Talk:Emissions trading

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Emissions trading article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Developing countries profiting

The article states that under the Kyoto Protocol countries such as China and India would profit from the sale of emissions credits -- this isn't accurate since credits aren't given to developing countries under Kyoto because those countries aren't required to reduce their emissions.

Much good info on emission trading under Kyoto: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/emissions_trading/items/2731.php Thinksinpictures 07:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- But they can profit (at the United States' expense) through the protocol's CDM (Clean Development Mechanism). 68.164.87.228 01:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] false claims

It is not true that emissions trading "doesn't harm industrial concerns", unless we are comparing emissions trading to traditional regulation. When we impose a pollution cap, we induce firms to undertake costly emissions-reducing procedures. No free lunches. Neither is it true that environmental groups can hoard credits without imposing the same sort of cost, for hoarding credits is just a way to lower the emissions cap.

A counter claim (Developed by Paul Hawken in "The Ecology of Commerce" is that because "dumping carbon into the atmosphere" has been essentially "cost free" at present, it has harmed industrial concerns by increasing costs to future generations, our communities and the non-human environmental services. As such, not having a cost for carbon dumped into the Atmosphere represents a "hidden subsidy" from those who will pay the costs to those who haven't paid - and as Sir Nicholas Stern said in the Stern Report, represents the greatest market failure in history. John D. Croft 12:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The notion that emission of carbon "has harmed industrial concerns by increasing costs to future generations" is unscientific rubbish typical of this way of thinking. No link has ever been established between the emission of carbon gases and anything in the future that might need remedial action of any kind. It is simply fashionable posturing amongst modern socialists and guilt-mongers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.129.40 (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harmful to business

Emission trading schemes are a disaster to small businesses, and the rule of law. They force businesses to compete to buy 'pollution permits', with the obvious results that only the largest businesses can obtain these permits. Furthermore, emission trading essentially allows companies to exempt themselves from pollution laws if they pay can afford to pay a certain fee.


No fair trading

Developing countries have for sure way less money to be spent in reducing gases emissions:only rich countries will be able to successfully stay below the set limits and "sell" emission credits to others. Money can buy extra freedom in not following the rules...once again...am i wrong?

You're absolutely wrong. The entire purpose of emissions trading is to transfer money from productive (ie rich) countries to unproductive (ie poor) countries. Imagine a situation in which Mr. X drives his car 50 miles to work every day, but Mr. Y is unemployed. Mr. Y could then accuse Mr. X of destroying the environment by driving his car. But the oh-so righteous (but poor) Mr Y could "trade" him some emissions credits, for a price. Same exact thing. Countries like Ghana/Sudan/Bolivia/Afghanistan, which have few factories, will receive redistributions of cash from countries like the US and Japan. User:141.151.160.231
Any 'transfer' of resources is incidental, not the purpose. The purpose of emission trading, generally, is simply to reduce emissions as cheaply as possible. The CDM as you may allude to, has as one of its purposes to transfer technology to developing countries, but that's a special case of emissions trading. Jens Nielsen 14:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Eh. Read the article. It's just the spectre of communism with a new reason to live.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.20.122.160 (talk • contribs) .
This kind of polemic has no place in the development of an encyclopedia. It is a right wing POV that runs counter to the purposes of balance needed for Wikipedia. John D. Croft 07:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong. Developing countries can stand to benefit from a carbon trading regime. First and formost since few developing countries actually pollute anywhere near as much as the first world, small investments into infrastructure can yield what are known as CERs, Carbon Emissions Reductions, credits the same as the EU's EUAs. This would allow the developing countries to sell the carbon credits to raise much needed hard currency. Now where the currency goes after the government leaders get their hands on it. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.105.214 (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] any 'revenue neutral' approach, will fail

the current European system is bumbleing along, because nobody is being pinched, every company has enough credits. as soon as somebody has to pay,the arbitrary giveaway system will fail. The only system that will work, will be an auction system, with the aoction price being much like a tax. The tax will hit electrical production, especially harrd. The tax, will become a political issue.--CorvetteZ51 10:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pros/cons of enforcement regimes

I find this description of the relative merits of centralized v. 3rd party enforcement regimes very unhelpful. I can't see why all of the objections to centralized enforcement wouldn't be applicable to third party audits (why are third party audits cheaper than having the government do it directly? surely somebody has to pay? why are 3rd party auditors incorruptible but government auditors aren't?) but the paragraph seems to strongly imply that 3rd party auditing is superior. Am I reading this wrong or do other people have the same objection?

I agree with you. The enforcement section should simply indicate that enforcement is critical and that transparency is important. References should be provided for any statement that is stronger than that. Who's going to do the rewrite?
people are missing the point of the merits of 1st v. 3rd party enforcement, the point is, with third party, the gov't hires less people, so it looks like the costs of the progran is less. Of course, the 'third party employees' don't work for nothing, so they charge industry for their expenses.Ie, an additional burden on industry.CorvetteZ51 05:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] allocation of permits

the needs to be more discussion on how permits get allocated. Keep in mind that giving away permits, is the same as giving away money. In the EU ETS, enough permits are being given away, so nobody has to cut back on carbon.CorvetteZ51 05:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the markets are providing a 'soft landing,' but 2006 credits are trading for over 10 Euros and 2008 credits, when the market begins to have more bite, for over 15. Compare that to a market where there really is no obligation, the Chicago Climate Exchange, where credits are selling for $4. RichWoodward 13:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
credits trading at 6.5 euros, as od 21Dec-2006.CorvetteZ51 12:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
credits trading at 4.70 Euros, 5-Jan-07, there is no logical way to give credits away. CorvetteZ51 10:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
18-May-07 update, credits trading at 0.30 Euro CorvetteZ51 10:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
18-May-07 update, according to prices posted by http://www.evomarkets.com/ 2008 credits are trading at 21.7 Euro and 2009 credits are trading at 22 Euros. Pay attention to the markets that actually have some legitimate standing. There is a fundamental difference between the 2007 market and the years that follow. As I recall 2007 was not binding in the EU and surplus credits in 2007 could not be used in later years, meaning that the price of 2007 credits is not representative of the market fundametals. As I recall, surplus credits from later years can be rolled over, meaning that those prices will almost certainly not collapse. RichWoodward 18:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The existence of trading, does not imply the soundness of the underlying activity. With that said, is there a way to find out who gets permits? Is the system transparent for outsiders, or is it some kimd of secret deal?CorvetteZ51


I don't know how transparent the trading is. Market credibility could be aided by transparency, but it's not the only way to ensure that. If there is sufficient government oversight, then the market will trade real obligations. You suggest above that there's excess supply. But if that were the case the price would be zero -- who would pay for these credits if there's an a abundance of them? RichWoodward 13:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


is anybody stupid enough to think, that this scam will work? C'mon folks, some 'minister' decides how much money he gives yoor company? WTF, the scam only -->appears<-- to be working, because enough credits are given away, so that nobody needs to do anything. 207.53.228.192 02:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Maybe it's my fault - but some one part of this article seems confusing - and I'd really appreciate any clarification. So when you buy credits does that perminately raise your cap? If that is true it seems kind of unfair, as your technically are passing your original cap each year, but you only had to pay that one fine years ago... again really appreciate any helpDaniel()Folsom T|C|U 01:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Daniel, Although not an expert I added a simplified explanation of the whole concept under Talk:Carbon_credit check it out, hope it helps. --Evolve2k 12:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible answer

Yes, when a company buys credits they in essence are increasing their right to pollute. The caps usually are adjusted each year so that a credit purchase only covers a single year or some other limited time frame. Users with surplus credits -- they don't need to pollute as much as allowed -- can either sell the credits or donate them to a nonprofit organization that will "retire" them or remove them from the market. The company can get a tax deduction because the credit has value. ChrisCarsonThompson 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I think I see, so the cap remains the same, it's just like you have to pay a tax on your overproduction. Thank you!--Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 03:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This is also how some carbon offset providers work; they pool donors' contributions / customer payments (depending on whether they're non-profit or for-profit), purchase REC's or similar instruments, and retire those instruments. This effectively lowers the cap, and makes credits more scarce (read: more expensive). Individuals could do this themselves, but a seat on the Chicago Climate Exchange is out of the average citizen's price range. A good offset provider does some research into whose credits they're buying, rather than just blindly buying the cheapest offsets out there. But that's another article. -- A. 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] effects on environment

Alex S gutted this page in his first July 13 edit. I think he was a bit over-zealous. Although some things needed removed, there was a substantially relevent discussion about effects (pro and con) of emissions trading on the evironment prior to his gutting. I suggest an administrator revive the "effects on the environment" section as it existed before Alex S's July 13 2006 edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.216.235.42 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Cap & Trade vs. Baseline & Credit

There is persistent chatter on this page about problems with trading programs. In almost every case the problems can be attributed to the program not satisfying the necessary conditions for cap & trade program. In a Baseline and Credit program, sources that are typically not monitored can generate credits by changing their practices relative to a baseline. For example, a pig farmer captures methane and reduces his emissions -- he gets a credit. A farmer changes tillage and reduces phosphorus run-off, she gets a credit. These are difficult to develop and monitor and, if improperly designed, can create perverse incentives. Does anyone agree with me that a section clarifying this distinction would be useful?

[edit] Carbon Emissions Trading

This was merged from the talk page:

[edit] What Cap?

No country has a cap. Everybody is doing what they want. --CorvetteZ51 11:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Combination with Emissions Trading

  • Maybe this page should be combined with Emissions Trading. The concepts are similar. --Jingshen 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Confusion of permits and credits

I suggest that the following sentence in the first paragraph that describes emission credits should be moved further down the page, after the basic description of the emission cap and permit trading system is complete, to avoid confusing the reader. Also, it is very specific to the Kyoto protocol implementation of emission trading.

The development of a carbon project that provides a reduction in Greenhouse Gas 
emissions is a way by which participating entities may generate tradeable carbon 
credits. Kyoto Protocol provides for this facet of its cap and trade program 
with the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

And perhaps we should discuss the inter-changable use of 'emission permits' and 'emission credits'?

As far as I am aware the emission credit system is an optional add-on to an emission cap and permit trading system. First a government sets a cap on total emissions, then issues (or auctions) permits to emitters. If emitters want to emit more than they have permits for they have to buy additional permits on a market from other emitters. If they emit less, they can sell their permits to other emitters.

I think the CDM mechanism is a mechanism whereby participants outside the main cap and permit trading system (usually in developing countries) can sell emission credits to firms within the system by demonstrating that they carried out a project that resulted in them reducing emissions they would otherwise have emitted. Although it is outside the the emission cap region the emitters within the system can by these overseas credits to make up for any deficit between permits and their actual emissions.

Am I right?

I just noticed that the section 'Cap & trade vs. baseline & credit' describes exactly what I have just said. We could move the description of Kyoto's CDM system into this section. I'll wait and see what people think, I'm not an expert.

Billtubbs 23:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Prices vs. quantities

I've added a section on the important debate about price instruments (taxes) and quantity instruments (cap and trade systems). I think it's highly relevant, but I admit the section is a little too long, and it doesn't need to be under Emission Trading. Perhaps it should be a separate page. Comments welcome.

Billtubbs 00:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I was a bit skeptical about the prices vs. quantities discussion. Seemed relevant, but a bit too involved for this page. I haven't looked, but there might be a page on economic instruments for environmental protection -- that would be a better fit. Alternatively, the discussion could fit better on the environmental econ. page. RichWoodward 13:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I also added some additional critique points to the 'Criticism' section. I got these from some correspondence with Martin Wolfe of the Financial Times in March this year. I think they are fair points and I have tried to phrase them objectively and provide counter-arguments. Comments welcome.

66.183.82.201 02:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] This is not just about Carbon

In my opinion, this article has taken far too much emphasis on carbon markets. This is not the right page for such discussion. There are pages on Carbon Credits and Economics of global warming. Over the next several months, I hope to have time to reshape this page in a fashion that makes it more general. Please respond here if you feel this is inappropriate. RichWoodward 13:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Obscenity of Carbon Trading

Hi Folks

I would be interested in your thoughts on the following article recently published in Australia John D. Croft 01:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"Reading the article by Kevin Smith on the "Obscenity of Carbon Trading" (BBC Viewpoint at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6132826.stm) I would think that I would join or amend the cartoon I saw for August Investments - the ethical trading & investment house. The cartoon said "Carbon Sequestration? That is just another word for 'Business as Usual'!"

It also reminds me of the quote that "If the only tool you have is a hammer - then all problems look like nails!"

I think this is the case with us. Because our economics only works on markets then the answer to every problem is a "market solution". But when we look at not just economics but at the wider field of "political-economy" we see that markets are only just part of the issue.

Free markets are based upon a number of a-priori assumptions -

1. Perfect information - this means "real" information about costs and benefits, not just in the present but projected infinitely into the future. (This requires us all to be omniscient and immortal!)

2. Perfect entry - this means that I have the power to set myself up in competition against any other "economic agent", where an "economic agent" is defined as an individual or a firm.

3. "Economic rationalism" in such circumstances is that I, as a sovereign consumer, rationally calculate my costs and benefits of all my choices, owing no extra-loyalty to anyone or anything except for contract obligations established in amarket place.

Only when these three conditions are meet will market mechanisms really work. Anything else is considered a "market distortion" and, by the logic of the market, needs to be removed.

Thus loyalty to a family distorts economic decision making. We are taught to treat your family relationships as if they were market relationships - calculate your costs and benefits of being in or out of relationship and you will see the consequences. Over 40% of marriages end in divorce.

Thus loyalty to a community distorts economic decision making. Have the market determine all interconnections within between people in the community and look at the results. Most people today haven't a clue what an authentically caring and sharing community is like, and communities all around the world are collapsing.

The ecology of the living world distorts the process of economic decision making. Have the market determine the value of all ecological goods and services, ignoring intrinsic value of life itself (which surely must be of infinite value) and look at the consequences. We are participating in the greatest extinction of life on planet Earth - losing species at nearly 400 a day.

It was Karl Polanyi in his book "The Great Transition", who showed nearly 50 years ago that markets, when instituted act like social acid to eat away almost anything it touches. And when they do, laws are required to limit and contain the negative effects that markets bring. For instance, when capitalism began we treated people as commodities, the slave trade was a "free market" in people. So we needed prohibition of slavery, and then labour laws to prohibit the exploitation of children, and then industrial health and safety laws, and trade unions and ... and ... and all of this requires political decision making in a participatory democratic fashion.

So we need to realise that a Carbon Trading System is not the only solution to greenhouse gas emissions. We do need a carbon trading system, but we also need carbon taxes. We need incentive schemes for renewable and greenhouse free energy, that minimise some of the research and development costs. We need to internalise the "greenhouse externalities" into production costs, and abolish the hidden subsidies we currently give to the fossil fuel industries. We need to reduce the adoption costs of clean technologies. We need "carbon monitoring and inspection teams" to ensure open-ness and honesty in reporting of embedded carbon in all of our products, so consumers can make honest decisions. We need to revitalise our communities so they can undertake common initiatives to support individual household after individual household to make the changes. We need to move from being a "Carbon Blind" to being a "Carbon literate" culture, through education and awareness.

John Howard, in thinking that he has "solved the Climate Change" issue by proposing a Carbon Tax whose figures will be determined the government only after the election, is attempting to pull the wool over our eyes yet again. He clearly has only one hammer, and we are the nails. Lets hope it is his electoral coffin, not ours."

The above article proves beyond any doubt that, when it comes to science, Australia is still a nation of socialist sheep-farmers who have too much time on their hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.129.40 (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debatepedia link

A Debatepedia link on the cap-and-trade vs. carbon tax debate. Relevant external link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.98.193 (talk)

It's a link to site that fails our external link guidelines. I have removed it. -- SiobhanHansa 02:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph duplication between lines 108 and 180

As at least the third person to recently re-remove the duplicate information paragraph under the subheading "Kyoto Protocol", I must ask why registered users continue to replace it, as it is, word for word, the exact same as the paragraph below it, and must inquire what value a clear (and easily rectified) error would hold, particularly as removing said section has been previously flagged as vandalism, etc.

--74.62.95.203 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry about that. I was trying to revert one part of the edit and did not notice that part of the edit. I think the other registered users made an honest mistake as well. It is important for editors to leave an edit summary to prevent this from happening.--JEF (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
A better question is why there is so much discussion of Kyoto in this article. It should be about emissions trading in general, not carbon trading almos exclusively. RichWoodward (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Do be bold if you can expand it, the non CO2 schemes especially. This article's focus on Kyoto will be inevitable to some extent, as carbon represents the largest market financially and globally, and all current schemes are based on Kyoto. In addition to the SOx schemes, US states & Australia have some proposed CO2 schemes, but even the most advanced hasn't yet finalised what it wants to do, though most have indicated a desirability to be internationally compatible/fungible by adopting Kyoto standards. However, I have noted that a couple of Kyoto-related items have snuck into the top generic part of the article, I've tweaked it to be less Kyoto where its not relevant. Ephebi (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad choice of image in the intro

This might seem like nitpicking to some, but I think the choice of image in the introduction is really bad. A pulp mill utilizing the Kraft process is pictured, but such mills consume very little fossile fuels compared to their production of pulp. The smoke shown is mainly water vapor and carbon dioxide coming from the recovery boiler and lime kiln, and possibly excess steam from other parts of the process. The water vapor is only visible as smoke because of ideal weather conditions, the mill is situated in Oulu, Finland, which is close to the polar circle and therefore has a quite cold climate. On a warm summer day it would most likely be invisible.

The carbon dioxide is not fossile as it comes from a biofuel (wood) and is thus not included in any emissions trading treaty. It comes from carbon in the wood (lignin which is burned in the recovery boiler, plus calciumcarbonate formed in said boiler being converted to calcium oxide in the lime kiln). The carbon in the carbonate also comes from the wood. Fossile fuels might be used in the lime kiln, but this amount is small and is often replaced by non-fossile fuels such as tall oil or bark gas.

In short, pulp mills aren't any major contributors to rising CO2-levels, and aren't affected much by emissions trading as they use so little fossile fuels. A steel mill, coal-fired power plant or cement mill would be a much better choice, as those industries consume large amounts of fossile fuels and are heavily affected by emissions trade, some even shutting down. --SneakyAce (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find any nice pictures of steel mills, but this picture of a coal power plant in Germany looks good. Unless someone comes up with a good reason to keep the current image in the article, I'll replace it with this one. --SneakyAce (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I say go ahead. If there is anyone with objections we'll find out later.--JEF (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tort Law versus Cap and Trade

The market argument against cap and trade is a legitimate part of this article. Tort law is seen by many as an alternative which more effectively internalizes costs to polluters, holding them accountable. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that the discussion of Tort law and free market environmentalism is entirely inappropriate, only that it was way out of balance with its importance in this article. More critically, emissions trading should be seen as a way to implement an environmental standard once the decision has been made to regulate. The decision as to whether use a tort approach or a regulatory approach is at a higher level, logically prior to the decision to use a trading approach. RichWoodward (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emission trading and emissions trading

I started this discussion topic as a place to explain why one would need to clarify the the article refers to both "emission trading" and "emissions trading". RichWoodward (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, You didn't provide any reasons or opinions here, but in the history you wrote unnecesary (everyone can figure out that these are the same)). As my edit summary already explained, users check an encycl. to know, not to figure out themselves; alternative versions not trivial: even very many native speakers made insecure by different use in different articles c.f. EU ETS).
It is standard policy in WP to provide all major versions of an article title, especially when these are due to regional variants of English. UK English is showing a fairly new trend towards using plural noun adjuncts (schools superintendent, and even two-cars garage etc.) that are simply still incorrect in US English (and used to be so in UK English). WP policy specifically states that you're free to use only the UK English variant of a term in an article and that it is not OK to replace it with that of another kind of English, but you are not at liberty to remove such regional variants from the first line of the article. It basically boils down to the fact that you personally prefer "emissions trading" and feel it is a viable variant of "emission trading" while very many English speakers think your preference is simply bad English. An international encyclopedia cannot use the form of a technical term that many consider bad English without any comment or at least providing the other variant.
BTW, it's very interesting that the EU did not follow the "new" UK trend in naming the EU ETS but does use European Chemicals Agency, which is ungrammatical to US ears. This is especially interesting since 25 times more UK academic sites have "chemical industry" than "chemicals industry".--Espoo (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It really is trivial to any speaker of English. It is like differences in the pronunciation in the word "tomato". As long as one can be understood from the other both terms are not needed in the encylopedia That being said Manual labour does do the same thing as you are doing, so it is alright, but I am going to do the same thing as Transactional account does with it.--JEF (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
1) You got it backwards; the singular adjunct noun is more common in North America than the UK. 2) Most WP users are not experts on spelling or grammar and very definitely confused by seeing two different spellings of a technical term. It is standard WP policy to list these different versions irrespective of whether they have a clear regional bias or not so that users realise both are correct and not a typo or bad English even though it sounds that way to them with their regional bias. Just because the singular/plural difference here sounds trivial or even identical to your ears does not mean that one does not sound wrong to English speakers from elsewhere. And you seem to have forgotten that most WP users are not native speakers of English. And even if they were in the minority, WP would still specifically strive to cater to the needs of all users, including non-native speakers. And they definitely need the information that the singular variant is acceptable and in use. 3) It seems you have not noticed that both UK and US and other possible variant pronunciations are specifically provided in all cases like "tomato" if and when one pronunciation is provided. WP specifically never provides only one regional pronunciation if it differs from others. --Espoo (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've worked in this field for the last couple of years and must confess that everyone I've come across has used them both synonymously - I just took a look at the EU europa/emission site - it confirmed my suspicion that they use both spellings interchangeably. The default dialect of English used across the EU/EC is British English. The first carbon system is/was called the UK emissions trading scheme, although the first trading system in emissions was the US Clean Air Act system for "sulfur", as they call it. As 99% of real activity and volume trading in this area is now based in the financial centres of Europe, esp. London, around the EU ETS I'd default to the usual British plural spelling, but frankly its never been an issue with anyone I've come across before. If it really causes you a hang-up I'd suggest putting a note at the end of the lead paragraph rather than using such a clunky lead sentence. BTW, although "cap & trade" has been used to describe the policy, its not a commonly-used term by practitioners, IME. Ephebi (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The beginning of color shows how almost all WP articles deal with an article title for which different spellings or forms exist. According to this well-established WP policy, the alternatives are presented right at the beginning and only there. It is not OK to use the alternatives elsewhere in the article, but they are presented right in the first line so users don't have to look for them and to emphasise that they also exist and are often equally valid.
    • The very fact that even the EU uses both spellings shows that it would be simply incorrect for WP to try playing language police or International English Academy by mentioning only one. In addition, more than 30% of Google Scholar hits are for the plural form.
    • Plural adjunct nouns sound wrong to most North Americans except in cases where they are necessary (e.g. arms race), so most of the people you've met are probably not North Americans. If some that didn't object are North Americans, they are probably experts in this field like you and therefore (or for other reasons) well informed on this issue and therefore used to the form more commonly but not exclusively used in UK English. In other words, North Americans are perhaps more willing to accept something here that goes against the grain, especially when quoting, since emission trading is so far essentially a European activity, as you yourself mentioned.
    • Just because something looks like a trivial difference to UK English speakers does not mean that it does not sound wrong or is not confusing to people speaking other kinds of English. You have also apparently not understood that non-native speakers need help to realise that both forms are acceptable and that they would be confused if WP simply glossed over the fact that WP uses both forms and even in this article (in the link to the EU ETS).
    • I've edited the article according to your info on cap and trade. --Espoo (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Error in section about cap & trade and baseline credit

"In a baseline and credit program a set of polluters that are not under an aggregate cap can create credits by reducing their emissions below a baseline level of emissions. These credits can be purchased by polluters that are under a regulatory limit."


Am I wrong or doesn't that have to be "polluters that are over a regulatory limit"? Because if "polluters" are already below the limit, they could create credits, too, don't they? Could someone correct this error, please or enlighten me if I am wrong. Thank you. -- 08:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC) KaT,

What is meant by "under" here is "regulated," i.e., they are required to comply. I'll rewrite the text to clarify. RichWoodward (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Adding this article to the Finance Hub

Increasingly carbon trading is indexed and traded as a commodity. It is my opinion that the article (especially with respect to the term trading) should be included in the Wikipedia Finance section under commodities as the current trading scheme is a replication of other commodity/capital finance models. 192.223.243.5 (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the carbon markets should be indexed under the finance section. However, this is not an article solely about carbon markets. It is about the general principle of tradeable emissions permits as applied to any pollutant. Nonetheless, such permits are increasingly being treated as commodities for a variety of pollutants. RichWoodward (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Price of CO2 equivalent

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

It would be informative if the article covered the price of CO2 equivalents over time in the various submarkets. What the market price will be is a key factor in the political and economic debate. -- Beland (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but since this article is about trading in general, not just CO2, that should not appear here. Instead it should be on the pages specifically related to the CO2 market. RichWoodward (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Since there is not a separate page anymore for CO2 trading, this is an appropriate page to have it. If the CO2 section expands enough, it would justify it's own article.--JEF (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There are Carbon Credit and Carbon offset pages. Those seem like better places to start a general page on CO2 trading. There is a need to have a page that addresses the general issue of emissions trading and clearly this is that page. RichWoodward (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon Tax vs Auctioned Cap and Trade

1) This article does a poor job of destinguishing between auctioned and non-auctioned cap and trade systems. While they are technically similar, the difference is pretty significant in terms of what people should want. No average citizen in their right mind would want a non-auctioned cap and trade over a carbon tax, but they might want an auctioned cap and trade.

2) Would I be right in saying that an auctioned cap and trade could suffer from oligarchies creating the largest portion of emissions? If company X makes 60% of the emissions before the introduction of the cap and we would expect it to have a major portion of the emissions after the introduction of the cap, won't it end up buying fewer credits then it should want in order to drive down the price of the auctioned credits? If one of the purposes of the tax or auction is to return the profit made by limiting supply back into the hands of the people, then this would subvert that intention. Isn't that another flaw of the auctioned cap and trade vs the carbon tax? Champben2002 (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • There are different POVs on the merits & demerits of each, and an appropriate proportion. Its not a simple equation. Obviously a 100% auctioned scheme is fairer on new entrants, and the income comes into the public purse.
If I understand your second question, the hypothecation issue is the same with straight taxes as with auctioning - it will always be very tempting for the government to see the cash generated as general income for the public purse (or for patching in a hole in a budget deficit), rather than being put to environmental purposes. However, with auctions, the income is more public and transparent than with a tax. The cap & trade systems in place or being proposed have, or are, considering high penalties in the event of an entity having a short fall when it comes time to surrender their allowances. Thus prices will rise in the event that significant emitters envisage suffering a shortfall. (And, BTW, no competition regulator in the Western world should ever allow a single commercial organisation to have 60% market share)
One issue with grandfathering allowances is that, outside of truly competitive markets, there is a probablity of incumbent players receiving "windfall profits" (when they get to pass on (non-existent) carbon costs to their consumers). However, they should be wary of returning these excess profits as increased dividends to their shareholders. That extra income should be used to pump-prime their investment programmes, voluntary rebates, or social activities, otherwise governments can threaten them with "windfall taxes" - as is happening in the UK market right now.
Additionally, some percentage of grandfathered rights can be politically more acceptable as it can help transition these players into a 100% auctioned regime at a later date. Ephebi (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)