Talk:European Union Emission Trading Scheme
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
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 article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of mid importance within energy. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
 |
The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: User:Jensbn This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute. |
Contents |
[edit] Where is the market located?
I don't understand from the article where these credits are actually traded; presumably there is some market somewhere or a webpage...or do stockbrokers deal in them? It all seems pretty abstract.... User:markbenjamin
[edit] Caps?
meaningless number --CorvetteZ51 12:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
After reading this article, I get the impression that is was written by an Ecofys employee! Although it's succinct and informative, the number of times the name "Ecofys" appears (especially in the "Environmental Consequenses" section), makes it tend to read as if its an extended advert for the company. Surely the point of links within an article is to avoid the needless repetition of associated authors or companies? I also understand that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a platform for advertising private businesses. Either Ecofys should confine themselves to a single reference (preferably in the footnotes) or they should take the effort to provide a less biased article by:
(i) referring to more than one commercial player in the EUETS (e.g ERM, Enviros, PointCarbon, Capital Carbon Markets, Cantor Fitzgerald etc.);
(ii) referring to major governmental organisations, such as Defra in the UK or VROM in the Netherlands, which are, after all, responsible for establishing the NAPS. --Specul8 13:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- I was the one who wrote the two references to ECOFYS studies in the article, and I am in no way affiliated with ECOFYS nor any other organization mentioned in this article. It so happens that ECOFYS has written several key ETS reports and reviews on important aspects of ETS functioning, and I try to follow common practise of crediting the author, which also offers the reader some chance of assessing the credibility of the work. You're free to remove any references that may be unnecessary. Other companies you mention have also written on ETS, but to my knowledge generally not on environmental effectiveness issues. Besides, some of those you mention have conflicts of interest that makes them unsuited for such a review. That said, anybody is more than welcome to add references to more important works, if available, including on other issues of general interest than what is now included.Jens Nielsen 17:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] General Readability
Assuming the purpose of the Wiki is to make important matters like this accessbile to the widest possible audience, I think contributors need to consistently write with an explanatory purpose. I'm trying to understand how this trading of emissions credits occurs and what effects change the prices of credits. I'd like to look at an example of how a country creates its National Allocation Plan, resulting in credits to be traded. I fear that the whole system of trading simply becomes a way to make carbon reductions an abstract mystery, allowing a lot of questionable credits and trading practices. But I need to understand more and look to a source like Wikipedia to provide clarity in such a complex topic.
kdraayer
- ETS is an abstract and complex issue, and I share your concern, but please try to refer to the text that needs improvement. Jens Nielsen 17:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello
There are now some much better and more detailed figures out on ETS emissions - including all 27 countries and the first three years. However I'm not sure I know enough abnout editing to drop em into the table.
They are here
Mona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monalisaoverdrive (talk • contribs) 12:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reference link requires a login
Just wanted to point out that the link to "Ecofys evaluation of preliminary Phase 2 NAPs" pops up a "please login" page. This link should be fixed/removed, but I'll leave it to people watching this page who'll know better than I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.5.165 (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] references
We need more information about the given sources. Anyone knows how to do that when using the current citation style? --Spitzl 18:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- It would give much more clear information about the given sources if we used Wikipedia:Citation_templates. So should we switch? --spitzl 10:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] stop the shit,,,, ETS and Kyoto are not related
stop trying to fool people CorvetteZ51 (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Below is an extract of a message I posted on CorvetteZ51's talk page on 12 December 2007 to explain its inter-related nature:
- Like any stock market, there are two parts to the trading mechanism - the market process, and the settlement process. The spot, futures & options markets systems operate independent of the ETS & Kyoto settlement systems, other than their contracts, which are compatible. But post-trade, the "settlement" systems are run by government bodies and are what enforce the Kyoto-ness on everything. Most market players don't need to be aware of this unless there is a problem somewhere.
- Phase II of the EU ETS will operate entirely under the Kyoto umbrella and coincides with the 5 year Kyoto Compliance period [2008-2012]...the EC have added their own extra processes such as requiring a "surrender" of allowances to the commission for checking before the Kyoto retirement phase. ... The UNFCCC systems validate EU allowances etc before they get passed to the EC systems for checking. Of course, this linkage has to be the case for CERs, ERUs, etc. to be fungible with EUAs, otherwise you will be comparing apples with oranges.
- For Phase I the process was similar, although the ETS EUAs only cover 1 type of GHG (as defined per Kyoto), and the NAP is set wholly within Europe without consulting third parties. Of course, the UN doesn't validate EUA trades during Phase I. However the Kyoto-compatibility issue still stands as the operators in Phase I need to access CERs during this period, and the CDM executive has been busy approving lots of CDM projects for the last year or two for them...
Ephebi (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Unsourced claims
I removed this paragraph subject which has remained unsubstantiated by any public announcements by the EC or national governments.
This section does not cite any references or sources. (January 2008)
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.The EUETS have recently stated that the wish to hand over the current business scheme to a large company or investment firm which will effectively run it and they hope to hand over the scheme by the end of 2010. The hand over will mean the company which takes over control all prices and to whom they allocate the caps to and how i.e. they will be able to sell the caps directly to industries and large firms instead of the current scheme which involves distributing the caps to government who then take the costs through taxes.
[edit] Article name
The current article is titled: European Union Emission Trading Scheme - however the offical term per the EU is actually Emissions Trading Scheme. Unless there is a good reason why, I propose to rename this article soon to match the actual term. Ephebi (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. We should use European Union Emissions Trading Scheme instead and change the redirect.--spitzl (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
