portfolio, with substantial funding and revenue recycling. Key policy insights Adopting a net-zero target changed the political economy of the Danish climate transition. This allowed cost-profiles for climate transitions across sectors to be compared and for debating how to utilize first-mover advantages. Political competition for ambitious climate policy made radical policy development possible. Still, it is crucial that actors utilize the opportunity while it is still open. Carbon pricing for agriculture may be enabled by being part of a larger policy portfolio, with a broad policy mix, substantial funding and revenue recycling. The European Commission has displayed an interest in developing a carbon pricing mechanism for agriculture. Consequently, the EU may look to the Danish example.

ABSTRACT The global carbon neutrality objective is a key upshot of the Paris Agreement climate goals. Its translation to the national level has been central to climate policy since then and, notably, country commitments have flourished over the years. However, there is still limited scientifically robust and policy-relevant evidence on national pathways to net-zero that captures the specifics of national circumstances. Such insights would be critical to ensure that carbon neutrality pledges are credible and actionable. This paper presents the methodological approach developed under the Deep Decarbonization Pathways (DDP) initiative to support the elaboration by in-country experts of national scenarios exploring long-term transformations consistent with carbon neutrality, and to enable a constructive dialogue on carbon neutrality with a large set of decisionmakers. We present carbon neutrality scenario results for 7 large emerging economies developed with this method. They display how each country can define its own pathway to net-zero, considering its national circumstances and in a way that preserves key domestic socio-economic priorities. They display some country-specific patterns but also highlight key common transformations for carbon neutrality, including moderation of final energy uses, a steady decrease in the use of fossil fuels for all purposes and substitution of low GHG energy forms, and a steady increase in the absorption capacities in diverse land uses. To trigger these net-zero transformations, national public decision makers should evolve national development policy packages according to the three following policy insights. Key Policy Insights Update existing economic and non-economic policy instruments in sectors where commercially available and low-carbon solutions exist and most short-term emission reductions are available: power generation, passenger transport, and the land use sector. Analyse inertias in national net-zero transformations and implement measures to avoid lock-ins, develop and encourage new infrastructure, technologies, lifestyles and institutions that are necessary to achieve deeper and longer-term emission reductions in all sectors. It reinforces the importance of having a long-term policy perspective when taking short-term decisions. Adopt measures in climate policy packages to manage the socio-economic challenges of the transition and accompany structural changes in the economic systems to ensure a desirable transition to net-zero.

ABSTRACT Just Transitions (JT) toward sustainable, equitable, and low-carbon futures have become a central focus of global climate policy, exemplified by initiatives such as Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JET-Ps) and the UNFCCC Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP). For some actors, JT is understood in sectoral terms, focusing on energy transitions. Others emphasise more transformative approaches grounded in global structural reform and climate justice. Although existing scholarship has mapped JT framings in the literature, across national climate policy and non-academic frameworks, no study has yet examined how individuals shaping global climate policy themselves understand and prioritise JT. Approximately 130 Blue Zone-accredited attendees (i.e. those with access to the formal negotiations) were surveyed at COP28 in Dubai, including party delegates, policy-makers, civil society representatives and others. The survey was structured around five JT typologies – from least to most transformative – drawn from existing literature, as well two novel typologies: one centered on energy, another on sustainable development. Results indicate a strong preference for approaches extending beyond energy to encompass broader sustainable development concerns, with policy coherence identified as a crucial governance principle. Respondents also favour more transformative policies around global structural reform and climate finance for lower-income countries, while the most prioritized justice dimension is accountability and responsibility for climate change. The results also show differences in preferences between participants from high- and lower-income countries, with the latter favouring more transformative notions of JT. However, overall, JT preferences straddle multiple typologies, suggesting that policy mixes delivering broader sustainable development outcomes could provide an effective and politically viable way to reconcile competing views. By exploring the perspectives of those shaping global climate policy, the paper enriches scholarly discussions on JT framings, while offering guidance and directions for the ongoing JTWP negotiations amidst the latest COP30 decision to establish a global just transition mechanism.