Fossil fuel burning is the main source of
emissions |
With
climate change now an increasingly important concern for
policy-makers, carbon trading is riding high on the agenda. BBC News
examines current approaches to the issue.
What is the idea behind carbon trading?
Carbon trading is a market mechanism intended to tackle global
warming. Though it dates back to 1989 it only took off as a market
after the Kyoto Protocol was signed.
Under the Kyoto treaty - which came into force in February 2005 -
industrialised countries must reduce total greenhouse gas emissions
by an average 5.2% compared with 1990 levels between 2008-2012.
The most important greenhouse gas contributing to global warming
is carbon dioxide, which is mainly emitted by burning fossil fuels.
Under Kyoto, each participating government has its own national
target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Other reduction initiatives, (deriving from but not part of
Kyoto), include company-based schemes, which also have specific
targets.
The key idea behind carbon trading is that, from the planet's
point of view, where carbon dioxide comes from is far less important
than total amounts.
So, rather than rigidly forcing the reduction of emissions
country-by-country, (or company-by-company), the market creates a
choice: either spend the money to cover the costs of cutting
pollution (emissions), or else continue polluting (emitting), and
pay someone else to cut their pollution.
In theory this enables emissions to be cut with the minimum price
tag.
Is carbon trading new?
The Kyoto protocol is the first scheme that includes global
trading in greenhouse gases, but the idea of trading pollutants was
first tried in the 1970s when the US decided to trade sulphur
dioxide and nitrous oxide to tackle acid rain.
Neither is the idea of trading allowances for ecological
protection new.
The European Union, under its Common Agricultural Policy, has for
some time had schemes for trading national or local quotas, in dairy
production or fishery catches.
How big is the market today?
Exact figures are hard to come by because the market is still
fairly new, since data is not easily available and since several
different schemes exist, not all directly comparable.
The World Bank, one of the main players in carbon financing,
estimates the value of carbon traded in 2005 to be about $10bn.
Financing carbon deals is big
money |
The Bank believes the carbon market has the potential to bring
more than $25bn (£14bn) in new financing for sustainable development
to the poorest countries and the developing world.
Trading firms, brokers and banks are among those expected to make
money through commissions for organising carbon deals.
The Bank's own carbon finance fund has more than doubled from
$415m in 2004 to $915m last year.
How is carbon traded?
There are two main ways to exchange carbon.
The first is what is called a cap-and-trade scheme whereby
emissions are limited and can then be traded. Under Kyoto developed
countries can trade between each other.
The European Trading Scheme (ETS) is a cap-and-trade scheme and
the largest companies-based scheme around.
It is mandatory and includes 12,000 sites across the 25 European
Union member states.
It came into force in 2005 and covers heavy industry and power
generation, including non-European companies.
There are also voluntary cap-and-trade schemes.
The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is such a scheme.
Interest in carbon trading at regional level is increasing in
America, even though the US government has decided not to ratify
Kyoto.
The UK also has its own voluntary scheme, for which companies cut
their emissions in return for incentive payments.
The second main way of trading carbon is through credits from
projects that compensate for or "offset" emissions.
The Kyoto protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), for
example, allows developed countries to gain emissions credits for
financing projects based in developing countries without targets.
A Kyoto mechanism called Joint Implementation (JI), also involves
project-based schemes whereby one country can receive emissions
credits for financing projects that reduce emissions in another
developed country.
Compliance is critical.
Under their Kyoto obligations, industrialised countries have 100
days after final annual assessments to pay for any shortfall - by
buying credits or more allowances via emissions trading.
Failure to do so leads to further penalties.
In voluntary schemes, by contrast, this is not the case.
It sounds attractive - does it work as a way of dealing with
climate change?
Trading, whether between companies or countries, only works if
emissions are reduced enough to contain global warming. Creating a
market does not, by itself, reduce emissions.
Moreover, the benefits could be severely limited if trading is
not comprehensive.
As important as what or who is included is what is not included.
Carbon dioxide represents only part - albeit a crucial part; more
than 70% - of all greenhouse gases.
Furthermore, the US, the world's largest CO2 polluter, excluded
itself by choosing not to ratify Kyoto.
And while the US is the biggest emitter today, China, which is
projected to exceed the US in emissions by mid century, has no
obligation to reduce emissions.
Most sectors are not obliged to cut
emissions |
Even within trading schemes such as the ETS, whole sectors'
emissions are excluded, such as transport, homes and the public
sector.
Aviation is the fastest-growing source of CO2 emissions, and some
experts have calculated that if it were included, the UK's entire
allowance would soon be used up.
Critics say trading carbon condones the idea of "business as
usual" and fails to emphasise the need to invest in renewable
energies and move away from fossil fuels.
Trading, while it may acknowledge the threat posed by global
warming, does not address the seriousness and scale of the problem,
argue environmentalists.
For trading to work it would have to become much broader -
perhaps even embracing personal carbon allowances for individuals,
some say.
More and more scientists are saying that the carbon dioxide
ceilings under the treaty are too high - perhaps far too high - to
help avert serious climate change.