IIEA Membership Details

Prices and Gift Cards

Sign Up to the IIEA Monthly Newsletter

Sitemap Find what you need quickly



Rescuing the EU Carbon Market – EU-ETS Video infographic

15 Jan 2013



The EU is at the forefront of the fight against climate change. But the EU Emissions Trading Scheme – Europe’s flagship tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – is floundering. See this previous IIEA blog.

The market is awash with surplus allowances, which has led to a depressed carbon price. This does not create the right incentives for low carbon growth. But how is the market malfunctioning? What is the diagnosis? And how can Europe rescue the ailing scheme and deliver effective climate policy?

Our latest production combines motion infographics and interviews with key stakeholders to explore the problems in the EU Emission Trading Scheme and the future of EU Climate Policy.

Interviewees include Sanjeev Kumar, Senior Associate with E3G (Third Generation Environmentalism), Susan Shannon, Senior EU Affairs Manager at Shell and Neil Walker, Head of Energy and Environmental Policy at IBEC (The Irish Business Employers Confederation).

Negotiations on the ETS

The European Commission’s short-term rescue bid is currently being negotiated by the European Parliament and the Council. The Irish EU Presidency is hoping to broker a deal on this issue in the first half of 2013. The European Parliament’s ENVI committee is set to consider the issue at its meeting on 19 February 2013. The rapporteur’s report  by ENVI Committee Chairman, Matthias Groote (S&D, Germany) gives an indication of where this debate is going (see here.) While the report is broadly supportive of the European Commission’s position on amending the EU-ETS, the report also proposes constraints on the Commission’s right to intervene in the carbon market by proposing that intervention should only happen “in exceptional  circumstances” and stresses that intervention should be seen only as a interim precursor to longer-term structural reform.

Some proposals for longer-term reform are already on the table from the Commission. But are these solutions enough? And are they tackling the right problem?

This content forms part of the Environment Nexus project, which is co-financed bDG Communication of the European Parliament.

As an independent forum, the Institute does not express any opinions of its own. The views expressed in the article are the sole responsibility of the author.

Comments 1-2 of 2

Post comment

Rosemary Jones says: 31 Dec 2013 21:58

How come we don't set up a UN Climate Technology and Reforestation Program to restore reflectivity and shading to 1960 levels ? How come promoting non-hazardous solar radiation management is not at the forefront of UNFCCC activities ? Why are scientists not able to agree to the simplest means of cooling the planet - the spraying of an area of ice bereft rock and rural black tarmac equal to the area of ice and snow lost in the last fifty years with chalk based solar reflective paint ? How come the Green Climate Fund is still not advertised in banks and post offices worldwide so that all of us wealthy enough can easily donate to our survival, as is our right ? Why is it so difficult to get through to the UNFCCC, to propose policy or specific non-domestic climate technologies ? When will efficient straightforward climate action replace the disparate, badly advertised and unnecessarily complicated attempts to date ? Or will lateral and out-of-the box scientific thinking continue to be barred by a scientific community whose misleading narrative that emission reduction, at this late stage, is enough to stop the extreme weather events ? Answers please to rosjonesenvedu@Hotmail.com

Robert Vincin says: 05 Aug 2013 11:11

I sat on UNCTAD UNFCCC 96-02 writing protocol for low cost carbon trading. Neither political leader understand that Australia could become the world's CO2e sink. As a signature to UNFCCC KYOTO protocol the reality is the income could engage unemployed and new arrival to plant out science based CO2 sinks. The income is such it would eliminate the national debt within 2 years. Well planned it likely will not cost industries (tax) Neither party understands the responsibility of lowering anthropogenic emission to hand back the Planet in 100 percent working order to the children. Robert Vincin see Google

Post a Comment

If you register as a user, you will be able to post comments without this CAPTCHA.
Type text into the box
Please keep your comments on the topic of the content, and avoid including links to external sites that are off-topic. Comments are moderated; those that are offensive, contain spam or are off-topic will not be published. There may be a delay between comments being submitted and comments being posted due to the moderation process, but we will keep this delay to a minimum. Such a delay does not automatically mean we have ignored or rejected your comment. Our aim is to build a community with online users who are informed and engage in healthy discussion. The IIEA does not accept any responsibility for any statement posted by a member on www.iiea.com. View the full comment guidelines and conditions here.

Latest Entries

Sort by Theme

Sort by Authors

Sort by Tags

Search Blog Archive