Understanding Emissions Trading or Cap and Trade Systems For Emissions Reduction
4 stars based on
However few jurisdictions carbon trading scheme pros and cons designed really effective systems. In the 8 years it has carbon trading scheme pros and cons in place it has done nothing to curb emissions, which have risen steadily.
We held a teleconference call to discuss the pros and cons of the two systems which you can watch below. Not everyone carbon trading scheme pros and cons have the time to watch an hour-long video so if that's you then read on for a summary of the arguments. Why did we prefer a carbon charge? Businesses can plan with certainty, which means they are more likely to invest in renewable technology or efficiency, rather than delay to try to game the price.
A carbon charge does not therefore send the message that you can help the climate by being greedy and trading for an advantage. We think the psychology behind the rules and the thinking it promotes is important in the big picture. There is no chance for carbon market players to make money out of arbitrage at taxpayer expense. While no doubt there will be lobbying, as there is with any scheme, there are no dodgy ways to get out of a tax.
It will focus people and industries on reducing their emissions. The balance between charges and dividends will be variable but can link to each other over time. This ensures a reliable emission outcome which could be aligned with our national target and ambition can increase over time.
The government has to guess the level of an appropriate carbon charge in order to reach the desired emissions reduction, and this guess has fiscal implications for target compliance. Unlike a carbon charge, an ETS enables the emission price to adjust automatically to changing market conditions in order to deliver on targets.
The ability to trade units creates a flexibility to improve economic efficiency if it is cheaper to pay others to reduce their emissions as they have more cost-effective alternatives.
This depends on the units available for purchase reflecting real environmental improvements. The ability to bank units allows participants to bring forward emission reductions and manage their obligations more efficiently over time. When the government introduces unit auctioning to emitters as was recently announcedthis will generate revenue just like a carbon charge, and theoretically this could be returned to citizens. However a precedent has been set under the current ETS that may be hard to change.
An ETS can operate with price management mechanisms which improve price predictability and guard against unacceptable price extremes, thereby capturing some of the risk-reduction benefits of a carbon charge while having the market continue to set the price. Property rights have been created by the current ETS and there is a whole machinery of administration in place.
Changing to a different system might seriously delay action on emissions reduction, affect the value of prior investments and undermine market confidence in government rulemaking.
How does Motu propose to improve the ETS? There would be a cap on total units issued by the government for auctioning and free allocation. There would be a price band with a maximum price ceiling and minimum price floor which would be implemented carbon trading scheme pros and cons auction and within which the price carbon trading scheme pros and cons fluctuate according to the market demand.
This price band would limit price volatility. Permits would be auctioned, creating an incentive to adopt new technology and change behaviour to reduce the permits needed and generating revenue. The market would determine the emission price based on total unit supply. Carbon trading scheme pros and cons does not comment on what proportion of the available units would be issued free.
If the current allocation of free units continued there would be little to auction. As industrial free allocation is phased out, more units could be auctioned and more auction revenue generated. The cap and price band would be fixed five years in advance and updated by one year, each year. A further ten-year indicative trajectory would be developed for both the emission cap and the price band to guide future decisions and provide a year investment horizon for the market.
The government would enlist independent technical advice when setting and reviewing the cap and price band, but decisions on these issues would remain with government. The proposal leaves open the question of whether the free permits would be intensity based the more you pollute, the more credits you get as now, or pegged to a previous level of production, so that there are no free credits for growth.
In our view this question is important. Motu rightly pointed out that both systems can go very well or badly wrong and can be skewed by politics. We should beware of comparing an ideal tax system, which we would probably never achieve politically, with the current seriously flawed trading system.
We need to compare the best achievable version of each system. Certain problems remain that must be dealt with in either system:. This may improve our emissions, but global emissions could stay the same or go up — for example if overseas production increases, using coal fired electricity. There are various ways of addressing this. Legislation provides for a phase-out over time. This is a common practice in ETS in other countries.
This proved so impossibly hard for the state to argue that only two were ever concluded. Some jurisdictions with a carbon tax have provided some level of exemptions or rebates to trade-exposed producers. An administratively and carbon trading scheme pros and cons complex alternative is a border tax adjustment where trade exposed exports are credited with a refund at the border and imports from countries with no price on carbon pay the charge at the border.
As other countries adopt more ambitious mitigation and carbon pricing the scale of these adjustments would gradually reduce. Both approaches require an effective system for emission measurement, monitoring, reporting and verification. At the national level, this is substantially in place since the legislation and the requirements of the UNFCCC agreement but needs to be constantly monitored and kept up to date.
Both systems need a way of dealing with carbon trading scheme pros and cons. An Carbon trading scheme pros and cons where a farmer can offset methane and nitrous oxide emissions by planting up a less carbon trading scheme pros and cons part of the carbon trading scheme pros and cons in trees, may be easier than paying a charge on emissions and receiving a credit for plantings.
But both are possible. Under both systems the highest priority is a Climate budget, set by an independent Carbon trading scheme pros and cons Commission, both legislated for and accountable but this should not be used as an excuse to delay a price on carbon. This has been effective in the UK. Several of the group on the conference call were unhappy to do so. However we are agreed that a well designed ETS could work to lower emissions and would be vastly preferable to the current situation.
What we need is a carbon pricing system that will do the job of bringing us to net zero byis politically durable, fair, and enables predictability for businesses.
Carbon Charge or ETS? The pros and cons Posted by Jeanette Fitzsimons on August 20, Arguments for an ETS 1. Certain problems remain that must be dealt with in either system: So where does the debate leave the Declaration?
Do you like this post?