Resources on Carbon Trading


Factsheets
  • The Cap and Trade Trail of Failures - Download PDF

  • The Cap and Trade Charade for Climate Change - Download PDF

  • Summary: 13 Reasons Why Trading and Offset Use are NOT a Solution to Climate Change - Download PDF

  • Reality versus Theory--Debunking the Myths of Cap-and-Trade - Download PDF

  • Carbon "Offsets"--A lose-lose-lose scenario to address climate change - Download PDF



The Book
  • "The main cause of global warming is rapidly increasing carbon dioxide emissions -- primarily the result of burning fossil fuels. Some responses to the crisis, however, are causing new and severe problems -- and may even increase global warming. This seems to be the case with carbon trading -- the main current international response to climate change and the centrepiece of the Kyoto Protocol." -- Carbon Trading: A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatisation and Power, edited by Larry Lohman, published by Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, Durban Group for Climate Justice and The Corner House, October 2006. - Download PDF




Articles


The Economics:
  • “Most economists believe a carbon tax… would be a superior policy alternative to an emissions-trading regime. In fact, the irony is that there is a broad consensus in favor of a carbon tax everywhere except on Capitol Hill... Al Gore supports the concept, as does James Connaughton, head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality during the George W. Bush administration, Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute supports such an initiative, but so does Paul Anderson, the CEO of Duke Energy.” -- Green, Kenneth P., et. al., Climate Change: Caps vs. Taxes, American Enterprise Institute , Jun. 3, 2007. [Note: we believe a fee would be better for California.]


  • “[A] given long-term emission-reduction target could be met by a tax at a fraction of the cost of an inflexible cap-and-trade program.” -- Policy Options for Reducing CO2 Emissions, Congress of The United States Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Feb. 12, 2008.


  • “[E]xcessive volatility or unduly high prices of quotas on carbon emissions might disrupt the economy severely.” -- Carbon Markets Create a Muddle, Financial Times , Apr. 26, 2007.


  • "A surge in emission permit prices in the EU carbon market in the wake of spiralling oil, gas and coal prices may force a rethink of the rules to prevent carbon compliance getting too expensive, Deutsche analyst Mark Lewis says. This would most likely mean a relaxing of the restrictions on the use of Kyoto offset credits, particularly Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) generated under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)... 'A more generous quota may have to be allowed … to cushion against the risk of an excessive price spike,' Bloomberg reports Lewis saying.” -- CERs may get new boost from oil, Carbon Positive , Jun. 20, 2008.


  • “'Unfortunately, the Economic Analysis Supplement [of the California Air Resources Board Proposed Scoping Plan], in its current form, gives the appearance of justifying the chosen package of regulatory measures rather than evaluating it or looking at policy options,' wrote Janet Peace and Liwayway Adkins of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.” -- Peer Review of the Economic Supplement to the AB32 Draft Scoping Plan, CARB Website , Nov. 2008.


  • California's Legislative Analyst's Office concluded that "economic analysis played a limited role in development of [California's] scoping plan, and [] despite its prediction of eventual net economic benefit, the scoping plan fails to lay out an investment pathway to reach its goals for GHG emissions levels in 2020.” -- LAO's Critique of the AB 32 Scoping Plan Economic Analysis, Legislative Analyst's Office , Nov. 21, 2008.



Speaking Out Against Carbon Trading:
  • "During the final days of the drafting of a 946-page climate bill, Rep. Gene Green (D-Tex.) won support for an amendment that deleted a single word and inserted two others. The words could be worth millions of dollars to U.S. oil refiners. The Green amendment deleted the word "sources" and inserted "emission points." In the arcane world of climate legislation, that tiny bit of editing might one day give petroleum refiners valuable rights to emit carbon dioxide when it otherwise might not have been allowed. Refiners could get the extra allowances in return for cutting carbon emissions by 50 percent at a single point of a vast refinery complex instead of slashing emissions by 50 percent for the entire facility... Point Carbon, a market analysis firm, estimates that the current House draft earmarks $254 billion in allowances -- one sixth of the estimated total value of allowances from 2012 through 2030 -- and gives them to industries most sensitive to carbon pricing, including coal-based electric power generators, energy-intensive manufacturers vulnerable to foreign competition, oil refineries and the automobile industry... The biggest chunk of free allowances, worth $500 billion, would go to local electricity and natural gas distribution companies, with strings to make sure the firms use them to shield consumers from higher costs. Other industries also benefited. The allowances Dingell won for the auto industry would be worth $12 billion over six years, according to Point Carbon. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) led the effort to protect coal-fired utilities and mining firms. He persuaded Waxman and Markey to accept a more modest reduction in emissions overall and to set aside 35 percent of allowances to help residential and industrial consumers of coal-fired power. He also won agreement for extra allowances and money -- about $1 billion a year -- to develop carbon capture-and-storage projects that will eventually be needed to cut carbon emissions of coal plants.” -- "High-Stakes Quest for Permission to Pollute: Interest Groups Press Congress for Cap-and-Trade Allowances in Climate-Change Legislation," Washington Post , June 5, 2009.


  • "Senator Merkley sees real potential for change for the better, but fears that we won’t seize the opportunity. 'There is the possibility that we will end up with a framework that is ineffective, that has offsets, that doesn’t have a firm cap. … Or, we could end up with something that could really transform our use of energy. Obviously, we’re going to have to work real hard to get from the former to the latter.'” -- "An Energy Smart Senator Speaks Up," GetEnergySmartNow.com , June 2, 2009.


  • "The Waxman-Markey bill would allow the use of up to 2 billion offsets each year, up to three-quarters of them from international sources. The use of these offsets would allow U.S. polluters to boost emissions by nearly two-fifths by 2012 and would not force cutbacks below today's levels until 2027.” -- "Carbon trading's inconvenient truth," SF Chronicle , May 26, 2009.


  • "Note the hidden assumption... that solving global warming equals cap-and-trade (or if you are a DFH a carbon tax). If it is priceless, it is hopeless... [Offsets] make profits for large corporations and revenue for governments and consultants. They provide employment for public and private jugglers of red tape. They let politicians make weak climate bills look stronger than they really are. They help build self-esteem among mainstream environmentalists. They just don?t lower greenhouse gas emissions or help solve the climate crisis.” -- "Offsets are still counterfeit carbon credits," Gristmill , June 1, 2009.


  • "Enron immediately embarked on a massive lobbying effort to develop a trading system for carbon dioxide, working both the Clinton administration and Congress. Political contributions and Enron-funded analyses flowed freely, all geared to demonstrating a looming global catastrophe if carbon dioxide emissions weren’t curbed. An Enron-funded study that dismissed the notion that calamity could come of global warming, meanwhile, was quietly buried. To magnify the leverage of their political lobbying, Enron also worked the environmental groups. Between 1994 and 1996, the Enron Foundation donated $1-million to the Nature Conservancy and its Climate Change Project, a leading force for global warming reform, while Lay and other individuals associated with Enron donated $1.5-million to environmental groups seeking international controls on carbon dioxide.” -- "Enron's Other Secret," Financial Post , May 30, 2009.


  • "The usual argument for Waxman-Markey is that, though imperfect, it is better than doing nothing. The cap-and-trade portion is worse than doing nothing. Because of the flaws I’ve mentioned, it essentially requires no emission reduction in practice for at least a decade. Any short term benefits come from non cap-and-trade provisions, such as the Renewable Energy Standard. The long term effects are even worse. The point of supporting a weak bill in area like this would be to build political infrastructure. Even if the standards were low, we could fight to plug better numbers into existing regulations. But with Waxman-Markey we not only have to fight to change the numbers. We have to replace most of the architecture - downstream caps with upstream ones, offsets with requirements for real reductions, giveaways with auctioning. If we pass Waxman-Markey we still end up with a whole climate bill to pass. And that climate bill will need to be fought for under worse conditions than starting from scratch. We will have to win auctions when powerful political actors are accustomed to free permits. We will have [to] repeal offsets against the opposition of the entire corporate and foreign policy establishment. We will have [to] fight to move downstream caps upstream over the objections of a large establishment who will have made huge investments in gaming the complicated loophole-ridden structure.” -- "Waxman-Markey: bill would do more for climate without cap-and-trade provision," Gristmill , May 21, 2009.


  • "As passed through the Energy & Commerce Committee, the American Clean Energy and Security Act sets targets for reducing pollution that are far weaker than science says is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change. The targets are far less ambitious than what is achievable with already existing technology. They are further undermined by massive loopholes that could allow the most polluting industries to avoid real emission reductions until 2027. Rather than provide relief and support to consumers, the bill showers polluting industries with hundreds of billions of dollars in free allowances and direct subsidies that will slow renewable energy development and lock in a new generation of dirty coal-fired power plants. At the same time, the bill would remove the President’s authority to address global warming pollution using laws already on the books.” -- "Broad Coalition Criticizes Climate Bill," Greenpeace , May 21, 2009.


  • "President Barack Obama has long argued that America should join Europe in regulating planet-cooking carbon. But he has left the details to Congress. And the negotiations to craft a bill that might actually pass have not been pretty. The most straightforward and efficient approach to reducing carbon emissions—a carbon tax—was never seriously considered... On May 15th Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, the Democratic point-men on climate change in the House of Representatives, unveiled a bill that would give away 85% of carbon permits for nothing, with only 15% being auctioned... most polluters, having just been promised hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of permits for nothing, are elated. So it is not just the owners of ski resorts and businesses with negligible carbon footprints that are queuing up to praise the bill. Duke Energy, a power generator with lots of coal-fired plants, is also enthusiastic.” -- "Handouts and loopholes: America's climate-change bill is weaker and worse than expected," The Economist , May 21, 2009.


  • "If fully utilized, the emissions 'offset' provisions in the American Clean Energy and Security Act would allow continued business as usual growth in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions until 2030, leading one to wonder: where's the cap in the 'cap' and trade?.” -- "Climate Bill's Offsets Provisions May Let U.S. Emissions Rise for Next Twenty Years," Breakthrough Institute , May 21, 2009.


  • "The carbon trading program in the approved ACES bill is also laden with free pollution credits and offsets that lift pressure off coal-burning power companies for the next decade or more. No wonder the United Mine Workers of America is pleased with the outcome. See our analysis of the bill posted earlier this week for details on how ACES gives coal a competitive future and this post for an analysis of the allowance giveaways.” -- "Climate Bill Wins Enough Votes to Pass, But at What Cost?," SolveClimate , May 21, 2009.


  • "One of the least discussed flaws in the Waxman-Markey bill's attempt to tackle the climate crisis also illustrates the fundamental problem with cap-and-trade. The bill strips the EPA[1] of much of its existing authority to regulate greenhouse gases, in return for the new, weaker authority granted under Waxman-Markey. The existence of this authority is one of the strongest levers that can be used to push through new climate legislation, and it should not be given up in return for something this weak... The offset provisions, along with reduced targets during the first ten years, guarantee this bill will produce few or no emission reductions if passed. In the name of not letting the perfect become the enemy of the good, Waxman-Markey lets the perfect become the enemy of the good. It trades actual emissions reductions for acceptance that cap-and-trade is the right means of reducing emissions. And ultimately filling up political space is what cap-and-trade does. When a cap-and-trade bill is on the table most of the conversation and political activism around climate change is concentrated on cap-and-trade. Should we accept this version of cap-and-trade or fight for a stronger one? Or do some heretics want to question cap-and-trade? (When a cap-and-trade bill is off the table, most political effort is aimed at getting one on the table.) ... When environmentalists and environmental groups put most of their climate efforts into winning an emissions price that is a tremendous misplacing of priorities. But it is even worse when the mainstream chooses to support counterproductive means.” -- "Sucking the lemon we sold. The USA and Carbon Trading," Gristmill , May 31, 2009.


  • "To the extent free permits combined with pass-through requirements actually work as a back door cap-and-dividend, they undermine the incentive they are supposed to provide to reduce emissions. Whereas a real cap-and-dividend (or tax-and-dividend) combines real incentives with consumer protection by providing cash payments, rather than price reductions... If money is really expected to be passed through to consumers, then why is it not done by auctioning the permits, and writing checks to consumers in the same proportion as utility bills and gas prices will supposedly be reduced under the current legislation? Every adjustment for regional impact, and income level done via lower bills could be done by adjusting the relative size of the checks. The answer is simple: under the system actually proposed entities receiving free permits expect most of the profits and savings to stick to their paws, rather than being passed along.” -- "Waxman-Markey giveaways pit consumer protection against climate protection:Poor design creates zero sum game," Gristmill , May 26, 2009.


  • "The House Energy and Commerce Committee looks poised to vote on the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act later today. As this bill has developed, from an already compromised draft bill through massive compromising to reach a bill submission to committee markups, it has reached the point as to whether it is more appropriately called the 'Assuring Coal Energy Subsidies' Act... Let us summarize, this is 77 percent for subsidizing directly and indirectly the burning of polluting fossil fuels and 13 percent for energy efficiency and renewable energy.” -- "A Coal Subsidy Act?" Get Energy Smart NOW! , May 21, 2009.


  • The Waxman-Markey "bill stinks. I'll spare you the many odiferous details and just highlight three particularly bad aspects: 1) It won't protect the poor from price-hikes as the price of carbon is slowly internalized into our energy bills, but will protect polluting industries by allowing them free pollution permits; 2) It opens the door to fraud and shell games instead of real climate action by setting up a huge carbon derivatives market; 3) It makes a mockery of our common understanding of 'renewable energy,' favoring dirty smokestacks over truly clean, renewable energy.” -- Daphne Wysham, "Good News, There's a Climate Bill -- Bad News, It Stinks," AlterNet , May 19, 2009.


  • "Cap and trade... is almost perfectly designed for the buying and selling of political support through the granting of valuable emissions permits to favor specific industries and even specific Congressional districts. That is precisely what is taking place now in the House Energy and Commerce Committee... Even some early devotees of a system of tradable emissions permits believe that it will not work for carbon dioxide, by definition a planetary problem. A straightforward tax on each ton of carbon dioxide emitted by any source, they say, would provide a more predictable price and a simpler system to police. 'If a philosopher king could design a system, he or should might pick a taxation system,' said Robert Hahn, a White House economist under Mr. Bush who backed the acid rain program but is skeptical that it will work for the much more pervasive problem of carbon dioxide... In 1971, W. David Montgomery, a Harvard graduate student in economics, fleshed out the idea of emissions trading in his doctoral thesis... He supported the acid rain trading program, but said it was based on 'unique historical and economic circumstances' that did not apply to the much more difficult problem of carbon dioxide emissions. Mr. Montgomery, now a vice president at Charles River Associates International, a consulting firm, said Mr. Waxman's proposal would ultimately act like a tax on carbon-producing industries, disguised by a complex cap-and-trade system. 'It is a steel fist of regulation covered by a velvet glove of emission trading,' Mr. Montgomery said. 'Why not just impose a carbon tax?'” -- "From a Theory to a Consensus on Emissions," New York Times , May 17, 2009.


  • "Cap-and-trade, to the extent that it works, drives behavior through price. Polluters decide on whether to make capital investments to reduce greenhouse gas pollution based on what they expect the price of permits to be in the future. And given the short term horizon used by most managers, and required by stock markets, such decision makers are eager to project future prices as low, so they can invest in their core business rather than pollution control. As a result volatility (that is prices that tend to fluctuate) and especially extreme dips in permit prices lead to underinvestment in emission reductions. The RECLAIM failure in Southern California is one example of how low prices and volatility can undermine a cap-and-trade system. The ETS actually increased emissions from 2005 through 2007. This happened in a period when total EU emissions were falling. (Traded emissions under ETS did fall in 2008. But this was in the face of the beginng of a depression. The total drop was much less than for the EU as a whole.) Cap-and-trade on a large scale tends towards volatility.” -- "Cap-and-trade permit giveaway hurt Waxman-Markey effectiveness," Gristmill , May 15, 2009.


  • "Reps. Bob Inglis of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona on Wednesday became the first Republican lawmakers to introduce legislation imposing a carbon tax on producers and distributors of fossil fuels. The bill, co-sponsored by Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois, would set a tax of $15 a ton of carbon dioxide produced in its first year in effect, with the tax rising to $100 a ton over three decades... Inglis and Flake oppose the cap-and-trade measure, saying it would create a huge federal bureaucracy to regulate the sale and trade of carbon credits — on the heels of catastrophic financial services failures because of lax government oversight. 'We stand a chance of being a significant possible replacement of cap and trade when cap and trade fails,' Inglis said. 'It's a carbon-credit trading scheme similar to the Wall Street fiasco we've just seen, complete with a Federal Reserve Board of Carbon Credits.'" -- "Republican lawmakers back carbon tax (yes, that's right)," McClatchey Newspapers , May 13, 2009.


  • "Introducing cap-and-trade in good economic times would be suspect. Introducing it during the worst global recession since the Great Depression is stark, raving, mad... Finally, the legacy of cap-and-trade is not going to be a greener world. It's going to be the world's largest new stock market, trading exclusively in a stock called carbon credits, where the mega-profits will be made by speculators, hedge funds, and the same financial and investment houses that just finished crashing the global economy." -- "Cap, trade charade," Edmonton Sun , May 28, 2009.


  • "The real puzzle here is did the Obama administration leak the [OMB] memo itself in order to get off the hook. Have they determined that the whole concept carries too much economic risk and therefore too much political risk to pursue at this point in time or was it leaked by lower level opponents that are just trying to torpedo the program. I don’t suppose we will soon know the answer to that question. I do think that we can discern a very difficult road ahead for any type of climate legislation.” -- Tom Lindmark, "Did Cap-and-Trade Die Today?," Istockanalyst , May 13, 2009.


  • "The Thune Amendment effectively kills cap and trade as a mechanism for reducing emissions. I have little doubt that the legislation will go forward, and it likely will pass in some form and do many things. Its just that reducing emissions won’t be among them. Cap and trade is dead, but the charade will go on.” -- Roger Pielke Jr., "The Thune Amendment," Prometheus , Apr. 1, 2009.


  • "If polluters indeed use the maximum allowable number of offset credits [allowed under Waxman-Markey], domestic emissions in 2012 would increase by 38% rather than decrease by 3%, the reduction that the cap sets. Emissions would not dip below 2005 levels until 2026, 17 years from today (see Figure). If all eligible offsets were used, the 20% reduction supposed to happen by 2020 would not actually be reached until 2036. The reduction in 2050 would be only 50% rather than the stated 83% (see Figure). These reductions are clearly not enough to prevent global temperature from rising by more than two degrees Celsius (3.6o F), a threshold that many scientists believe will lead to dangerous consequences, if crossed.” -- Payal Parekh, "Waxman-Markey Bill: No Cuts until 2016!," International Rivers , Apr. 15, 2009.


  • "Carbon trading is fundamentally derivatives trading. Currently, most carbon is sold as simple futures contracts (a type of derivative)... 'Subprime carbon' -- called 'junk carbon' by traders -- are contracts to deliver carbon that carry a higher risk of not being fulfilled, and thus may collapse in value. They are comparable to subprime loans or junk bonds, debts that carry a higher probability of not being paid... carbon markets will be much more dominated by speculators. Currently, the vast majority of carbon funds are set up by investors simply to make a profit; less than one-third of carbon funds have been established by companies to help them comply with carbon caps.” -- "Subprime Carbon? Re-Thinking the World's Largest New Derivatives Market," Friends of the Earth , Mar. 2009.


  • "It may have worked for SO2, but cap and trade is the wrong answer to the climate change question.” -- "Why cap and trade is not the answer," Carbonfees.org , Mar. 2009.


  • "One of the top economists in the US has today urged political leaders to abandon the "reckless gamble" of the Kyoto Protocol's approach to carbon trading and instead adopt carbon taxation as a proven and more effective means of putting a price on carbon. Professor William D Nordhaus of Yale University is one of the first economists to study the impacts of climate change and an advisor to the US government on the Congressional Budget Office Panel of Economic Experts. He said that carbon taxes would provide greater price certainty to businesses, make it easier to encourage emerging countries to enter into an international deal on climate change and would be less susceptible to corruption than alternative cap-and-trade measures.” -- Business Green , Mar. 11, 2009.


  • "President Obama’s budget doesn’t have enough support from lawmakers to pass, the Senate Budget Committee chairman said Tuesday. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said that it would be a “distant hope” to expect the climate change plan to pass unless it includes help for industries that would be hit hard by limits on carbon emission production.” -- Walter Alarkon, The Hill , Mar. 11, 2009.


  • "The United States should not impose a cap-and-trade system to battle climate change this year because it amounts to a painful tax during a deep recession, senators argued Wednesday. Kent Conrad, the Budget Committee's Democratic chairman, fretted over the impact of Obama's budget on both companies and poorer people if utilities pass on the costs of government pollution permits to their customers. 'The budget as written probably can't pass here,' Conrad warned Chu..” -- AFP , Mar. 11, 2009.


  • "From a political standpoint, Conrad indicated that a number of senators who are on the fence or close to it when it comes to climate change legislation may jump ship if they stand to lose the opportunity to influence the legislation.” -- New York Times , Mar. 11, 2009.


  • "The head of the UN body charged with leading the fight against climate change has conceded that Barack Obama will face a "revolution" if he commits the US to the deep carbon cuts that scientists and campaigners say are needed.” -- The Guardian , Mar. 11, 2009.


  • "The cost of energy for consumers would be driven higher in President Barack Obama's proposed budget by a carbon cap-and-trade system that is projected to raise about $80 billion a year starting in 2012. The budget assumes the U.S. adopts the cap-and-trade system... 'Let's just be honest and call it a carbon tax that will increase taxes on all Americans who drive a car, who have a job, who turn on a light switch, pure and simple,' said the Republican leader in the House, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio.” -- "Carbon trading to raise consumer energy prices," The Wall Street Journal , Feb. 27, 2009.


  • "Set up to price pollution out of existence, carbon trading is pricing it back in. Europe’s carbon markets are in collapse... Intended to price fossil fuels out of the market, the system is instead turning them into the rational economic choice... Like medieval pardoners handing out unlimited indulgences, governments have created a glut. Reformation must follow. Wanted — a modern Martin Luther to nail a shaming truth to industry’s door: Europe’s whizz-bang carbon market is turning sub-prime.” -- "Carbon markets are collapsing," The Hindu , Feb. 24, 2009.


  • "With the global economy in meltdown, and faith in Wall Street wizardry at a low — to say the least — it’s perhaps an odd time for a push to put the fate of the planet into the hands of the market... To move money around in such a market would require project developers, financers, verifiers, registries, and consultants — all of whom are now well aware of their stake in climate policy. Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, insurance companies like AIG and private equity firms had virtually no reps on Capitol Hill working on global warming policy in 2003; by last year, they had about 130 climate lobbyists, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis of Senate lobbying disclosure forms shows.” -- "Carbon as a Commodity," The Center for Public Integrity , Feb. 24, 2009.


  • "Steven Chu, the new secretary of energy... said that while President Obama and Congressional Democratic leaders had endorsed a so-called cap-and-trade system to control global warming pollutants, there were alternatives that could emerge, including a tax on carbon emissions or a modified version of cap-and-trade. Dr. Chu said reaching agreement on legislation to combat climate change would be difficult in the current recession because any scheme to regulate greenhouse gas emissions would probably cause energy prices to rise and drive manufacturing jobs to countries where energy is cheaper. 'The concern about cap-and-trade in today’s economic climate,' Dr. Chu said, 'is that a lot of money might flow to developing countries in a way that might not be completely politically sellable.'" -- New York Times , Feb. 11, 2009.


  • "Alluding to the climate change bill that failed in the Senate last June, Ms. Boxer said that her committee would be 'starting afresh.' What better way to do that than by giving a tax on carbon a fair hearing?” -- "Climate Change Solutions: Sen. Boxer is open to everything -- except what might work best," The Washington Post , Feb. 16, 2009.


  • "It says a lot about the changing climate in business circles and in Washington that Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson yesterday came out in favor of a carbon tax in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center... [He stated:] 'It is important to remember that a cap-and-trade system requires a new market infrastructure for traders to trade emissions allowances. This new "Wall Street" of emissions brokers will take the emphasis away from the goal of reducing carbon emissions and focus its attention on trading on price volatility. For businesses and consumers, these market gatekeepers and resultant price swings add cost and they create uncertainty. Also, cap-and-trade systems, because of their complexity, have inherent problems with verification and accountability. They require a vast expansion of administrative and regulatory officials to ensure emissions allowances are not exceeded. This is another cost for businesses and consumers to bear.' Tillerson said that a tax doesn't carry those burdens.” -- Exxon Chief Embraces Carbon Tax, WashingtonPost.com , Jan. 9, 2009.


  • "Policies being discussed in national and international circles now, which focus on 'goals' for emission reduction and 'cap and trade', have the same basic approach as the Kyoto Protocol. This approach is ineffectual and not commensurate with the climate threat. It could waste another decade, locking in disastrous consequences for our planet and humanity... 'Cap and trade' generates special interests, lobbyists, and trading schemes, yielding non productive millionaires, all at public expense. The public is fed up with such business.” -- "A Letter to Obama," James Hansen, The Guardian UK , Dec. 29, 2008.


  • "Conservatives don’t support tax increases that are veiled as 'cap and trade' schemes for pollution permits. But offer us a tax swap, and we could become the new administration’s best allies on climate change. A climate-change bill withered in Congress this summer because families don’t need an enormous, and hidden, tax increase. If the bill’s authors had instead proposed a simple carbon tax coupled with an equal, offsetting reduction in income taxes or payroll taxes, a dynamic new energy security policy could have taken root.” -- "An emissions plan conservatives could warm to," Bob Inglis (R-SC) and Arthur B. Laffer, New York Times , Dec. 27, 2008.


  • "Carbon taxes are currently in place, with frequent exemptions, in Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, British Columbia, and select U.S. cities...Connecticut Representative John Larson has sponsored U.S. legislation that would impose an excise tax on any taxable carbon substance sold by a manufacturer, producer, or importer. The bill currently has support of 12 fellow Democrats. 'It's gaining momentum every single day,' Larson said on Tuesday. 'Twelve members may not seem like a lot, but [three of] these are influential members of the Ways and Means Committee.'” -- "Hansen to Obama: Support a Carbon Tax," Worldchanging.com , Dec. 15, 2008.


  • "[The Poznan negotiations] won't result in adequate CO2 reductions in the time we have. The last minute demands of the power plant and industrial sectors are a likely predictor of what we can expect in the States as groups battle for a strong climate bill in Congress. Lets face it, the U.S. fossil fuel lobby makes the European coal companies look like wimps. So what to do? I don't think we'll get meaningful policy in Washington, D.C. or in Copenhagen without a more fundamental shaking of the system. We must try new strategies and magnify the public demand for transformational rather than incremental change.” -- "Message from Poznan: Time for Mass Mobilization to Stop Global Warming," Betsy Taylor, Huffington Post , Dec. 15, 2008.


  • "Michael Wara of Stanford, together with Kevin Smith of Carbon Trade Watch and Platform and others, have won the Economist magazine's online debate on carbon offset trading against Henry Derwent of the International Emissions Trading Association, businessman Mark Trexler and others. Some 55 per cent of readers voted in favor of the resolution: 'This house believes that carbon offsets undermine the effort to tackle climate change'.” -- "Economist Debates: Carbon Offsets," The Economist , Dec. 16, 2008.


  • On a US debate site, in response to the question "Will carbon trading work?", 72 per cent are voting no, with only 28 per cent for. -- "Will Carbon Trading Work?" OpposingViews.com , Dec. 16, 2008.


  • "If President Barack Obama wants to stop the descent toward dangerous global climate change, and avoid the trade anarchy that current approaches to this problem will invite, he should take Al Gore's proposal for a carbon tax and make it global. A tax on CO2 emissions -- not a cap-and-trade system -- offers the best prospect of meaningfully engaging China and the U.S., while avoiding the prospect of unhinged environmental protectionism.” -- "We Need a Global Carbon Tax: The cap-and-trade approach won't stop global warming," Ralph Nader & Toby Heaps, Wall Street Journal International , Dec. 3, 2008.


  • "[G]rassroots climate activists took over the Washington DC office of Environmental Defense. The activists stated that they had targeted ED, one of the largest environmental organizations in the world, because of the organization’s key role in promoting the discredited approach of carbon trading as a solution to climate change.” -- "Climate Activists Invade DC Offices of Environmental Defense, Daughter of ED Founder Accuses NGO of Pushing False Solutions to Climate Change," It's Getting Hot in Here , Dec. 1, 2008.


  • "'A new president is a hopeful idea, and I know he cares about the climate. But a couple things [Obama] said he's going to do are not actually the right course.' [Ulla Nilsen] referred to the European Union's cap-and-trade program, in which companies are issued tradable carbon credits that lead to a cap on carbon dioxide, a plan that she said is failing. She added that there's such a program in the Northeastern United States that isn't working either, and she thinks Obama is contemplating a similar national program. So she wants to reach him to express her concerns, and to present him with her gift [of a quilt].” -- "Oaklander's quilt for Obama," Oakland Tribune , Nov. 30, 2008.


  • Watch Jeffrey Sachs of The Earth Institute at Columbia University give a critique of carbon trading on a panel discussing "The Kyoto Mechanisms - Key to Combating Climate Change?" -- The Earth Institute , Oct. 9, 2008.


  • "Both Obama and McCain believe in instituting some form of cap and trade plan for industrial carbon emissions as a means of enforcing a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. A cap and trading system would require substantial time and resources to execute, however, and has yet to be proven effective where it has been instituted elsewhere, notably Europe. A combination of regulations, shifting subsidies from fossil fuels to clean renewable energy sources, and investing in their development could be a more effective way to accomplish the same decrease in greenhouse gas emissions.” -- Mary Ellen; John Harte, "Nuclear Power, Clean Coal, Cap and Trade, Biofuels: Comparing and Contrasting Obama And McCain on Energy," Huffington Post , Oct. 24, 2008.


  • Steve Rayner, a lead author in Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, recently wrote in Wired Magazine: "Cap and trade won't work. The market for carbon offsets is widely touted as the best way to curb greenhouse gases. This would be fine if time were unlimited. However, the best available science suggests that we need to stabilize emissions by mid-century. That's too soon for carbon prices to rise enough to drive the R&D necessary to enable cleaner alternatives to compete with fossil fuels." -- Take Climate Change Seriously, Wired , Sept. 22, 2008.


  • "Officials with the [LA Department of Water and Power] utility, which serves 4 million residents, project it will have to pay $700 million annually in fees for burning coal under the cap-and-trade system being considered. That will divert money it currently spends on expanding energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, said David Nahai, the DWP's general manager." -- LA utility wary of California's emissions strategy, USA Today , July 31, 2008.


  • "Gore has previously supported cap-and-trade schemes, which could raise revenue to subsidize renewable projects. But he said Thursday he also likes the idea of cutting the payroll tax and creating a new tax on carbon emissions, which would give a leg up to low-carbon sources." -- Al Gore lays down green challenge to America, San Francisco Chronicle , Jul. 18, 2008.


  • "Gore called for a cut in payroll taxes and the creation of a carbon tax. 'We should tax what we burn, not what we earn,' Gore said. 'This is the single most important policy change we can make.'” -- Gore Calls for 100% Green Power in 10 Years, earth2tech , Jul. 17, 2008.


  • "Based on our experience as environmental enforcers..., we believe that the California Air Resource Board’s confidence in cap-and-trade is misplaced and that carbon fees provide the more effective and efficient path to the goals of AB 32, California’s landmark climate protection law." -- GUEST JUICE: Cap & Trade - Misplaced Confidence, California Energy Circuit , Jul. 11, 2008.


  • EPA Lawyers call for Carbon Fee, May 4, 2008 - Download PDF


  • "As the United States moves toward taking action on global warming, practical experience with carbon markets in the European Union raises a critical question: Will such systems ever work?.... in Europe, which created the world’s largest greenhouse gas market three years ago, early evidence suggests the whole approach could fail. Carbon dioxide emissions are still rising in many industries, not falling." -- The Trouble with Markets for Carbon, New York Times , James Kanter, Jun. 20, 2008.


  • "The headlines tell the story. 'European Union’s efforts to tackle climate change a failure.' 'UN effort to curtail emissions in turmoil.' 'Truth about Kyoto: huge profits, little carbon saved'. 'It isn’t working . . . $3 billion to some of the worst carbon polluters in the developing world.' 'Critics say offsets may slow the changes needed to cope with global warming'. 'Rich states failing to lead on emissions'. 'Carry on polluting.' In the last two years, investigative journalists have highlighted a story of growing failure in all the most high-profile official efforts to address climate change – the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EUETS), and many regional programmes – and in the 'carbon market' framework they all share... 'The EUETS has done nothing to curb emissions,' notes Peter Atherton of Citigroup Global Markets. It benefits utilities, hedge funds and energy traders while constituting 'a highly regressive tax falling mostly on poor people' and other consumers. Coal plants, observes Deutsche Bank, ironically 'receive more allowances than eco-friendlier' fuels. According to a consultant to the British government, 'by 2015, the UK’s electricity system will look remarkably similar regardless of . . . how the EUETS plays out.'... Private consultancy Point Carbon complains that the new Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative carbon-marketing scheme planned for the northeastern US states has hobbled itself before it has even got under way by allocating an oversupply of pollution rights to electricity generators." -- Carbon Trading: Solution or Obstacle?, The Corner House , Larry Lohmann, Jun. 18, 2008.


  • "Unless we find cost-effective ways of reducing the role of fossil fuels, a cap-and-trade system would ultimately break down. It wouldn't permit satisfactory economic growth. Nor would it work internationally. Developing countries, the largest source of new emissions, won't abandon fossil fuels unless there are competitive alternatives. If we're going to use price to try to stimulate those new technologies, let's at least do it honestly. Most economists think that a straightforward tax on carbon would have the same incentive effects for alternative fuels and conservation as cap-and-trade without the rigidities and uncertainties of emission limits. A tax is more visible, understandable and democratic." -- Let's Just Call It 'Cap and Tax,' Newsweek , Robert J. Samuelson, June 9, 2008.


  • "'Cap and trade' sets up a system that offers endless opportunities to game the system and make even more money by burning fossil fuels, while claiming to be curbing global warming fast enough to avert climate chaos. By the time the system has matured and we learn that it did not work, the billionaires created by the system will be living comfortably in the globally-warmed mountains of Switzerland while the rest of us are learning to deal with more and bigger Katrinas, creeping inundation of all the world's coastal cities, and widespread famine from crop failures caused by drought. This disaster is being created right before our eyes by the 'leading environmentalists' in the United States." -- A Disaster Brought To You By the Nation's Leading Environmentalists, Rachel's Democracy & Health News , Peter Montague, Issue: #962, June 5, 2008.


  • "CLIMATE change is 'the greatest market failure the world has ever seen'. That is the view of no less an authority than Nicholas Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank, and he has a point... The permits are tradable, and the potential for making a profit from buying or selling them has encouraged a whole landscape of speculators, hedge funds, carbon brokers and complex financial instruments to spring up (see "Dirty, sexy money")... With the credit crisis still biting and a global recession looming, a cynic might say the financial market is the last thing we should be calling on to mend the climate. If we cannot trust financiers with something as apparently straightforward as the housing market, why should we imagine they can triumph at controlling global pollution? Yet we all have a vested interest in them succeeding, and the carbon market is growing fast... It is also far from clear that carbon trading will benefit the climate in the long term. By reducing the short-term costs of cutting emissions it could be undermining research and development into the low-carbon and energy-efficient technologies without which the problem will never be properly solved. Bizarrely, no one has thought to address this issue.” -- Can carbon capitalism save the world?, New Scientist.com , Apr. 19, 2008.


  • Many fear that "carbon capitalism is already out of control, delivering big profits while doing little to halt global warming. They are deeply sceptical of the notion that market forces can fix climate change. 'To believe that is to believe in magic,' says Tom Burke, a former director of Friends of the Earth in the UK and adviser to several British environment ministers... [B]etween now and 2012 European companies are expected to buy about $25 billion worth of carbon credits. With this sort of money up for grabs, it is no surprise that what began as a niche market is now attracting major financial institutions such as Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse and Barclays Capital. Climate Care has just been bought by JP Morgan... most of the dams issued with CERs were either completed or already under construction before the application for carbon credits was made - suggesting they were going to be built anyway, without the incentive of carbon credits. For instance, the Xiaogushan dam [] in Gansu province began construction in 2003. Later it qualified for carbon credits. Once sold, those credits will allow their purchasers, probably in Europe, to pump out some 3 million tonnes of CO2 that they would not otherwise have been allowed to emit.” -- Carbon trading struggles to cut our emissions, New Scientist.com , Apr. 19, 2008.


  • "The United Nations is facing scathing criticism from the world's indigenous communities for its attempts to promote carbon trading as a tool to address climate change concerns... Janet Redman, lead author of a new study released by the Washington, DC-based Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) last month, tends to agree, especially with respect to the World Bank's role in facilitating carbon trading programs. "It is making money off of causing the climate crisis and then turning around and claiming to solve it," she said of the Bank... Out of its $2 billion carbon finance portfolio, the Bank has directed nearly 80 percent to projects involving polluting industries.” -- Carbon Trading Blasted by Indigenous Groups, One World US , May 5, 2008.


  • "The vast majority of indigenous peoples feel that the REDD [see No Carbon Market for Forests] will not benefit Indigenous Peoples, but in fact will result in more violations of Indigenous Peoples' rights. It will increase the violation of our rights to our lands, territories and resources; cause forced evictions; prevent access and threaten indigenous agriculture practices; destroy biodiversity, cultural diversity, traditional livelihoods and knowledge systems; and cause social conflicts. Under REDD, States and carbon traders will take more control over our forests.” -- Petition to the Permanent Forum members, PROTEST: United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Colonos , May 2, 2008.


  • "As Congress debates whether to limit carbon-dioxide emissions, one of the most vocal supporters of such legislation -- the nuclear-power industry -- is poised to reap a multibillion- dollar windfall if restrictions take effect.” -- Carbon Caps May Give Nuclear Power a Lift, Wall Street Journal , May 19, 2008.


  • "[W]e could be looking at deregulation déjá vu. And the consequences won't just be higher power bills. If California, which leads the country in addressing the threat of global warming, gets this program wrong, it could discredit efforts to fight the problem nationwide, if not worldwide... The PUC is expected to finalize its recommendations in August, after which they'll be considered by the air board. If it goes ahead with cap and trade, you might get a shock from your power bill. And be sure to keep plenty of candles on hand.” -- California's cap-and-trade won't work, LA Times , Mar. 10, 2008.


  • “The emerging alliance of business and environmental special interests may well prove powerful enough to give us cap-and-trade in CO2... it would make money for some very large corporations. But don't believe for a minute that this charade would do much about global warming.” -- Cap and Charade: The political and business self-interest behind carbon limits, Wall Street Journal, March 2007.


  • Companies “will doubtless fudge numbers to maximize their credits; some companies stand to make a great deal of money under a trading system. ... This presents opportunities for Enron-style market manipulation.” -- Time to tax carbon, Los Angeles Times , May 28, 2007.


  • "The world's biggest carbon offset market, the Kyoto Protocol's clean development mechanism (CDM)... is intended to reduce emissions by rewarding developing countries that invest in clean technologies. In fact, evidence is accumulating that it is increasing greenhouse gas emissions behind the guise of promoting sustainable development. The misguided mechanism is handing out billions of dollars to chemical, coal and oil corporations and the developers of destructive dams - in many cases for projects they would have built anyway." -- Discredited strategy, The Guardian , May 21, 2008.


  • "California deregulated its electricity industry in 1998, and shortly afterward the lights went out. Apparently, regulators hadn't realized how easy it would be for unscrupulous traders such as Enron to manipulate the state's power market once it was open to competition; the results were rolling blackouts and skyrocketing electricity charges... We bring up this painful history because the state is about to embark on a new program that will radically impact utility regulation... regulators are designing a cap-and-trade program... This is a staggeringly complex undertaking that will once again create opportunities for dishonest traders to manipulate the market... If California, which leads the country in addressing the threat of global warming, gets this program wrong, it could discredit efforts to fight the problem nationwide, if not worldwide.” -- California’s Cap-And-Trade Won’t Work, LA Times, Mar. 10, 2008.


  • New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, spoke out that “I think it’s time we stopped listening to the skeptics who say, ‘But for the politics,’ and start being honest about costs and benefits.” -- The Real Climate Debate: To Cap or to Tax?, New York Times, Nov. 2, 2007.


  • "Cap-and-trade is an easier political sell because the costs are hidden — but they’re still there. And the payoff is more uncertain. Because even though cap-and-trade is intended to incentivize investments that reduce pollution, the price volatility for carbon credits can discourage investment, since an investment that might make sense if carbon credits are trading at $50 a ton may not make sense at $30 a ton. This price volatility can also lead to real economic pain. ... The market for trading carbon credits will be much more complex and difficult to police than the market for the sulfur dioxide credits that eliminated acid rain. And there are political issues — because the system is subject to manipulation by elected officials who want to hand out exemptions to special interests. ... Politicians tend to prefer cap-and-trade because it obscures the costs. Some even pretend that it will lower costs in the short run. That’s nonsense. The costs will be the same under either plan — and if anything, they will be higher under cap-and-trade, because middlemen will be making money off the trades.” -- Bloomberg Calls for Tax on Carbon Emissions, New York Times, Nov. 2, 2007.


  • “Exxon Mobil, the world's biggest oil refiner, has said carbon taxes are preferable to emissions-trading systems like the one adopted by the European Union. `A carbon tax is certainly the least complex' of the two options, Sherri Stuewer, Exxon Mobil's vice president of health, safety and environment, said last week. Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in December 2002, agreeing to reduce emissions to 6 percent below 1990 levels from 2008-2012. Canada's greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 were 33 percent above its Kyoto target, government figures released last month show.” -- Quebec Approves Carbon Tax to Cut Greenhouse Gases, Bloomberg.com, Jun. 2007. [Note: we believe a fee would be better for California.]


  • "I strongly favor a 'tax and dividend' approach. The entire carbon tax should be given back to the public, an equal amount to each person. No bureaucracy is needed to figure this out. If an early carbon tax averages say $1200 per person (it can be collected in various ways -- at the well-head, carbon emission permit auctions, etc.) a monthly $100 deposit can be made automatically in everyone's bank account..” -- Dear Governor Greenwash, Gristmill , James Hansen, May 29, 2008.


  • “As lawmakers on Capitol Hill push for a cap-and-trade system to rein in the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, an unlikely alternative has emerged from an ideologically diverse group of economists and industry leaders: a carbon tax... a coalition of academics and polluters now argues that a simple tax on each ton of emissions would offer a more efficient and less bureaucratic way of curbing carbon dioxide buildup...” -- Tax on Carbon Emissions Gains Support, Washington Post, Apr. 1, 2007. [Note: we believe a fee would be better for California.]


  • “Since the Kyoto agreement, the concept of permit trading has gathered momentum. Companies are researching schemes to pay others to preserve or increase their own emissions. The World Bank is attempting to price emissions to jump-start a trading market. Even the Environmental Defense Fund plans to make money by brokering carbon trades... The recognition is growing, moreover, that trading is simply inadequate to the climate crisis. 'International carbon trading is a scam that is going to give emissions trading a bad name,' said John Henry, a Washington-based entrepreneur who made sizable profits brokering trades for the domestic US sulfur dioxide trading program. Henry explained the domestic sulfur dioxide trading program worked because virtually all those emissions came from 2,000 smokestacks - a manageable number to monitor. Moreover, the program operated under an enforceable national regulatory system. By contrast, carbon is emitted from millions of sources all over the world - far too many to monitor. And there is no international regulatory system to enforce emission limits... Schemes like ''emissions trading'' look neat on paper. Unfortunately, they will not slow the melting of the earth's glaciers, the breakup of Antarctic ice shelves, rising sea levels, warming-driven migrations of disease, the intensification of El Ninos, and the relentless increase in floods, droughts, and severe storms.” -- Trading away our chances to end global warming, Boston Globe, Ross Gelbspan, May 16, 1999.


  • “Will current plans to expand carbon trading in the US and elsewhere work? No. Because carbon trading: - is aimed at the wrong objective; - squanders resources on the wrong things; - requires knowledge and institutions that do not exist; - is antidemocratic; - interferes with positive solutions; and - puts ideology above experience.” -- Six Soundbites on Climate Markets, The Corner House , 2008.


  • “And maybe that is the broader lesson of the debacle: Don't rush into a market solution when there are serious questions about whether the market will work. Both economic analysis and British experience should have rung warning bells about California's deregulation scheme; but those warnings were ignored — just as similar warnings are being ignored by enthusiasts for market solutions for everything from prescription drug coverage to education.” So said economist and Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman in the New York Times, discussing California’s other failed “free market” experiment—electricity deregulation. -- California Screaming, New York Times , Dec. 10, 2000.



The Failures of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS):
  • "As part of the revision of the EU's emissions trading scheme (EU ETS), the Commission was required to compile a list of sectors and sub-sectors that are deemed to be at risk of carbon leakage, that is, relocation to third countries without any carbon constraints. These sectors will continue to receive their emissions allowances for free in the post-Kyoto Protocol period until 2020, up to a benchmark of the best-performing 10%.” -- "Commission faces revolt over 'carbon leakage' plans," EurActive.com , May 26, 2009.


  • "Ukraine is in advanced talks to sell some $3.5 billion more sovereign carbon emission rights under the Kyoto Protocol to three companies, the government said on its website this week... Critics have called AAUs "hot air," arguing that most were generated through restructuring in eastern Europe in the 1990s, when polluting industries in ex-communist countries were shutting anyway, rather than by new investment in clean energy.” -- "Germany set to cut industry power bills," Reuters , May 26, 2009.


  • "Berlin is preparing to help domestic industries overcome the economic crisis by cutting the electricity bills of the country’s largest energy users... The bulk of any relief is likely to be found by reimbursing companies for the cost of carbon dioxide emissions trading certificates that utilities currently price into their electricity bills. Germany successfully argued at an EU summit in December that energy-intensive industries should be not be forced to buy emission permits between 2013 and 2020 because companies would otherwise shift production overseas. Berlin now wants to go further by compensating energy-intensive companies in the intervening years.” -- "Germany set to cut industry power bills," Financial Times UK , May 25, 2009.


  • "A new report has served to confirm the fears of many consumer groups and charities - that millions of UK households are having to cut back on their food bills and other essential simply to pay for their gas and electricity.” -- "Millions making big sacrifices to pay utilities bills, new research confirms," UK Net Guide , Mar. 20, 2009.


  • "The rise of schemes to 'green' AAU Kyoto emission allowances comes with concerns over their true environmental integrity, according to a paper published in the latest edition of JI Quarterly. Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) are allowances for carbon emissions allocated to developed countries up to their target level under the Kyoto Protocol... Because of the collapse of industry in the former Soviet bloc economies in the 1990s, most eastern European countries including Russia have seen greenhouse emissions decline compared to the Kyoto base year of 1990. Hence, they have large surpluses of AAUs of around 6.5 billion tonnes to sell without having taking any action to cut greenhouse emissions. Because their AAUs are lacking in environmental integrity, green investment schemes have sprung up under pressure to use these surpluses, known as 'hot air', responsibly.” -- "Doubts over 'green AAU' integrity," carbonpositive , May 1, 2009.


  • "The price of European Union allowances to emit carbon dioxide has collapsed and it has reached a level where even the greenest of utilities might be tempted to flirt with a hod of dirty brown coal. Mills and factories throughout Europe are dumping their allowances on the market and grabbing the cash.” -- The Times UK , Feb. 18, 2009.


  • "The European Commission will not intervene to support the market for European carbon emissions where futures prices have nosedived along with the economic downturn...” -- "Europe to Leave Collapsing Carbon Prices to Market," Reuters, Planet Ark , Feb. 16, 2009.


  • "The European Union started with the most high-minded of ecological goals: to create a market that would encourage companies to reduce greenhouse gases by making them pay for each ton emitted into the atmosphere. Four years later, the carbon trading system has created a multibillion-euro windfall for some of the continent's biggest polluters, with little or no noticeable benefit to the environment so far...” -- "EU carbon trading system brings windfalls for some, with little benefit to climate," International Herald Tribune , Dec. 9, 2008.


  • “Key lessons from the CDM include: (1) the resources necessary to obtain project approval may reduce the cost-effectiveness and quality of projects; (2) the need to ensure the credibility of emission reductions presents a significant regulatory challenge; and (3) due to the tradeoffs with offsets, the use of such programs may be, at best, a temporary solution." Recommendations: "Congress may wish to consider the follwing lessons from the CDM: (1) that it may be possible to achieve the CDM's sustainable development goals and emissions cuts in developing countries more directly and cost-effectively through a means other than the existing mechanism; (2) that the use of carbon offsets in a cap-and-trade system can undermine the system's integrity, given that it is not possible to ensure that every credit represents a real, measurable, and long-term reduction in emissions; and (3) that while proposed reforms may significantly improve the CDM's effectiveness, carbon offsets involve fundamental tradeoffs and may not be a reliable long-term approach to climate change mitigation." -- International Climate Change Programs: Lessons Learned from the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme and the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism, U.S. Government Accountability Office , Nov. 18, 2008.


  • “[T]he price of buying permits to emit carbon dioxide in Europe — a system the European Union uses to discourage companies from polluting — have fallen by half compared with the price a year ago, largely because of slower growth. Wind costs more than $2.5 billion per gigawatt to build, compared with $600 million for gas. Carbon permits and subsidies can narrow that gap, but the current low prices mean that it is cheaper to burn coal, even after paying penalties for the carbon dioxide emissions." -- Slump May Limit Moves on Clean Energy, New York Times , Nov. 24, 2008.


  • “A flagship European scheme designed to fight global warming is set to hand hundreds of millions of pounds to some of Britain's most polluting companies, with little or no benefit to the environment, an investigation by the Guardian has revealed. Dozens of multinational firms stand to benefit from the windfall, which comes from the over-allocation of carbon permits under the European emissions trading scheme [Phase II]... The over-allocation comes from the way the government calculated the likely emissions of each site owned by the companies in the scheme... Campaigners say the allocations were also influenced by industry group lobbying. A source at a major UK car manufacturing firm, which has been allocated more than double the number of permits it needs, told the Guardian they were given out based on 'magical logic'." -- Britain's worst polluters set for windfall of millions, The Guardian UK , Sept. 12, 2008.


  • “The newspaper Helsingin Sanomat reports that nuclear power companies in Finland are enjoying massive subsidies from emissions trading rights. It reports that companies producing electricity with coal and other emission-causing fuels pass on the value of emission rights to their electricity prices, even though they receive the bulk of the rights free of charge... Also, power utilities that do not cause emissions follow the same pricing practices. According to Helsingin Sanomat, Finland's four nuclear power units bring owners an extra 500 million euros annually from non-existent emissions." -- Emissions Trading Windfall For Nuclear Plants, YLE News , Jun. 23, 2008.


  • “Driven by rising demand, record high oil and natural gas prices, concerns over energy security and an aversion to nuclear energy, European countries are expected to put into operation about 50 coal-fired plants over the next five years, plants that will be in use for the next five decades... The European Union, through its emissions trading scheme, has tried to make power plants consider the costs of carbon, forcing them to buy 'permits' for emissions. But with the price of oil so high, coal is far cheaper, even with the cost of permits to pollute factored in..." -- Europe Turns Back to Coal, Raising Climate Concerns, New York Times , Apr. 23, 2008.


  • “Earlier this month, Ted Nordhaus posted 'The ‘Serious Business’ of Kyoto: EU to ‘overshoot’ its emissions reductions targets? Read between the lines.' His analysis rightly takes the EU to task for overselling its GHG-emissions-reduction activities, in the hope that the U.S. will buy what they’re selling and leap aboard the sinking ship of carbon cap-and-trade. Nordhaus reveals that the EU’s claims to leadership and projected success on the GHG-reduction front are based on assumptions that will likely prove embarrassing in hindsight." -- Nordhaus on Europe's Scheming, National Review Online , Mar. 25, 2008.


  • Of the 65% of companies surveyed by Point Carbon earlier this year [2007] which claimed that the ETS had led them to abate their emissions (up from 15% the previous year), most were planning to buy credits rather than cut their own emissions….European emissions overall are not falling, which suggests there may not be as much switching out of coal, or as much technological innovation, as had been hoped. Chinese CERs are too cheap and the carbon price is too low and too volatile. Even when it was bouncing around at €15-25, it did not seem to encourage much new investment." -- Trading Thin Air, The Economist , May 31, 2007.


  • “Overall, EU emissions have not been curbed since the Kyoto treaty was signed in 1997. Under current policies the EU-15 will certainly not meet its Kyoto target of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 8% on 1990 levels by 2012. But on current trends, emissions in the EU-15 will have actually increased by 5% by 2030." -- Europe’s dirty secret: Why the EU Emissions Trading Scheme isn’t working, Open Europe , Aug. 2007.


  • "Even a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the EU’s ETS is far from being the most cost effective way to reduce net carbon emissions. Adding up simply the transfer cost and the administrative cost suggests a cost to the UK economy of £530 million a year (without including the knock-on costs of higher energy prices). This is unacceptably high, given that there is no evidence that the scheme is actually limiting emissions across the EU… ” -- The High Price of Hot Air: Why the EU Emissions Trading Scheme is an Environmental and Economic Failure, Open Europe .


  • “[T]he [European] commission assumes that the ETS, which awards 'permits to pollute' to industry, will deliver a practical means to achieve its target. These permits have to date been given away, resulting in massive windfalls for energy-intensive industries. It now proposes to auction the greater part of these pollution licences, although heavy lobbying has resulted in a series of opt-outs and delays. In effect, the EU is offering polluting industries an extended period of grace. This despite the mass of evidence, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change downwards, that the next 15 years will be the crucial period for action on climate change.” -- Permission to pollute: Far from tackling climate change, the EU's timid plans are rewarding those on the wrong track, The Guardian, Jan. 2008.


  • “The price of phase two allowances [in the EU-ETS] has risen to a level high enough to get some power generators to switch from coal to gas at the margin when the gas price is moderate; but not high enough to get them to replace coal-fired power stations with gas-fired ones—nor to encourage much of the innovation that carbon trading had been expected to spawn.” -- The Carbon Market is Working, But Not Bringing Forth as Much Innovation as Had Been Hoped, The Economist, May 31, 2007.


  • A new study "estimates that the windfall to electricity generators in just the five states of UK, Germany, Spain, Italy and Poland over the current five year phase of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) [Phase II] could be between 23 and 71 billion Euros ($US 36 -111 billion ).” -- EU carbon market sets up another round of windfall profits for dirtiest power generators, World Wildlife Fund, Apr. 7, 2008.


  • “National governments are already allowed to auction up to 10% of emissions permits but WWF estimates that the proportion sold, in practice, is closer to 4%... European Commission spokeswoman Barbara Helfferich added that part of the problem had been the response from power companies. 'If they can pass on the costs to the customers, they will do it. Then they have a certain number of free certificates which they can sell on the market,' she said.” -- EU 'windfall for power companies', BBC News, Apr. 7, 2008.


  • The death of Durban environmentalist Sajida Khan in July 2007 calls attention to the consequences of the climate justice struggle, highlighting failures of the carbon trading scheme with a chronology of how the EU ETS developed . -- Privatization of the Air Turns Lethal: Pay-to-Pollute Principle Kills South African Activist Sajida Khan, Patrick Bond, The Corner House , Dec. 2007.



The (In)Efficacy of Pollution Trading Programs:
  • "The global economic downturn and a growing trade in sovereign emissions rights are combining to create a 'perfect storm' that threatens to derail already sluggish efforts to cut greenhouse gases in poor countries." -- "Perfect storm threatens poor nations' CO2 cuts," The Guardian U.K. , May 28, 2009.


  • "A former Pasadena businesswoman convicted of engineering a fraudulent cap-and-trade pollution credit deal involving millions of dollars and one of the world’s biggest oil companies is at the heart of a congressional inquiry into the government’s latest response to global warming... In her 2003 bankruptcy filing — a year after federal investigators started looking at what was going on and two years before she pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud — creditors registered between $54 million and $80 million in claims, Jacobs found through records and interviews with victims. What the two Republican congressmen want to know now is: Where were EPA regulators while Sholtz was operating what amounted to a Ponzi scheme to defraud investors? Further, Barton and Walden are asking why it took so long to sentence Sholtz — three years after she was convicted. The two lawmakers also want to know why much of the proceedings in the Sholtz case were sealed by US District Judge Audrey Collins, and how they can be unsealed." -- "Breaking the smog bank," Pasadena Weekly , May 14, 2009.


  • "In Japan's first Kyoto year, which ended in March, the 10 firms emitted 9.5 percent to 72 percent more CO2 per kilowatt hour than their target over the five-year period... Some of the firms are now considering buying another type of offset called Assigned Amount Units (AAUs), bought from developed nations that are comfortably below their emission cut targets. AAUs are often referred to as 'hot air' units. Critics argue that most of these credits were generated through economic restructuring in eastern Europe in the 1990s when polluting industries in former communist nations were shutting down, rather than by fresh investment in clean energy.” -- "Japan power firms pay $1 billion for CO2 credits in 08/09," Reuters UK , May 14, 2009.


  • "By end of 2009 New Carbon Finance expects to see the global carbon market on a level with 2008 at around $121bn, supported by higher trading activity but lower prices. Growth is then expected to be sluggish to 2012 as the recession causes prices to remain low in the major schemes, by when it should reach $408bn (295bn)." -- "Carbon market volume up 37% in Q1 2009," New Carbon Finance , Apr. 23, 2009.


  • "Australia’s third- biggest oil and gas producer, suspended its Moomba carbon- storage project, a victim of weak government support and plunging prices for permits to release greenhouse gases. Credit prices to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere are too low to underpin the investment planned for central Australia’s Cooper Basin." -- "Santos Halts $450 Million Moomba Carbon-Storage Plan," Bloomberg.com , Mar. 3, 2009.


  • "Continuing growth in carbon emissions in Australia and the new target have led leading global carbon market analyst Point Carbon to estimate a potential extra cost to taxpayers of $870 million in carbon credits in 2012... The report adds that the credits Australia would buy are left over from the economic restructuring of former Soviet satellites after the fall of the Berlin Wall and hold 'little or no environmental integrity'." -- "UN carbon cut to cost Australia $870m," The Australian , Feb. 13, 2009.


  • "The collapse in the international price of carbon is threatening the [Australia] Government's ability to pay for compensation packages in the emissions trading scheme without drawing on the budget." -- "Price plunge hits carbon trade plan," TheAge.com.au , Feb. 18, 2009.


  • "Australia's plans to curb greenhouse gas emissions are in danger of being derailed as the carbon price falls in Europe and the government convenes a parliamentary inquiry into its proposed emissions trading scheme." -- "Australia's emissions plan wavers as carbon price falls," Reuters , Feb. 12, 2009.


  • On September 29, 2008, the East Coast trading program--the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or "RGGI," had its first market-launching auction. The 'market clearing price,' the price where supply and demand were equal, was $3.07 per TON of carbon. Basically, since it has been clear for more than a year that RGGI was over allocated, there were two things that could happen. Either all of the allocations would not sell, because there were more than needed, and the price would not rise above the price "floor" of $1.86 set by RGGI; or all of the allocation would be sold and held as “investments”, which would push the price slightly higher. Either way, people knew the program won't do anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. -- See the RGGI website , Sept. 29, 2008.


  • "[RGGI] auction demand may be weak at the start, with millions of allowances the states planned to sell not immediately needed. And with the cap on emissions most likely to be higher, at least initially, than the plants’ actual carbon-dioxide output, it may be many months before utilities have an incentive to cut pollution... As traders watched the RGGI dynamic evolve, the already low price of carbon futures fell by about 40 percent in the last three months in this country, according to Evolution Markets, a brokerage firm... Phil Giudice, the commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, said, 'The 188 million tons estimate was put together a number of years ago from both an analytical aspect and, not surprisingly, a political one.' ... As long as emissions remain below 188 million tons, however, the number of allowances will exceed the companies’ need. The states have set a floor price of $1.86 per ton; allowances will not sell below that level... Several state officials said companies had been anxious to get the auction process under way. Mr. Giudice of Massachusetts said: 'One of the worst things for industry is uncertainty. With uncertainty, risk factors go up for all kinds of capital decisions.'”, New York Times , Sept. 16, 2008.


  • "The first mandatory cap-and-trade programme targeting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the US is at risk of being oversupplied when it starts, warned consultancy ICF International last week... Steve Fine, a Virginia-based vice-president with the consultancy, said that the market has more allowances for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) than historical emission levels, meaning that the market is potentially long. 'It could be reminiscent of Phase I of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme [ETS],' he told participants, referring to the oversupply of allowances in the first three years of the EU’s flagship ETS which led prices to collapse from almost €30 ($43.44) in April 2006 to €0.01 when the phase finally ended earlier this year. Data on the RGGI website supports this statement." -- "RGGI oversupply risks being “'reminiscent of Phase I of EU ETS'”, Carbon Finance , Sept. 3, 2008.


  • "[F]or those who have pressed for a cap-and-trade system for carbon credits, the collapse of the US market for what are called SOx (sulphur dioxide) and NOx (nitrous oxide) allowances is very bad news. The enviros, as business lobbyists call them, don't seem to realise that the risk management committees that have the last word at most corporations will be inclined to deny commitments to pollution allowance trading, including carbon. After all, the last time anyone tried that, they lost a lot of money to an unexpected court decision." -- "Misguided game of SOx and NOx played for high stakes," Financial Times, Aug. 19, 2008.


  • "Compare the success of the often-touted sulfur dioxide trading system the U.S., instituted in 1990, with the speed and quantity of reductions under rule-based systems during the same period. U.S. SO2 emissions dropped by 31% between 1990 and 2001. Over the same period of time, under old fashioned rule-based regulation, Germany reduced its emissions by 87%, Italy by 62%, and Western Europe as a whole by 57%. ... In general, it is not surprising that emission trading discourages innovation. The whole point of spatial flexibility is to encourage use of all cheap means before turning to expensive ones." -- Gar Lipow, Gristmill, Feb. 19, 2008.


  • "[A]rticle presents new data and theory unsettling the traditional view that market mechanisms encourage innovations vital to sustainable development. Market actors fail to take positive spillovers, e.g. benefits accruing to competitors and thence to future generations, into account in making technological choices. Because of this failure to take long-term economic development into account, the international trading markets have contributed far less to sustainable energy development than more targeted programs." -- Sustainable Development and Market Liberalism’s Shotgun Wedding: Emissions Trading Under the Kyoto Protocol , Indiana Law Journal , David M. Driesen, Vol. 83, Issue 1 (forthcoming), Oct. 3, 2007.


  • “The problem lies in the fact that carbon trading is designed with the express purpose of providing an opportunity for rich countries to delay making costly, structural changes towards low-carbon technologies. This isn’t a malfunction of the market or an unexpected by-product: this is what the market was designed to do. The economist John Kay wrote in the Financial Times: 'when a market is created through political action rather than emerging spontaneously from the needs of buyers and sellers, business will seek to influence market design for commercial advantage.' In terms of climate change and carbon trading, the 'commercial advantage' (at least in the short term) lies in avoiding the costly structural changes, and industry has influenced every stage of the design and implementation of the carbon market to this end.” -- Carbon Trading: the limits of free-market logic, Kevin Smith, China Dialogue, Sept. 20, 2007.


  • “Comparing and contrasting [trading] programs revealed grave flaws common to all of them. Finding the same failings in all trading programs—as well as evidence of the emergence of these failings in smaller or younger programs, even though they are for different pollutants, time frames and circumstances—suggests that the deficiencies are intrinsic to trading itself, not the result of faulty program design or implementation.” -- Marketing Failure: The Experience With Air Pollution Trading in the United States, Health & Clean Air Newsletter , Feb. 2004.


  • “[P]ollution trading actually creates perverse incentives to avoid innovation.” -- Drury, Richard; Belliveau, Michael, et. al, Pollution Trading and Environmental Injustice: Los Angeles’ Failed Experiment in Air Quality Policy, Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, Vol. 9:231, Spring 1999.



The Urgency to Achieve Significant Greenhouse Gas Reductions:
  • "We are now firmly ensconced in the Age of Extreme Weather. According to the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, there have been more than four times as many weather-related disasters in the last 30 years than in the previous 75 years. The United States has experienced more of those disasters than any other country. In 2005, the year of Hurricane Katrina, the estimated damage from storms in the United States was $121 billion. That is $39 billion more than the 2005 supplemental spending bill to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. About $3 billion has been allocated to assist farmers who suffer losses because of droughts, floods and tornadoes among other things. And, a recent report in The Denver Post said the Forest Service plans to spend 45 percent, or $1.9 billion, of its budget this year fighting forest fires. This surge in disasters and attendant costs is yet another reason we need to declare a coordinated war on climate change akin to the wars on drugs and terror. It’s a matter of national security." -- Farewell, Fair Weather. - New York Times , Charles M. Blow, May 31, 2008.


  • "The international community may have as little as a decade to bring greenhouse gases under control or risk catastrophic global warming that places millions of people at risk, warns a group of the world's leading climate scientists," in a declaration released Dec. 6, 2007 in Bali, Indonesia. -- Toronto Globe and Mail. - Full text of declaration.


  • "The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades." -- Washington Post.


  • "The general dialogue on adapting to a world affected by climate change by definition excludes the world's poorest people. And yet it's the world's poorest who are often put forward as the ones who are likely to feel the affects of climate change the most and are likely to be able to deal with them the least. ... 1 billion of the poorest people on Earth will lose their livelihoods to desertification (UNEP). More than 200 million environmental refugees will be created by 2050, as a direct result of rising sea levels, erosion and agricultural damage (World Development Movement). ... in Los Angeles more than 71 percent of African Americans live in 'highly polluted areas,' compared to 24 percent of whites. ... An independent study last year in the UK showed that the number of households being forced to decide between food and heating has almost doubled in just two years. This, over a period when electricity prices jumped by 39 percent and gas prices by 61 percent.” -- Rich, poor and climate change, CNN, Feb. 18, 2008.


  • "The biannual UN Human Development Report, issued at the end of November, reported that 1 out of every 19 people in the so-called developing world was affected by a climate-related disaster between 2000 and 2004. The figure for people in the wealthiest (OECD) countries was 1 out of every 1,500... Those who have benefited the least from the unsustainable pace of economic growth and expansion over the past five or six decades are facing a future of suffering and dislocation unlike any the world has ever seen... [T]he growing practice of purchasing carbon dioxide credits in order to 'offset' affluent consumers’ excessive greenhouse gas emissions is increasingly opposed by people on the receiving end. Carbon offsets, whether sold on the Internet or negotiated through the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism, also favor the conversion of forests into monoculture plantations and further the displacement of traditional communities.” -- Brian Tokar, Z Magazine, Jan. 1, 2008.


  • "By 2030, emissions of greenhouse gases will rise by 57% compared to current levels, leading to a rise in Earth's surface temperature of at least three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit), the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Nov. 7." – Industry Week.


  • "The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades... [The scientists] are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further... When it comes to deciding how drastically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, O'Neill said, 'in the end, this is a value judgment, it's not a scientific question.' The idea of shifting to a carbon-free society, he added, 'appears to be technically feasible. The question is whether it's politically feasible or economically feasible.'" -- Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert Danger, New Studies Say, Washington Post, Mar. 10, 2008.


  • "The newly released Maplecroft Climate Change Risk Report includes the first-ever climate change vulnerability index and a set of best-to-worst rankings for more than 168 countries worldwide... The report finds many of the world’s biggest CO2 emitters are also the countries least vulnerable to the impacts of climate change." -- First-Ever Climate Change Vulnerability Index Identifies the Most and Least Vulnerable Countries and Companies, BusinessWire, Jul. 23, 2008.



Real Solutions:
  • "If every country committed to spending 0.05 percent of its GDP exploring non-carbon-emitting energy technologies, this would translate into US$25 billion per year, or 10 times more than what the world spends now. Yet, the total also would be seven times cheaper than the Kyoto Protocol, and many times cheaper than the Copenhagen Protocol is likely to be... Decades of talks have failed to make any impact on carbon emissions. Expecting China and India to make massive emission cuts for little benefit puts the Copenhagen meeting on a sure path to being another lost opportunity. Yet, at the same time, the Chinese and Indian challenge could be the impetus we need to change direction, end our obsession with reducing emissions and focus instead on research and development, which would be smarter and cheaper - and would actually make a difference." -- Bjorn Lomborg, "Focusing on R&D a smarter choice in climate talks," Taipei Times , Feb. 17, 2009.


  • "We consider the design of a tax on greenhouse gas emissions for a developed country such as the United States. We consider three sets of issues: the optimal tax base, issues relating to the rate (including the use of the revenues and rate changes over time) and trade. We show that a well-designed carbon tax can capture about 80% of U.S. emissions by taxing fewer than 3,000 taxpayers and up to almost 90% with a modest additional cost." -- Design of a Carbon Tax, University of Chicago Law & Economics , Jan. 8, 2009.


  • "Dr. Shapiro released his paper entitled, 'Addressing Climate Change without Impairing the U.S. Economy: The Economics and Environmental Science of Combining a Carbon-Based Tax and Tax Relief,' which details a strategy for implementing a carbon tax and using 90 percent of the revenue to cut the payroll tax. (The remaining 10 percent would be used to fund research, development, and deployment of clean technology). The end effect would be to combat climate change while limiting the economic burden and increasing the political salability of such a solution to climate change." -- Dr. Robert Shapiro Unveils Paper on Tax Shift to Combat Climate Change, NDN Blog , Jun. 25, 2008.


  • “As Wall Street and the American economy continue to crumble around us, it is time - now more than ever - to begin building the next American economy - the low carbon, clean energy economy... A group called Transportation America estimates that building transit systems in 78 American metro areas it has identified would create 6.7 million jobs. That's an economic stimulus path that is a smart, long term investment in America's future. Cities already making such investments have realized large cash savings for residents ($5 for every dollar invested says one study). Portland, Oregon, estimates its transit investments are saving its citizens $2.6 billion annually... A report by Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist for the World Bank, estimates that clean energy development is a $500 billion global business opportunity. Here in the United States, where we consume 25 percent of global energy, this could translate into more than a $100 billion market. If we exported some of that clean energy know-how to other parts of the world it could be much more... Let's put our dollars and our policies to work immediately, to create the next great American economy, based on efficient, clean energy. As we do so, we will be tackling our economic, energy, and climate crises simultaneously.” -- Creating the next American economy, Miami Herald, Oct. 22, 2008.


  • "Discussions about addressing climate change (e.g., through a cap-and-trade program or a carbon tax) often focus on the transportation sector." The brief argues, however, that most of the reduction in CO2 emissions would occur in other sectors (e.g., the electricity sector) and that the effects on vehicle emissions would be modest, especially in the shorter run." -- Climate-Change Policy and CO2 Emissions from Passenger Vehicles, Congressional Budget Office, Oct. 6, 2008.


  • "Sweden topped the list of countries that did the most to save the planet - for the second year running... Between 1990 and 2006 Sweden cut its carbon emissions by 9%, largely exceeding the target set by the Kyoto Protocol, while enjoying economic growth of 44% in fixed prices. The main reason for this success, say experts, is the introduction of a carbon tax in 1991... 'Our carbon emissions would have been 20% higher without the carbon tax,' says the Swedish environment minister, Andreas Carlgren... 'Impose a carbon tax,' suggests Lindberg. 'You would make it more attractive financially to go for green solutions than for carbon options.' 'A carbon tax is the most cost-effective way to make carbon cuts and it does not prevent strong economic growth,' adds Carlgren." -- Sweden's carbon-tax solution to climate change puts it top of the green list, The Guardian, Apr. 29, 2008.


  • “A recent issue of Scientific American featured a 'Solar Grand Plan.' Its authors described a way for the United States to obtain nearly 100 percent of its electricity and 90 percent of its total energy, including transportation, from solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal resources by mid-century. Electricity would cost a comfortable 5 cents per kilowatt hour.” -- The subsidy tease, part III A solar grand plan, Gristmill, Feb. 15, 2008.


  • “Germany has 200 times as much solar energy as Britain. It generates 12% of its electricity from various renewables, compared with 4.6% in Britain. It has created a quarter of a million jobs in renewables - a number that is growing fast. Britain has only 25,000, a number that represents the amount of jobs created in the industry in Germany in the past year alone.” -- Germany sets shining example in providing a harvest for the world, The Guardian, Jul. 23, 2007.


  • “[T]housands of Darfuri refugee women and girls [were] being raped and murdered when they leave their camps to search for firewood. … ’What about solar cookers?’ someone suggested. ‘If they don't need wood to cook, they won't need to risk leaving their camps!’” -- Tzivia Getzug: Battling Genocide One Cooker At a Time, KPCC Radio, Feb. 13, 2008.


  • A report that ". . . dispels myths about the climate benefits of landfill gas recovery and waste incineration, outlines policies needed to effect change, and offers a roadmap for how to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within a short period.” -- Stop Trashing the Climate , Jun. 2008.




Websites


Videos



© 2007. All rights reserved.
Declaration
Carbon Trading
Carbon Offsets
Biofuels
Home
Media Page
Videos
Calendar
Blog