|
Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) (The CCX announced in November 2010 that it will terminate the Emmissions Trading System,
where prices had declined to $0.05 per ton compared to a high of $7.40 per ton in mid-2008, but will introduce an offsets registry for 2011 and 2012)
Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFE)
ICE ECX
BlueNext EUA Spot Trade
EEX EUA Spot Trade
There appears to be sufficient research and sufficient agreement among climatologists, researchers and meteorologists that the surface temperature of the earth has increased over the past several decades (when measured against accurate record keeping over the last century).
However, there is not sufficient agreement regarding whether the increase in the surface temperature of the Earth is either entirely related to the activities of humans or is a natural, cyclical development. There is sufficient scientific, economic and political opposition to the position that global warming is the result of human activities, and is as extensive and responsible for climatic change as is being proposed. In support of this view, there is sufficient "geological, archaeological, oral and written histories that all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables". In addition, there were a series of accusations during 2009 and 2010 against the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regarding the methodology of their research (the report incorrectly reported that Himalayan galciars would recede by 2035) and / or conflict of interest, and charges against the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom that the CRU was blocking full access to its research after a series of hacked e-mails and reports were posted on line (although the actual underlying research itself was not discredited).
In February 2007, the IPCC issued a comprehensive report (IPCC 4th Asessment Report) indicating that the global warming observed over the past several decades is "very likely" caused by human activity (burning of fossil fuels). "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." The IPCC was established (1988) by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and its working groups consist of hundreds of research scientists, authors and economists from around the world. Idependently published observations have indicated that of the 12 warmest years on record, 11 of those years were recorded since 1995. Similarly, it would appear that annual average temperature has risen 0.74° C during the past century. The IPCC report itself indicates that these trends will continue in the foreseeable future. Another section of the IPCC report indicated that man-made factors are responsible for the increased intensity of tropical storms. Read the Report (.pdf format).
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted in a number of ways: it is emitted naturally through the carbon cycle and through human activities like the burning of fossil fuels. However, since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s, human activities, such as the burning of petroleum products, coal and natural gas, and deforestation, has at the very least substantially increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are affected by the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted into, and removed from, the atmosphere around the world over time, typically measured in parts per million (ppm), parts per billion (ppb) or parts per trillion (ppt) by volume. Analysis by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center estimates that just CO2 concentration alone has increased from a pre-1750 concentration level of 280 ppm to approximately 377.3 ppm. The fear is that if not addressed then the concentration will increase to approximately 550 ppm by the year 2050. Increased or elevated levels of carbon in the atmosphere may not only lead to higher surface temperature, but may also result in increased grass and tree allergenic pollen levels, increase levels of spores emitted by toxic molds and fungi, and an increase in microbes carried by mosquitoes, which will result in an increase in the range of diseases that were thought to be tropical (denque fever, yellow fever, malaria and West Nile).
Thus, Carbon Trading is part of developing a system of capping annual emissions of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) so that total concentration does not continue to increase at such a rapid rate (approximately half of the carbon dioxide released on an annual basis remians in the atmosphere for several decades). In addition, another issue for credit and financial analysts is that whether a continued increase in surface temperatures will result in an increase in the extreme weather conditions of hurricane / typhoon intensity and frequency similar to what was experienced during 2004 and 2005. How does one plan for providing finance to businesses or insuring property under those circumstances, and what is the threat to life and livelihood for coastal residents all over the world? Unfortunately, the necessity of having to wait for the actual occurrence or non-occurrence of increased warming and storms to develop an accurate model that all parties will finally agree to is of little assistance and consolation, and may be too late.
The first international treaty to attempt to coordinate policy for the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG) was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was first drafted in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992, and entered into force on March 21, 1994 (signed by the 192 nations). The treaty did not set any mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual nations and contained no enforcement provisions.
Mandatory emission limits were established later in the Kyoto Protocol, which was an update (protocol) of the UNFCCC
agreed to during an annual Conferences of the Parties (COP). The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change was adopted by COP-3, held in December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, where a group of participants (Annex B
countries) agreed to legally binding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of an average of 6 to 8% below 1990 levels
between the years 2008-2012. The protocol was signed in 2005 and expires in 2012 unless extended by the signatories.
unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php (UNFCCC)
unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php (Kyoto Protocol)
unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/mechanisms/emissions_trading/items/2731.php (Emissions Trading)
Thus, a trading system allocating the "right" to emit gases was devised within the Europen Union (Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 October 2003; and in operation since 2005), which allows companies within the energy, metals, minerals, and pulp and paper industry sectors, and nations that can meet emission guidelines to sell their permit on an open market to a company or nation that cannot meet the guideline. Europen Union Directive 2008/101/EC expanded the system to include the European aviation sector. Companies domiciled within the European Union were allocated their respective emmission allowance on January 1, 2005, and every company covered under the EU Directive must verify their compliance with their respective emmission allowance.
The United States is presently not a signatory to the agreement, and neither the United States and China (the 2 largest sources of fossil fuel related emissions, accounting for approximately 40% of total world emissions) presently participate. The United States and China have not committed to restraints as it threatens economic livelihood. However, unless greenhouse gas emission constraints are tough enough then they will not have any meaningful impact on the overall environment. Secondly, the application of the system is uneven: emerging nations do not have any established caps. Thus, if the industrialized nations start reducing gas emissions and the emerging / developing nations begin growing their ecomonies and increasing their emissions, well then where is the net gain?
The Kyoto Protocol emission caps began in the European Union and Japan in 2008 and terminate in 2012. Each "credit" equals one metric ton of unreleased carbon dioxide. The EU has had a very tough experience in forcing the industry sector to comply with the cap system when these companies see that U.S. and Chinese companies are not complying with the system. Secondly, investment in projects that create carbon offsets are cheaper then actually installing equipment to control CO2 emissions thus the investment tends to go to these projects in developing nations rather than in the developing nations where the bulk of the emissions need to actually be eliminated.
The carbon trading market is a mechanism designed to allow participants to meet Kyoto Protocol emission caps / commitments in an efficient, cost effective and transparent manner. What carbon markets really trade are a limited number of allowances or permits, which allow a GHG emitter to operate its business within its allocation. By limiting the number of allowances, and then reducing the number of available allowances over time, the reduction of emissions is achieved (climate change remediation). Thus, it is a market response / mechanism to resolving an environmental issue.
Credit Issues
Carbon Offsets were designed to allow an entity (everything from an international corporation to a carpool to an individual) to purchase a credit that would provide them with an allocation to engage in an activity that will produce a set amount of carbon / greenhouse gas emissions (everything from a utility burning coal to an individual flying on an airplane).
However, the usage of these "passes" is very controversial
because there are a number of questions:
Similarly, RECs (Renewable Energy Credits) are designed to allow a company to fund (at approximately $2 per megawatt hour) an environmentally sensitive power project or research in order to offset carbon gas emmissions. However, it would appear, for instance, based on the dollar amount that a wind turbine operator can sell their electricty for to a utility, the addition of federal tax subsidies and the legitimate depreciation of equipment against earning, the present price of RECs is inadequate to contribute to the expansion of environmentally sensitive energy producing capacity / infrastructure Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) are a similar type of permit that is also created by investing in carbon reduction projects and is traded in Europe (and are less expensive than the EUAs).
A CDM is a credit that is earned when a market participant (Kyoto Protocol emmission cap requirement) invests in, or contributes to, a sustainable development in a developing country. The credit is referred to as Certified Emmission Reductions (CER). In order to earn the credit, the reduction(s) generated by the development must be a net addition, meaning that reduction(s) obtained are in addition to what would have occurred without the development being completed (which really means that the project would not have been built under normal or natural business conditions, rather it required the additional investment). The CDM project must also be validated (that it indeed reduces emmission and conforms to a specific criteria), and then the amount of reductions must be quantified, verified and certified by an independent third-party that is accredited by the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC), California Air Resources Board, California Climate Action Registry, Climate Action Reserve (CAR), The Climate Registry, Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS), American Carbon Registry (ACR), and the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). A CER can be utilized by a recipient with regard to their own emmissions cap or it can be traded in the market.
In December 2007, the U.S. Senate began discussions on how to devise a cap-and-trade system within the United States. The Federal Government of the United States has not enacted any national legislation to mandate a cap on total carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions. Rather, the legislative leadership on carbon-cap regulations has come from the State of California. The only other states to set mandatory carbon-cap regulations are Connecticut, Hawaii and New Jersey (Global Warming Response Act). Several states have enacted voluntary guidelines. In August 2008, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) commenced, which allows for a cap and trade system between power plants located in the Northeast United States (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont). Nitrogen Financial Instrument?Annual (NFITM-A) futures and options contracts have also been traded.
The debate within the United States centers around how much a cap-and-trade system to cut carbon emissions may effect economic growth. The goal is to reduce the present level of annual carbon emissions by 65% to 80% by 2050. Critics indicate that it would increase prices for many categories of products and services. Supporters indicate that the innovation and technology required to meet the goal would actually create economic opportunities. A second debate is over whether the emission granting certificates should be allocated by industry based on current existing emission level or whether the certificates should be 100% auctioned off to any and all bidders. Overall, most consider the program a tax to businesses by another name and it will be the consumer who will pay for it in higher prices. In addition, it is unclear what the income the government would gain from an auction would be used for.
In June 2009, the United States House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act
(H.R. 2454). The initial analysis of the bill by the U.S. Congressional Budget OFFice (CBO) indicated that "if implemented, would reduce gross domestic product (GDP)
below what it would otherwise have been?by roughly 0.25% to 0.75% in
2020 and by between 1.0% and 3.5% in 2050."
www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10561/10-14-Greenhouse-GasEmissions.pdf
In November 2009, the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) passed the Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Jobs
and American Power Act (S. 1733). The proposed purpose of the bill is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a 4-step process:
(1) in 2012, the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions does not exceed 97% of the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions in 2005.
(2) in 2020, the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions does not exceed 80 percent of the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions in 2005.
(3) in 2030, the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions does not exceed 58 percent of the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions in 2005.
(4) in 2050, the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions does not exceed 17 percent of the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions in 2005.
Republican members of the Committee did not support the bill after a requested economic analysis from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) was not completed prior to the vote.
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1733:
In April 2010, Senator Lindsey Graham (Republican, South Carolina) withdrew his support from the energy bill he co-sponsored with Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts) and Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut), which included a cap-and-trade provision. However, the provision was not considered as extensive as that proposed in the Waxman-Markey bill in the House of Representatives, this provision was expected to only apply to electric generation plants.
Thus, during 2010, the U.S. Federal Government has failed to enact comprehensive climate change legislation, and has directed its effort to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the regulations of the Clean Air Act.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates that In 2009, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 6,639.7 Tg CO2 Eq. (One teragram is equal to 1,012 grams or one million metric tons) While total U.S. emissions have increased by 7.4% from 1990 to 2009, emissions decreased from 2008 to 2009 by 6.0 percent (422.2 Tg CO2 Eq.). This decrease was primarily due to (1) a decrease in economic output resulting in a decrease in energy consumption across all sectors; and (2) a decrease in the carbon intensity of fuels used to generate electricity due to fuel switching as the price of coal increased, and the price of natural gas decreased significantly. Since 1990, U.S. emissions have increased at an average annual rate of 0.4%. Electricity generators emitted 41% of the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion in 2009. Source: epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads11/US-GHG-Inventory-2011-Executive-Summary.pdf
The State of California Legislature established the Air Resources Board (ARB) in 1967. The ARB is authorized to implement California Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act) Scoping Plan, which is the effort by the State of California to reduce the greenhouse gases (GHG) to 1990 levels by the year 2020. AB 32 includes plans for the development of a cap-and-trade program within the state (State of California, Air Resources Board, Resolution 10-42, December 16, 2010). The present program indicates that in 2012, electricity producers and large industrial facilites (release in excess of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year) will be capped at 165.8 million allowances. In 2015, distributors of transportation fuels, natural gas, and other fuels are included in the cap and trade program. In 2015, the combined cap is increased to 394.5 million allowances, and then declines 3.0% per year to 2020 when a new cap is established (tentatively scheduled to be 334.2 million allowances). Allowances will be distributed through direct allocation and auction. A market platform will then be established for the sale of allowances and offsets, and may include a link to other GHG trading platforms / programs.
In the United States and Canada, seven western states (Arizona, California, New Mexico, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington) and four Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec) are cooperating together for the development of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), which would be a regional cap-and-trade program. the program is scheduled to commence Jnuary 1, 2012, and the indicated goal is to reduce regional GHG emissions to 15.0% below 2005 levels by 2020.
The Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (MGGRA) includes the U.S. states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Kansas, and the Canadian Province of Manitoba. The indicated goal of the MGGRA is to reduce regional GHG emissions to 20.0% below 2005 levels by 2020. In 2010, the sate legislatures of Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota all introduced resolution from the Accord indicating the economic cost of the plan as the reason for withdrawal.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) consists of 10 northeastern and mid-Atlantic states, and has the indicated goal of reducing regional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the electicity generating industry by 10.0% by 2018. Massachusetts has established one of the toughest goals of reducing greenhouse gases (GHG) to 25.0% below 1990 levels by the year 2020. In February 2011, the New Hampshire's Legislature passed a resolution to withdraw from the RGGI.
In Europe there is the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme / EU ETS, which trades European Union Allowances (EUAs); aviation emissions trading
is scheduled to be added in 2012.
ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission.htm (Emission Trading Scheme / EU ETS)
The EU ETS market is the largest carbon market in the world. The World Bank indicates that there were over 6 billion EUA transactions in 2009 for a total value of ?88.7 billion / US$118.5 billion. While EUA prices decline by 42% to €14.0 / US$18.7 compared to €22.1 / US$32.5 in the previous year, there was a 105% increase in trading volume (Source: World Bank, State and Trends of the Carbon Market Report 2010 (.pdf format)
The initial problems that the EU ETS encountered was an over-allocation of allowances, and the veracity / oversight of the CDM projects and subsequent CERs.
On January 19, 2011, the European Commission (EC) suspended all spot trade transactions (with the exception of the surrender of allowances) on all national emissions registries due to a security breach, which resulted in the on-line theft of approximately 3.3 million EUAs. Several of the registries were allowed to open after three days and the market had to rebuild confidence. Prior to the on-line theft issue thee had been a pending investigation regarding VAT fraud related to spot trade transactions.
The Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) Scheme is a mandatory United Kingdom climate change and energy saving scheme. The scheme commenced April 2010, and is administered by the Environment Agency. The first sales of carbon allowances will take place in April 2011 and will be based on projections of energy usage for the period 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012.
In September 2009, the administration of President Sarkozy of France indicated their plan to introduce a national carbon tax in January 2010 of approximately €17 per metric ton of carbon as applied against the consumption of automotive gasoline, natural gas and coal (it will not be applied against electricity consumption as France has the most extensive infrastructure of nuclear reactor generating capacity of any nation, approximately 80% of electricity generation). It is unclear as to whether the amount of the tax is severe enough to actual affect consumption behavior.
In Canada, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) has recommended the implementation of
a market-based systemd of either an emissions tax or cap-and-trade system (or combination of both) in order to reduce the
nation's greenhouse gas emissions (Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act / KPIA; C-288; Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol
[Subsection 5(1)]); Getting to 2050: Canada?s Transition to a Low-emission Future, National Round Table on the
Environment and the Economy (NRTEE), September 2007.
www.nrtee-trnee.ca/
www.ec.gc.ca/doc/trnee-nrtee/info/s3_eng.htm (Response of the NRTEE to its Obligations Under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act)
The municipality of Tokyo Japan is scheduled to introduce a mandatory emissions trading system during fiscal year 2010.
The New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme (NSW GGAS) is the market for Abatement Certificates (one certificate represents a tonne of emissions reduction). The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW (IPART) is responsible for the administration of the GGAS. The certificates are generated by Accredited Abatement Certificate Provides (ACP; supply side), which are sold / traded to Benchmark Participants (demand side). ACPs are entities that are involved in low-emission generation of electricity (including cogeneration), activities that result in reduced consumption of electricity, activities carried out by elective participants that reduce on-site emissrelated to electricity consumption, and the capture of carbon from the atmosphere in forests. ACPs are listed on a registry, which provides information and status of offered certificates. The registry is operated by LogicaCMG under contract with the IPART. GGAS imposes mandatory greenhouse gas benchmarks on all holders of electricity retail licenses in NSW (referred to as mandatory benchmark participants).
The IPART December 18, 2010 Newsletter indicates that the price of tradeable abatement certificates called NSW GHG Abatement Certificates (NGACs) reached a high of AUD$7.15 during the year before declining to around AUD$7.00. Energy Savings Eertificate (ESC) prices increased to AUD$29.00.
The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS)
American Carbon Registry www.americancarbonregistry.org/
Australia Dept. of Climate Change www.greenhouse.gov.au/
Australia Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator www.orer.gov.au/index.html
Australia, Government of the Northwest Territories, Department of Environment and Climate Change www.dec.nsw.gov.au/
California Air Resource Board www.arb.ca.gov/
California Air Resource Board, Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm
California Energy Commission www.energy.ca.gov/
Canada CO2 Capture and Storage Technology Network www.nrcan.gc.ca/es/etb/cetc/combustion/co2network/
Carbon Disclosure Project www.cdproject.net/
Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) www.cslforum.org/
Centre for Low Emission Technology www.clet.net/
Climate Registry Information system (CRIS) www.theclimateregistry.org/public-reports/
Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC) www.co2crc.com.au/
COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009 en.cop15.dk/
Det Norske Veritas (DNV) www.dnv.com/
European Commission Clean Coal Technology Programme (Euro Clean Coal) www.euro-cleancoal.net/
EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm
GreenX (CME Group) www.thegreenx.com/
HM Treasury, Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm
IEA Greenhouse Program www.ieagreen.org.uk/
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change www.ipcc.ch/
International Emissions Trading Association www.ieta.org/
Midwestern Governors Association www.midwesterngovernors.org/Energy.htm
New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme (NSW GGAS) www.greenhousegas.nsw.gov.au/
New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme (NSW GGAS) Registry www.ggas-registry.nsw.gov.au/
Pew Center on Global Climate Change www.pewclimate.org/
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) www.rggi.org/
U.K., Department of Energy & Climate Change, CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/lc_uk/crc/crc.aspx
U.K., Environment Agency, CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/pollution/98263.aspx
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change unfccc.int/2860.php
U.S. Department of Energy www.energy.gov/
U.S., EPA Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/s2191_EPA_Analysis.pdf
U.S., EPA Climate Leaders www.epa.gov/climateleaders/partners/index.html
U.S., EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html
U.S., SEC, Commission Guidance Regarding Disclosure Related to Climate Change www.sec.gov/rules/interp/2010/33-9106.pdf
