Further than that, a cap-and-trade system is actually more flexible than a carbon tax, while at the same time controls emissions better. As demand increases more GHG emissions can be dedicated to transportation and heating and less to, say, concrete production (note here concrete emissions aren’t actually co2).
Matt:
The only thing I'm sure cap and trade will do, is to provide another avenue for the finance industry to make money off of the decline of civilization.
Broken record: March is 10th straight month to be hottest on record
https://phys.org/news/2024-04-broken-10th-straight-month-hottest.htmlTom,
I do agree with you the financial industry is making money on cap-trade. I’m not advocating for the involvement of the financial industry, but the world unfortunately needs them to nudge companies to participate and improve GHG emission markets.
Cap-trade isn’t a silver bullet, but we have over 30 years of data which shows it works in reducing GHG emissions. The EU's (est. 2005) and California (est. 2006) markets have reduced emissions. The primary issue with cap-trade is guidelines and participation varies from market to market. There are 30 GHG emission markets around the world, and 46 countries either participating or taxing carbon. This is one of the issues with cap and trade, every market is implemented differently.
I won’t get into the details, but there are two types of GHG emission markets, voluntary carbon market (VCM) and compliance carbon market. They are both trading systems but differ in terms of the former is aimed at absorbing GHG while the latter is aimed at reducing emissions.
The voluntary carbon market is where an organization creates its own carbon credits, verified emission reduction (VERs), by capturing/reducing GHG emissions. Good examples are re-forestion, carbon capture, wetland management, etc. Protects create their carbon credits and sell to a buyer - direct or market. VCMs aren't very liquid, value is $2B, with expectations to reach $250B by 2050. VCM aren’t regulated, so they operate in a patchwork of standards and regulations influenced by participants. Hypothetically, a group of golf clubs come together and develop a carbon offset project. The clubs have an option to sell offsets directly, based pre-set price, or float on a market.
Compliance carbon markets, are usually cap and trade schemes. These markets are run by a local or national government - e.g., EU ETS (27 member countries plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, & Norway), UK ETS Authority, RGGI (CT, DE, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI, VA), Western Climate Initiative (CA, Quebec, & Nova Scotia), etc.. Under cap-trade, the owner of the individual market establishes the market’s framework (carbon limit cap, emission per group, allowance, etc ) and criteria to participate. The standards and framework varies from market to market because there is no international standard. The lack of an international framework creates inefficiencies and allow participates to game the system. Some companies will redistribute their GHG emissions to non-market geography.
The value of the financial sector to cap-trade is to integrate regional and nationals markets, expand participation, improve market infrastructure and financing mechanisms.
As of 2023, World’s ETS market value is $949B and expected to reach $2.9T by 2028, and $22T by 2050.
EU’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) world’s largest, $850B
Western Climate Initiative $75B
RGGI $8B
China’s ETS $1B
Examination of Cal’d Cap-Trade on local communities & emission reduction
https://emlab.ucsb.edu/projects/environmental-justice-consequences-californias-cap-and-trade-programhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/PAP-06-2022-0069/full/htmlEU’s cap-trade system reduced CO2
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1918128117Unintended consequence of cap-trade - companies sometime geographically redistribute where emission is generated
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140988319300222