Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

Carbon Trust warns of offset threats to carbon markets; Union of Concerned Scientists says REDD will undercut ETS by 33%

Posted on 28 November 200819 February 2013
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Email this to someone
email

Carbon Trust warns of offset threats to carbon markets; Union of Concerned Scientists says REDD will undercut ETS by 33%

On the eve of the Poznan UNFCCC Conference of Parties, even pro-market and cautious expert groups are starting to sound alarm bells about the possible impacts of cheap ‘offsets’ on existing carbon markets.

The widely respected and UK government-backed London-based Carbon Trust, which provides advice on carbon reductions to industry and governmental agencies, has warned that carbon offsets could swamp the European Emissions Trading Scheme, with “strong implications” for the price of carbon (see full article below).

Whilst the Carbon Trust’s concerns appear mostly to be related to cheap CDM credits, the problems that they highlight would be even worse with the introduction of REDD credits into the ETS. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) – also strongly pro-trading and a dominant organisation in the NGO Climate Action Network – will shortly publish a report showing that forest-based carbon credits could be sold for one-third less than current ETS credits. Contradictorily, the UCS simultaneously argues that this would not depress the price of carbon, though it fails to provide any convincing arguments as to why this would be so.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the price of ETS credits has again tumbled. Fears are already growing that, even without the depressive price impact of forest credits, this will lead to a “stunting” of funding for renewable energies and other clean technologies. 

Carbon offsets could swamp EU carbon price

Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:12pm EST

LONDON (Reuters) – A ballooning global supply of carbon offsets could flood the European Union’s emissions market and dent prices, according to a report to be published next month by Britain’s Carbon Trust.

EU member states, lawmakers and the EU executive Commission are in negotiations now to revamp the bloc’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) from 2013-2020, and face a mid-December deadline.

The EU ETS is the cornerstone of European climate policy. It distributes to industry a fixed quota of carbon emissions permits, which trade at a certain carbon price.

The scheme allows companies a cheap alternative way to meet their carbon caps, buying carbon offsets from developing countries, funding emissions cuts there instead.

A global offset glut may require tight import limits to maintain the edge of the EU scheme in driving domestic emissions curbs, the Carbon Trust’s Chief Economist, Michael Grubb, said on Tuesday.

“The implication is the only way you have a carbon market at all is to have a fortress Europe,” he said, speaking at a conference in London organized by The Institute of Economic Affairs and Marketforce. That assumed that the United States, Japan and Australia didn’t collectively introduce ambitious cap and trade schemes which mopped up some of the carbon offset supply.

Some EU member states have expressed concerned in the present talks that the EU ETS will impose crippling costs on business entering a recession. Increasing the flow of carbon offsets would cut those costs.

The Carbon Trust is a government-funded agency which advises business and policymakers on how to cut carbon emissions.

The report estimates that under current trends the total global supply of carbon offsets from 2013-2020 will exceed 10 billion tons of avoided carbon dioxide emissions — compared with a quota of EU carbon permits of 14.8 billion tons over the same period.

Such a volume poses a threat to EU carbon prices by potentially making it extremely cheap for industry to meet emissions targets, denting the impact of the scheme on driving low-carbon investments in Europe.

“It does have pretty strong implications for (EU carbon) price,” said Grubb, without commenting on the report’s price estimate.

(Reporting by Gerard Wynn, editing by Anthony Barker)

Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Email this to someone
email

Related

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

SUBSCRIBE!

Enter your email address to receive notification of new posts.

Recent themes
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

REDDisms

“Evidence suggests that offset programmes can wreak serious havoc for the often voiceless indigenous and rural communities who have done the least to create the problem.”

— Robert Del Naja, Massive Attack, November 2019

Recent Posts

  • Graeme Biggar, Director-General of the UK’s National Economic Crime Centre: “There is not a sufficient deterrent for fraudsters and there is insufficient recourse for victims”
  • Coronavirus notes #7: How the Colombian government is rolling back social and environment safeguards during the pandemic
  • Peru cancels its World Bank FCPF Carbon Fund programme
  • The World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility’s latest hot air scam: Retroactive credits
  • Some questions for Frithjof Finkbeiner, founder of Plant-for-the-Planet

Recent Comments

  • Arthur Charles Claxton on Graeme Biggar, Director-General of the UK’s National Economic Crime Centre: “There is not a sufficient deterrent for fraudsters and there is insufficient recourse for victims”
  • Chris Lang on Blackmore Bond collapse: Financial Conduct Authority is “responsible for every penny lost”
  • Sam on Blackmore Bond collapse: Financial Conduct Authority is “responsible for every penny lost”
  • barrywarden on Coronavirus notes #7: How the Colombian government is rolling back social and environment safeguards during the pandemic
  • Chris Lang on Why has the Financial Conduct Authority not taken down the website of the clone scam “Good Investment Advisors”?

Issues and Organisations

AB 32 Boiler rooms Bonn California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Deforestation FCPF FERN Financing REDD Forest definition Fossil fuels FPP Friends of the Earth FSC Greenpeace Guest post ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations Poznan R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer Sustainable Forest Management The Nature Conservancy Ulu Masen UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Luxembourg Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Nigeria Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2021 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!