Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2011After five consecutive years of robust growth, the total value of the global carbon market stalled at $142 billion. Suffering from the lack of post-2012 regulatory clarity, the value of the primary Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) market fell by double-digits for the third year in a row, ending lower than it was in 2005, the first year of the Kyoto protocol. The Assigned Amount Unit (AAU) and the United States Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) markets shrank as well. As these segments declined, the dominance of the European Union Allowances (EUAs) market became more pronounced than ever and the share of the carbon market primarily driven by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) rose to 97 percent, dwarfing the remaining segments of the market. The carbon market growth halted at a particularly inopportune time: 2010 proved to be the hottest on record, while emission levels continued their seemingly inexorable rise. In the end, however, the year may be remembered most for the political opportunities that arose, yet were ultimately failed to materialize in the United States, Japan, Australia, and the Republic of Korea. While the international regulatory environment remains uncertain, national and local initiatives have noticeably picked up and may offer the potential to collectively overcome the international regulatory gap. These initiatives signal that, one way or another, solutions that address the climate challenge will emerge.
-
State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2011After five consecutive years of robust growth, the total value of the global carbon market stalled at $142 billion. Suffering from the lack of post-2012 regulatory clarity, the value of the primary Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) market fell by double-digits for the third year in a row, ending lower than it was in 2005, the first year of the Kyoto protocol. The Assigned Amount Unit (AAU) and the United States Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) markets shrank as well. As these segments declined, the dominance of the European Union Allowances (EUAs) market became more pronounced than ever and the share of the carbon market primarily driven by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) rose to 97 percent, dwarfing the remaining segments of the market. The carbon market growth halted at a particularly inopportune time: 2010 proved to be the hottest on record, while emission levels continued their seemingly inexorable rise. In the end, however, the year may be remembered most for the political opportunities that arose, yet were ultimately failed to materialize in the United States, Japan, Australia, and the Republic of Korea. While the international regulatory environment remains uncertain, national and local initiatives have noticeably picked up and may offer the potential to collectively overcome the international regulatory gap. These initiatives signal that, one way or another, solutions that address the climate challenge will emerge.
-
Equity in Climate Change : An Analytical ReviewHow global emissions reduction targets can be achieved equitably is a key issue in climate change discussions. This paper presents an analytical framework to encompass contributions to the literature on equity in climate change, and highlights the consequences -- in terms of future emissions allocations -- of different approaches to equity. Progressive cuts relative to historic levels -- for example, 80 percent by industrial countries and 20 percent by developing countries -- in effect accord primacy to adjustment costs and favor large current emitters such as the United States, Canada, Australia, oil exporters, and China. In contrast, principles of equal per capita emissions, historic responsibility, and ability to pay favor some large and poor developing countries such as India, Indonesia, and the Philippines, but hurt industrial countries as well as many other developing countries. The principle of preserving future development opportunities has the appeal that it does not constrain developing countries in the future by a problem that they did not largely cause in the past, but it shifts the burden of meeting climate change goals entirely to industrial countries. Given the strong conflicts of interest in defining equity in emission allocations, it may be desirable to shift the emphasis of international cooperation toward generating a low-carbon technology revolution. Equity considerations would then play a role not in allocating a shrinking emissions pie but in informing the relative contributions of countries to generating such a pie-enlarging revolution.