Search Climate Insights Directory

The report assesses the potential for linking regional and national emissions trading systems (ETS) to create a broader carbon market. It concludes that while an OECD-wide company-level market by 2015 is highly ambitious, linking serves as a critical bottom-up fallback option to top-down international regimes. The study identifies significant barriers to full bilateral linking, including divergent monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) provisions, differing offset eligibility, and a lack of consensus on carbon price levels. However, it suggests that unilateral links to international offset mechanisms and indirect links via credits are more likely in the short term.

The report assesses the potential for linking emissions trading schemes (ETS) globally, concluding that an OECD-wide company-level carbon market by 2015 is a "highly ambitious goal." It identifies that while the EU ETS seeks to be a nucleus for a global market, most emerging schemes prioritize domestic price control over full bilateral linking. The study highlights significant barriers to linkage, including divergent target stringencies, the use of intensity-based targets (notably in Canada), and different cost-containment measures like price caps. It distinguishes between unilateral links (one-way recognition), bilateral/multilateral links (mutual recognition), and indirect links (via common mechanisms like the CDM). The report also examines the legal complexities of such links, particularly the constraints on US state-level agreements and the EU's regulatory mandates. It suggests that a "bottom-up" process of linking regional markets could serve as a fallback if top-down international agreements, such as a Kyoto successor, fail.

The Climate 2030 Blueprint proposes a combination of an economywide cap-and-trade program and complementary sector-specific policies to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The analysis argues that these measures can achieve deep carbon cuts while generating significant net savings for consumers and businesses, reducing oil dependence, and maintaining robust economic growth.

The Union of Concerned Scientists advocates for a dual policy approach in the U.S., pairing a national renewable electricity standard with an economy-wide carbon cap. The document asserts that while carbon caps are essential, they are insufficient on their own to overcome market barriers such as high upfront costs and grid interconnection rules. According to UCS analysis, a 25% national renewable standard by 2025 would reduce power plant CO2 emissions by 277 million metric tons per year and save consumers $64 billion. Furthermore, integrating such standards with a carbon cap can lower energy bills by reducing reliance on natural gas and enhancing overall economic savings.

The Union of Concerned Scientists asserts that the United States requires federal legislation to overcome barriers in the planning and siting of transmission lines, which currently hinder the deployment of renewable energy. The document advocates for 'Green Energy Superhighways' to connect remote renewable resource areas to population centers, while emphasizing that federal authority should act as a backstop when states cannot agree on facilities of national interest. It warns that without a federal cap-and-trade system, transmission expansion in the Northeastern United States could inadvertently increase carbon emissions by allowing coal-based power to flow from non-RGGI states to those with emission caps.

Michelle Chan of Friends of the Earth testified that traditional cap-and-trade systems are prone to speculative bubbles and regulatory gaps, drawing parallels to the 2008 financial crisis. She warns that carbon offset credits and complex derivatives could lead to 'subprime carbon' risks where securities are based on non-existent or failing emission reductions. To avoid these risks, she advocates for the McDermott bill, which excludes carbon offsets and implements a stable carbon price to prevent boom-bust cycles.

The document examines the legislative debate in the US regarding the adoption of a nationwide emissions trading scheme and the use of border adjustment measures to prevent carbon leakage and protect industrial competitiveness. It analyzes specific proposals like the Climate Security Act of 2008, arguing that while such measures are likely to be included in future legislation, they face significant legal risks under WTO rules, particularly the most-favored nation principle. The paper contrasts the US focus on 'competitiveness' and 'free-riding' with the EU's focus on 'carbon leakage' and recommends international coordination to avoid trade wars and ensure that such measures are based on environmental rather than protectionist rationales.

The document assesses the 2008 proposal for the Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, focusing on its mechanisms for price control and international linking. It examines the implications of a domestic price cap and the potential for bilateral linking with the European Union and New Zealand, while analyzing the impact of 'hot air' units from Russia and Eastern Europe on the global carbon market.

The document examines the impact of emissions offsets on air quality in California under the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32). It highlights a University of California at Berkeley study showing that while in-state offsets produce mixed results—reducing methane but increasing nitrogen oxides (NOx)—out-of-state offsets lead to an increase in nearly every air pollutant, effectively exporting air quality co-benefits away from the state.

The document asserts that the United States must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050 to avoid severe climate impacts. It argues that the cost of action is small relative to the global and national economy, while the cost of inaction is significantly higher, citing potential losses of over 3.6% of U.S. GDP annually by 2100. The text advocates for a policy mix of market-based cap-and-trade systems and sector-specific incentives, warning that 'safety valves' or price caps would undermine investment in new energy technologies.

The testimony asserts that the U.S. has a critical opportunity to lead global climate action because major developing countries are now more willing to commit to emissions reductions than they were during the Kyoto Protocol era. It advocates for a new international agreement based on the Bali Action Plan's 'measurable, reportable and verifiable' (MRV) framework to ensure accountability. The author emphasizes that while developing nations' actions may focus on reducing emissions growth rather than absolute cuts, U.S. support in finance and technology—particularly for adaptation—is essential for a successful global deal.

The document analyzes the landscape of emissions trading schemes (ETS) in North America, noting that while regional initiatives like the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) and Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) are advanced, national efforts in the US and Canada face coordination challenges. It argues that linking is logical due to economic ties, but current designs—particularly Canada's intensity-based targets—create barriers to bilateral links with absolute-cap schemes. The author concludes that a US federal scheme would likely preempt most state schemes, while Canada may use equivalency agreements to allow provincial schemes to persist.

In a statement to the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, World Resources Institute President Jonathan Lash advocates for immediate national climate legislation. He cites accelerating climate impacts, such as record Arctic sea ice loss and pine beetle outbreaks in British Columbia, as evidence of the need for urgent action. The statement proposes an economy-wide, market-driven cap-and-trade program combined with investments in energy efficiency, grid modernization, and carbon capture to stimulate economic growth and ensure technological competitiveness.

The report examines the EU ETS, concluding that emissions trading is effective and has modest macroeconomic impacts, though it can create windfall profits and price volatility. It argues that international competitiveness risks are limited to a few carbon-intensive sectors and recommends maximizing auctioning over free allocation to maintain economic efficiency and innovation incentives. The authors caution against unilateral border adjustments, suggesting multilateral arrangements instead to prevent trade disputes and carbon leakage.

The document analyzes the constraints and opportunities facing the U.S. and China ahead of COP15. It argues that while the U.S. is limited by domestic legislative gridlock in the Senate, China is cautious about assuming an international leadership role despite increasing domestic climate ambition. The authors suggest that a bilateral U.S.-China understanding and the EU's role as a mediator could unlock progress, emphasizing that a pragmatic, incremental agreement is preferable to failure.

The document analyzes the interdependence of U.S. Senate climate legislation and U.S.-China diplomatic relations ahead of the 2009 Copenhagen summit. It argues that the Obama administration's ability to secure a global deal depends on passing domestic legislation to provide negotiating clarity and using bilateral cooperation on technology to unlock Chinese emissions targets. The brief highlights a 'Catch 22' where the U.S. needs Chinese commitments to sway domestic swing voters, while China requires U.S. targets and finance/technology commitments before revealing its own midterm goals.

The report projects that Indiana will face significantly hotter summers, increased flooding, and agricultural disruptions if heat-trapping emissions continue to rise. It highlights severe risks to public health from heat waves and poor air quality, and suggests that the state transition from its heavy reliance on coal-fired power to renewable energy and energy efficiency to mitigate these effects.

The report argues that RGGI's design, which caps emissions only for power plants within participating states, creates a price advantage for imported electricity from coal-heavy states like West Virginia and Pennsylvania. This 'leakage' is exacerbated by excess capacity in existing coal plants and planned transmission upgrades that facilitate power flow from west to east. The authors suggest that RGGI states should implement retail-level carbon caps, prohibit contracts with high-emission plants, and prioritize transmission projects aligned with climate goals to prevent the expansion of coal-based power.

The report warns that the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) risks 'undercutting itself' because it only prices emissions from power plants within its region. This creates an economic incentive for electricity suppliers in RGGI states to import cheaper, carbon-intensive power from coal-producing states like West Virginia and Ohio. The document provides 'carbon math' showing that utilizing excess capacity from 15 existing coal plants could produce pollution 'three and a half times the cuts expected under the initiative,' and that six plants under construction nearby could emit pollution equal to '140 percent of RGGI’s reductions.' To prevent this 'leak,' the authors suggest capping the entire portfolio of local electricity suppliers, limiting contracts with polluting plants, and requiring suppliers to account for emissions from electricity produced outside the region.

The document examines the role of carbon offsets within a cap-and-trade system, specifically focusing on the challenges of certifying reductions from forestry and agriculture. It argues that while offsets can lower compliance costs for capped entities, the rigorous requirements for offsets—being real, additional, verifiable, permanent, and enforceable—can create high transaction costs for certain project types. The authors suggest that instead of forcing all uncapped reductions into an offset framework, policymakers should use a mix of offsets, direct regulations, and incentive payments to achieve the lowest overall cost to the economy.