The central focus of
12th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change is carbon markets and how to expand them. All of the sessions
that I attended here featured at least some talk about carbon markets by
prominent bureaucrats, industry lobbyists and the environmental lobbyists. And
according to them, carbon markets will whiten your teeth and freshen your
breath, put a sparkle in your eye, a spring in your step, slim you down and
vastly improve your sex life. Or at least fatten their bottom lines by saving
the planet.
One Green "Baptist,"
Matthias Duwe, from the Climate Action Network, explained his group's support for carbon markets by
saying, "Environmental effectiveness is what counts. What we want is absolute
reductions in emissions. Sending signals to business is secondary." In other
words, they are against environmental sin and they think that carbon markets
will help stamp out the sin of emitting noxious greenhouse gases. Right beside
him on the panel sat an earnest climate Bootlegger, Kate Hampton, a policy
advisor to a British merchant bank that has established the $1 billion Climate
Change Capital fund that invests in carbon markets. She thinks there's plenty of
money to be made if the politicians and bureaucrats set stringent limits on how
much carbon companies can emit.
And that's a pretty good
description. After all, carbon trading came into existence solely as a result of
the Kyoto Protocol. Carbon markets are created by imposing a cap on the
emissions of greenhouse gases that are believed to contribute to recent global
warming then allocating permits for the amount that can be emitted. A carbon
market was selected as a way to manage carbon emissions instead of carbon taxes
which Duwe pointed out the EU discussed for ten years and it got nowhere with
them.
Carbon markets allow
governments to set actual limits on emissions and then let the private sector
figure out the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions. This is done at the
cost of some volatility—the price for emissions permits can go up and down
steeply and quite rapidly. Carbon taxes, on the other hand, offer the
possibility of a stable price, but at the cost of flexibility in figuring out
the cheapest ways to cut emissions. Another downside for global warming
activists like Duwe is that taxes do not specify actual reductions.
Although a climate Baptist,
Duwe does appreciate that a carbon market sends the signal to business that
"every unit of carbon dioxide that goes out the window is a unit that could be
sold." In other words, if a company can reduce its emissions below its
allocation, it can make money by selling its remaining allocation to another
company. Of course, a company can also make windfall profits
if the government allocates it more permits for emissions than it actually
needs.
So are carbon markets here
to stay? Here in
Hampton pointed out that
what happens after Kyoto matters because if emitters—especially big power and
industrial companies--don't believe that carbon will have a price in the future,
they will not invest in long term expensive low carbon infrastructure. According
to
All of the climate
coalition members were eager to explain the precipitous drop in carbon prices in
the ETS in May as growing pains. It turns out that most European governments
allocated more emission permits than there were actual emissions. When the
actual level of emissions was verified in May and it turned out that companies
emitted 66 million tons of carbon less than allowed in 2005. This provoked, as
they say, a correction of about 50 percent. Of course, both the climate Baptists
and Bootleggers are keen to get climate bureaucrats to more strongly restrict
the number of permits that are issued in the future. That would give the climate
Baptists lower emissions they want and the climate Bootleggers the higher prices
they crave. A win/win for everyone, except for perhaps the hapless consumers who
have to pay more for the energy and products they buy.
If Europe does go it alone
with its carbon market,
All of the participants on
the UN conference side panels are impatient to get the
On the other hand,
Tomorrow—The
12th Conference of the Parties (COP-12) to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change and 2nd Meeting of the Parties
(MOP-2) to the Kyoto Protocol comes to an end. I will report whatever decisions
the diplomats make and reactions by other participants to those decisions.
Disclosure: I gratefully acknowledge that the International Policy
Network in
Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.
