Talk:Carbon emission trading

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Do we really need this article ?[edit]

the main article emissions trading itemises all the major emissions tradings currently in place or planned, with links to an article describing the scheme where extant. The big one, the carbon trading scheme in Kyoto, has spawned most of the other carbon systems, but was inspired by California's SOx market. I suggest we maintain this as a simple page that redirects to emissions trading - just like carbon emissions trading already does. Also, if some of the WCI members have their way, their schemes will be linked with other environmental schemes such as water management, making this type of article even more tenuous Ephebi (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


my two cents[edit]

I think that this article is largely covered under cap and trade and is really just an article spawned off the same topic, no? - in other words, wouldn't it be better to have one complete, better organized article, than five or six related but in many ways redundant articles?

New section on economics and rewrite of criticisms[edit]

I've deleted these two paragraphs:


Moral tradeoff

With carbon emission trading, there is the rarely discussed concern of moral tradeoff. The idea is exemplified in the study, "A Fine is a Price"[9], conducted by Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini with a selected group of Haifa childcare centers in Israel. The study showed that monetary fines on late-coming parents did not deter the tardy habit and instead, created an unexpected economic and moral tradeoff for the late-coming parents as they could now compensate for their tardiness under the new fine system.[citation needed][original research?]

However, this analogy does not take into account an important distinction between late fees at childcare centres and cap-and-trade emissions reduction schemes: the price paid by a late-coming parent has no impact on the price to be paid by other late-coming parents. That is, there is no bidding system in place where parents compete for the right to arrive late. This contrasts with an emissions trading scheme, where one firm's willingness to pay for carbon emissions reduces the number of permits available to other emitters, thereby increasing scarcity and hence the price of carbon pollution.[original research?]

Irrelevance

Buying and selling carbon units does not, in itself, do anything to reduce emissions. Emission reduction requires technology, not accounting. There is a risk that the scheme will do little but make money for traders. In response, the carbon trading regime exists to directly finance investments that reduce carbon emissions.


In my view, these two paragraphs are not of sufficient quality to be included in this article.

First paragraph

I don't think this is notable or of sufficient quality to be included in Wikipedia. It is not included in the IPCC literature assessment. I've not seen it in any other authorative sources. I've put in higher quality arguments that point to weaknesses of emissions trading.

Second paragraph

Uncited. It's not consistent with the sources I've referred to, which say that emissions trading can be an effective way of reducing emissions. Enescot (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary surrender of units[edit]

This section just seems to be promotional material for a particular viewpoint, which I don't think is notable or appropriate. The main advantage of emissions trading is that it lowers the overall costs of meeting a target. The idea of buying permits to increase the permit price is absurd (except in the case of government's controlling the price, but no one seriously suggests this). The way of getting the permit price sufficiently high is for the government to limit the number of permits that it gives away. What percentage of permits in the carbon market have been retired? I doubt that it is very much. Enescot (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is an absurd viewpoint. However I have heard well-intentioned people talk favourably about buying and cancelling units in order to lower 'The Cap'. So I think it needs to be left in, subject to better wording and providing the counter viewpoint. Mrfebruary (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I have added one more example and one critique. Mrfebruary (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Polluter pays principle[edit]

What about Polluter pays principle? Watti Renew (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Polluter pays principle is used in the European Union Environmental Law. The polluter is responsible of the costs of the consequenses of its pollution. The likelihood of the consequenses of the polluting action is juridically enough for the responsiblity. The polluter has responsibility to show its non guilty, if it can. In my opinion this means that the CO2 emittors are resonsible for the costs of the extreme weather costs. Carbon trading can not dilute this responsibility. Watti Renew (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Merger Proposal[edit]

To comply with WP:NPOV I propose merging a portion of Criticism Kyoto Protocol ( the portion on Carbon trading ) with Carbon trading emissions the merge will allow us to obtain a stronger NPOV. NPOV requires us to present information fairly, proportionately, and without bias. the main problem is that it is unfair that the criticism is cast off to a tiny article instead of woven if fairly with the main article. We don't want to give undue weight to criticism so we need to remember that. but the solution is 1 article written well not 2 different articles. Size shouldn't be a problem but if it is we can spin off large topics into sub-topics.

NPOV is immune from a consensus override so we have to find a NPOV sollution that meets the 3 requirements. and NPOV has a supremacy clause so other policies like WP:Merge Test and WP:Article Size can't over ride it. I know the merger will take some work and a few edits but the end result will be a better stronger wikipedia. Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carbon emission trading. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Spraggon's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Spraggon has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


Under Carbon trading, a country having more emissions of carbon is able to purchase the right to emit more and the country having less emission trades the right to emit carbon to other countries. More carbon emitting countries, by this way try to keep the limit of carbon emission specified to them.

I would site the European Emission Trading market (http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm) and say: Under Cabon trading companies are provided with allowances-a number of tons of Carbon (or other Greenhouse Gas) which they are able to emit. They then may trade these allowances on an open market. If they can reduce their emissions of carbon more cheaply than the market price then they should do so and sell their excess permits at a profit. On the other hand if reducing their emissions are more expensive than the market price they should buy permits from others who can reduce their emissions more cheaply. In this way carbon is reduced as cheaply as possible.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Spraggon has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : John K. Stranlund & James J. Murphy & John M. Spraggon, 2014. "Price Controls and Banking in Emissions Trading: An Experimental Evaluation," Working Papers 2014-01, University of Alaska Anchorage, Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Peterson's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Peterson has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


Instead of

"This form of permit trading is a common method countries utilize in order to meet their obligations specified by the Kyoto Protocol; namely the reduction of carbon emissions in an attempt to reduce (mitigate) future climate change.

Under Carbon trading, a country having more emissions of carbon is able to purchase the right to emit more and the country having less emission trades the right to emit carbon to other countries. More carbon emitting countries, by this way try to keep the limit of carbon emission specified to them."


write:

Emission trading can take place at different levels: - state level: under the Kyoto Protocol countries can trade or rather exchange emissions in order to meet their obligations (see e.g. http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/mechanisms/emissions_trading/items/2731.php) - firm level: in firm level carbon emissions trading schemes firms have to submit permits for each unit of emitted carbon. The permits are handed out for free or auctioned and can then be traded. The largest existing firm level carbon emission trading system is the European Emissions Trading Scheme (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme)

Under Carbon trading, a country/firm having more emissions of carbon is able to purchase the right to emit more and the country/firm having less emission trades the right to emit carbon to other countries. More carbon emitting countries, by this way try to keep the limit of carbon emission specified to them.


Furthermore, I do not think the Section on ethics and Fairness fits to the Topic.

Add under "Taxes versus caps"

For a comparison of taxes and emissions trading see "Carbon Taxes vs. Cap and Trade: A Critical Review, Lawrence H. Goulder, Andrew Schein, NBER Working Paper No. 19338, Issued in August 2013". http://www.nber.org/papers/w19338


Section on Market Trend: Delete and write instead. The world bank annually summarizes the market development of the steadily increasing global carbon market. The 2015 Report can be found here: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2015/09/25053834/state-trends-carbon-pricing-2015

This should also be added to external links". Generally, the article is a Little outdated and there is newer relevant literature. the sections are rather arbitrary.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Peterson has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference 1: Sonja Peterson & Gernot Klepper, 2007. "Distribution Matters ; Taxes vs. Emissions Trading in Post Kyoto Climate Regimes," Kiel Working Papers 1380, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
  • Reference 2: Sonja Peterson, 2006. "Efficient Abatement in Separated Carbon Markets: A Theoretical and Quantitative Analysis of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme," Kiel Working Papers 1271, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Andre's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Andre has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


This form of permit trading is a common method countries utilize in order to meet their obligations specified by the Kyoto Protocol; namely the reduction of carbon emissions in an attempt to reduce (mitigate) future climate change.

This form of permit trading CAN TAKE PLACE AMONG COUNTRIES OR AMONG FIRMS. IT is a common method countries utilize in order to meet their obligations specified by the Kyoto Protocol; namely the reduction of carbon emissions in an attempt to reduce (mitigate) future climate change. THERE IS ALSO SOME CARBON TRADING AMONG FIRMS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO A NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM, SUCH AS THE EUROPEAN UNION EMISSION TRADING SYSTEM (EU ETS)


Under Carbon trading, a country having more emissions of carbon is able to purchase the right to emit more and the country having less emission trades the right to emit carbon to other countries. More carbon emitting countries, by this way try to keep the limit of carbon emission specified to them.

Under Carbon trading, a country OR A FIRM THAT having more emissions of carbon THAN THE NUMBER OF PERMITS IT HOLDS, is able to purchase the right to emit more and the country OR FIRM having MORE PERMITS THAN EMISSIONS emission trades the right to emit carbon to other countries OR FIRMS. THE PURPOSE IS THAT THE PERMITS ARE HOLD BY THOSE COUNTRIES OR FIRMS THAT VALUE THEM MOST, I.E., THOSE THAT BEAR HIGHER ABATEMENT COSTS.


I'm not sure if the subsections "Cost and valuation" and "Ethics and fairness" fit in this article. They would probably fit better in an article about "Climate Change", but not much in an article about "Carbon Emission Trading".


Subsection "Taxes versus caps".

A clasical reference about the advantages of using quanties or price regulation is

Weitzman, M. L. (1974). Prices vs. quantities. The review of economic studies, 41(4), 477-491.



We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Andre has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference : Francisco J. Andre & Luis M. de Castro, 2015. "Incentives for Price Manipulation in Emission Permit Markets with Stackelberg Competition," Working Papers 2015.06, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Carbon emission trading. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)