Carbon-management software

Carbon-management software

Heat count

Programs that help businesses cut greenhouse gases are proliferating

Dec 3rd 2009 | From The Economist print edition

Illustration by Claudio Munoz

LIFE is looking up for managers at the 4,300 stores of Tesco, one of the world’s biggest supermarket chains. A program from CA, a big software firm, will make a tedious job much easier: gathering data about each store’s energy consumption, be it from lights, air conditioning or refrigeration. The streamlined data collection is part of Tesco’s ambitious plan to halve emissions of greenhouse gases from existing stores and distribution centres by 2020.

Tesco and CA may be pioneers, but they are not alone. While governments argue over emissions cuts, many firms have already started cleaning up their act, or at least preparing to do so—prompting more and more software firms to offer tools to help. If optimists are right, the market for “carbon-management software” could one day become at least as big as those for other important business applications such as customer-relationship-management (CRM) programs, which brought in revenues of more than $9 billion last year.

Many firms have tracked energy consumption for some time in an effort to save money. Others have monitored emissions of different kinds in order to comply with regulations on pollution. More recently, public pressure has prompted more companies to tally emissions and disclose the results in their annual reports or to outfits like the Carbon Disclosure Project. But most have used simple tools such as spreadsheets and databases.

This is changing, despite the recession, says David Metcalfe, boss of Verdantix, a consultancy. Higher energy costs, green branding and new regulation are all pushing more firms to keep track of their emissions and do so with specialised software, he argues. In Britain, for example, the Carbon Reduction Commitment will come into effect next year. Among other things, it requires firms that use more than 6,000 megawatt-hours of electricity a year to measure and report the energy they use.

Anticipating a surge in demand, software-makers have rushed into the market, mostly with web-based services. In a recent survey AMR Research, another consultancy, identified no fewer than 157 providers. Some focus on reporting, others on compliance and yet others on optimising business processes. There are firms that have been around for years, such as Enviance and IHS. Many start-ups, notably Carbonetworks and Hara, have appeared. Even big software firms have moved into the market: CA, IBM, Oracle, SAP and SAS.

At least for now, the needs of most firms are simple: making sure that data are collected regularly and can be audited. But in the years to come, this too will change, predicts Stephen Stokes of AMR. Firms will need software that collects data automatically, helps them find the best ways to cut emissions and also lets them manage other resources, such as water and waste.

Messrs Metcalfe and Stokes both expect that Oracle and SAP, which already dominate most forms of business software, will become pre-eminent in this area, too, because it fits so naturally with their other offerings. These titans also have the cash to buy the best technology. In May SAP bought Clear Standards, a start-up. Oracle is expected to make a similar acquisition soon. But they face determined rivals. IHS has been quietly buying firms selling environmental software. Some expect great things from C3, a start-up founded by Tom Siebel, who pioneered CRM software.

All this interest gives a sense of how big the business of tracking environmental performance is expected to become. Léo Apotheker, SAP’s boss, recently suggested that in time it could even be “on an equal footing with financial accounting”.

A refreshing dose of honesty

Maria Cantwell and the politics of global warming

Feb 4th 2010 | From The Economist print edition

Illustration by KAL

NOT long after the flood, when Noah was safely back on dry land, God promised: “Never again will I curse the ground because of man...And never again will I destroy all living creatures.” The implication is clear. “Man will not destroy this earth,” says John Shimkus, a Bible-reading Republican congressman from Illinois. So there is no need to worry about global warming.

On January 28th, America formally pledged to the UN that it would reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by 17% (from what they were in 2005) by 2020. But there was a planet-sized catch. Meeting the target will depend on getting a climate bill through Congress, and that will be horribly hard. A bill to erect a cap-and-trade system to curb carbon-dioxide emissions squeaked through the House of Representatives last summer. But similar bills have stalled in the Senate, where nearly anything big needs a supermajority to pass.

Various obstacles block the way. First, Barack Obama has not yet decided what to do about health care, and he cannot wage two domestic wars at once. Second, cap-and-trade is a tough sell. An increasing number of Americans, like Mr Shimkus, doubt the science. The proportion who believe there is “solid evidence” that the earth is warming fell from 71% in 2008 to 57% last year. Among Republicans, disbelief is the norm: only 35% think there is solid evidence of warming, according to a Pew poll. The news that some climate scientists tried to muzzle dissenting voices has spread like the common cold on conservative blogs, fuelling widespread suspicion that global warming is an elaborate hoax. Many climate sceptics are furious. “My Carbon Footprint Will Fit Nicely in Your Liberal Ass,” reads a typical T-shirt. Even among Americans who believe in global warming, there is little appetite for tackling it. A hefty 85% told Gallup that the government should place a higher priority on fixing the economy, with only 12% saying the opposite.

Enter Maria Cantwell, the junior senator from Washington state. She is pushing a simpler, more voter-friendly version of cap-and-trade, called “cap-and-dividend”. Under her bill, the government would impose a ceiling on carbon emissions each year. Producers and importers of fossil fuels will have to buy permits. The permits would be auctioned, raising vast sums of money. Most of that money would be divided evenly among all Americans. The bill would raise energy prices, of course, and therefore the price of everything that requires energy to make or distribute. But a family of four would receive perhaps $1000 a year, which would more than make up for it, reckons Ms Cantwell. Cap-and-dividend would set a price on carbon, thus giving Americans a powerful incentive to burn less dirty fuel. It would also raise the rewards for investing in clean energy. And it would leave all but the richest 20% of Americans—who use the most energy—materially better off, she says.

Ms Cantwell’s bill is refreshingly simple. At a mere 40 pages, it is one-thirty-sixth as long as the monstrous House bill (known as “Waxman-Markey”, after its sponsors), which would regulate everything from televisions to “bottle-type water dispensers” and is completely incomprehensible to a layman. Instead of auctioning permits to emit, Waxman-Markey gives 85% of them away, at least at first. This is staggeringly inefficient: permits would go to those with political clout rather than those who value them most. No one is proud of this—Mr Obama wanted a 100% auction—but House Democrats decided that the only way to pass the bill was to hand out billions of dollars of goodies to groups that might otherwise oppose it. (There was plenty of pork left over for its supporters, too.)

The Senate will not pass a comprehensive climate bill any time soon. So Mr Obama is attacking the problem piece by piece, bypassing Congress. On February 3rd, he unveiled a plan to promote biofuels and a task force to study the improbable dream of “clean” coal. Last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission ordered private companies to publish estimates of the climate-related risks they face. The Environmental Protection Agency, meanwhile, is trying to regulate greenhouse gases under existing laws. But regulation is no substitute for putting a price on carbon, which would harness the power of the market to cut emissions more cheaply.

Tell it like it is

Of all the bills that would put a price on carbon, cap-and-dividend seems the most promising. (A carbon tax would be best of all, but has no chance of passing.) Ms Cantwell has a Republican co-sponsor, Susan Collins of Maine, and says she is hearing positive noises from a few other Republicans, such as Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. The most attractive thing about the bill is that it is honest. To discourage the use of dirty energy, it says, it has to be more expensive. To make up for that, here’s a thousand bucks.

This challenges the conventional wisdom in Washington, DC, that the only way to pass a global-warming bill is to disguise what’s in it. Leading Democrats try to sell cap-and-trade as a way to create jobs and wean America from its addiction to foreign oil. (It’s about “jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs,” said Nancy Pelosi, the speaker, last year.) Focus groups say this message ought to resonate. Frank Luntz, a pollster, released a study last month showing that voters are unswayed by melting ice caps but will support an energy bill that sticks it to the Saudis and creates American jobs. In real life, though, voters hear counter-arguments. Sure, cap-and-trade will create jobs, but it will destroy them, too. If the goal is to reduce dependence on foreign energy, why not mine more American coal? The only sound reason for acting to curb global warming is to curb global warming. Ms Cantwell does not put it so bluntly, but her bill speaks for itself

Phishing attack nets 3 million euros of carbon permits

Carbon permits are valuable commodities The international carbon market has been hit by a phishing attack which saw an estimated 250,000 permits worth over 3 million euros stolen this week. The scam involves six German companies and meant emissions trading registries in a number of EU countries shut down temporarily on 2 February. In the global carbon market, companies can buy permits from other firms, allowing them to emit greenhouse gases. The criminals are believed to have created fake emissions registries. They then sent e-mails to thousands of firms around the globe, including New Zealand, Norway and Australia. "It was a world-wide action," Hans-Juergen Nantke, head of German emissions registry DEHSt told the Reuters news agency. Seven out of 2,000 German firms targeted are known to have fallen victim to the scam, handing over registration details which allowed the thieves to steal their emissions permits. "Of the seven, six have been subject to theft," said Mr Nantke. The registry has submitted details of the attack to state prosecutors in Berlin. Illegal transactions have also been reported in the Czech Republic. Registries in nine countries, including Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Italy and Greece, closed after details of the attacks emerged. Registries in Austria, the Netherlands and Norway were temporarily suspended but reopened the same day. Emissions trading continued via the European Emissions Exchange. The United Nations' Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said it was working closely with national registries to ensure their systems were secure. The EU Commission may get involved in investigations. "If they [transactions] happened at national level, they are traceable. If they happened internationally, our community registry will be involved as we can trace international transactions," a spokeswoman told Reuters. Phishing scams, which redirect people to a fake website via an e-mail, are common in the banking industry

Montreal Climate Exchange

MONTREAL -- Four years ago, when he helped create the Montreal Climate Exchange, Léon Bitton thought it would be only a short time before the federal government introduced binding cap-and-trade legislation, allowing Montreal to become the centre of environmental finance and emissions trading in Canada.

Today, Mr. Bitton, vice-president of research and development for the Montreal Exchange, and Ann McCarthy, vice-president of business development of the Montreal Climate Exchange - and its sole employee - are still waiting. Both say they are confident that federally regulated cap and trade in Canada is inevitable, but with the developments at the recent Copenhagen climate talks and the results of the recent U.S. Senatorial elections in Massachusetts, they may be waiting much longer before any serious trading can begin on the fledgling exchange, if at all.

Meanwhile, in the budget presented Monday by President Barack Obama, the US$646-billion in revenue from a cap-and-trade system to curb greenhouse gas emissions has been dropped - signalling pessimism that Congress will pass a climate bill with this provision.

When asked if they expected a delay this long, Ms. McCarthy burst into a little laugh, before quickly composing herself. "No," she said adamantly. "No, absolutely not."

"There is a lot at stake here," said Mr. Bitton.

"Because of the economic implications," Mr. Bitton said, "we understand government has to set targets that don't hurt the economy. The market didn't anticipate [the long wait] either."

What was expected, however, was for the Harper government to have introduced clear, short-term emission intensity reduction targets and compliance mechanisms, as outlined in its March 2008 plan, called "Turning the Corner." That plan has been delayed.

"The economic downturn and the renewed engagement by the U.S. Administration has required that we fine-tune our approach to tackling climate change," an unidentified spokesperson from Environment Canada said via email.

Created in 2006 as a joint venture with the Chicago Climate Exchange, it allows companies that earn greenhouse gas credits through environmental programs to use the Montreal market to sell them to carbon-emitting firms. The exchange has had the infrastructure ready since May 30, 2008, but since then it has traded only about 130,000 tonnes of carbon, an amount Ms. McCarthy admits is "small." In Europe, where cap-and-trade is law, the carbon market trades 18 million tonnes of carbon a day.

"No, there are not daily trades [on the Montreal exchange]," Ms McCarthy said. "There is minimal activity because the participants are waiting for the regulatory framework from the government."

Currently, the head of a company in Canada that is a heavy emitter who thinks government will enact binding cap-and-trade legislation before June 2011, the date of the latest contract, could buy a contract on the exchange for carbon credits at $2 per tonne of C02 deliverable by June 2011. In Europe, a carbon credit, which represents 1 tonne of carbon dioxide, was selling Monday for about four times as much, at 13 euros.

It's a good bargain, said Mr. Bitton, but with no regulation, there is no underlying value for these assets, and hence, very little activity on the market. Heavy emitters aren't interested in spending money on a theoretical ton of carbon dioxide that at the moment has no real value, said Ms. McCarthy.

Canadian industry may never get into the carbon trading business at all, says Christopher Green, professor in Economics at the McGill University School of Environment, and co-author of an assessment paper for a technology-led climate policy prepared for the Copenhagen Consensus on Climate project.

"Copenhagen allowed a new beginning," Mr. Green said. "It moved the centre of power in terms of where climate policy is going to be made, away from the United Nations and the European Union, and moved it towards a rather funny group of emerging economies like China, Brazil, India, South Africa ... and the U.S. sort of joined up with that."

He said he believes China's and India's emission reduction policy will focus on creating low carbon- or non-carbon-emitting technologies without making date-specific or absolute commitments to reducing emissions.

"If the U.S. were to do the same, that wouldn't be a bad basis for climate policy, said Mr. Green, who is a fervent critic of cap-and-trade and an advocate of this so-called, technology-led policy.

According to Environment Canada, however, Canada will have a cap-and-trade system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but will follow the U.S.'s lead.

"Canada will work on its own cap-and-trade market, one that is designed for specific Canadian industrial sectors," Environment Canada said in the email. "We will do this in a way that can be easily integrated into a North American market for carbon permits." But the department adds that "it makes no sense" to proceed on a Canadian plan that is not harmonized with one in the U.S. because of close integration of the two economies.

In a speech to Calgary business leaders Monday, Federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice said Canada will not adopt a federal cap-and-trade program or implement specific regulations for certain industries, such as the oil and gas sector, unless the U.S. goes that route.

Cap-and-trade in the U.S., at least at the federal level, seems to be on hold indefinitely.

The winner of the recent Senatorial elections in Massachusetts, Republican state senator Scott Brown, opposes cap-and-trade and his victory means Democrats will no longer control the 60 Senates votes needed to overcome filibusters.

"Before the elections in Massachusetts, I would say passing the cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate was 50-50," said Kevin Grandia, manager of environmental blog, DeSmogBlog, and a contributor to The Huffington Post. "Now I would say it's definitely an uphill battle and put it at 80-20."

Adele Morris, fellow at the Washington-based think tank, the Brookings Institution, agrees.

"I'm not declaring cap-and-trade dead," she said. "I think that for it to get out this year a lot of stars would have to align in a fairly unlikely way."

But Mr. Bitton and Ms. McCarthy remain undeterred.

"The question is not if there will be a cap and trade system, but when," Mr. Bitton said.

Ms. McCarthy added that even if there is no federally regulated plan, several provinces and U.S. states can form cap-and-trade accords between themselves, such as is occurring in the Western Climate Initiative (WCI).

WCI partners include Quebec, B.C. Ontario and Manitoba in Canada and several U.S. states, among them California, which have recommended what they call a "broad"cap-and-trade program. Mr. Bitton said the Montreal Climate Exchange is ready to service this market.

Despite the political developments in the U.S., Ms. Morris and Mr. Grandia agree with the heads of the exchange that at some point, carbon in North American will have a price. "I don't think there is an alternative to [a price on carbon] Ms. Morris said. "There is nothing that is even close to a substitute [for addressing climate change].

gvaliante@nationalpost.com

FACT BOX

How the cap-and-trade system would work

• The Montreal Climate exchange benefits primarily heavy emitters and green project developers as a way to hedge.

• A green project developer will create a wind farm, or another technology that reduces greenhouse emissions. They will have to get certification from government that their project is acceptable. The amount of greenhouse gasses their project reduces will be quantified and they will be issued credits accordingly. For example, if their project reduces 1,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year, they will receive 1,000 carbon credits from the government.

• The developer can then sell a future contract on the Montreal Climate Exchange. He is hoping that the price of carbon falls when the contract expires so he makes money.

• A heavy emitter whose greenhouse gas emissions go over the limit imposed by government must buy carbon credits to offset his emissions. For example, if his company emits 1,000 tonnes more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than is permitted, he must purchase 1,000 carbon credits to fall in line with government regulations.

• The heavy emitter will purchase a contract on the exchange, hoping that the price he pays for the carbon credits the day he buys them, increases when he is forced to use them, saving him money.

gvaliante@nationalpost.com

Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/energy/green-energy/story.html?id=2510164#ixzz0eRddg1Hb
The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

Forest industry's future looks green

Monday, February 1st, 2010 | 4:01 pm

Rating: 0.0/5

Canwest News Service

VANCOUVER - The Canadian forest industry can come out of the recession stronger than ever by turning green, according to a new study by the Forest Products Association of Canada.

The study shows that traditional wood products, like lumber or pulp, are the best platform for a new bioenergy sector that can bring new capital, create new jobs and provide the benefits of clean energy.

But it will take a change in direction from industry and government to attract needed capital, states the report, called the Future Biopathways Project.

"The ability to produce energy, fuel and chemicals from wood fibre, along with forests' capacity to sequester carbon from the atmosphere, will change the nature of the game for Canada's forest products industry," states a summary of the report that was released Monday.

"As much as this is welcome news for forestry workers, it is also advantageous to communities and the national economy at large, since the forest products industry produces far more jobs and generates greater GDP than emerging bio-industries in isolation."

FPAC president Avrim Lazar said the association is seeking $3 billion from Ottawa in new and existing programs over the next five years to bring the transition about.

Canada's key trading partners are already retooling their economies to capture the fast-growing bioenergy market to attract financial investors, the report states.

The report also states that the existing industry needs to commit capital or form partnerships to take advantage of the opportunities ahead. The report notes that Canada ranks low in biomass energy investments, accounting for only two per cent of global investments over the last five years.

Further, capital markets need to rethink the forest industry as a provider of green energy and a producer of carbon credits.

The year-long project involved 65 Canadian experts in biotechnology, investment banking and carbon pricing. It also brought in expertise from existing wood products companies to make sure findings were practical, said project leader Don Roberts, senior research analyst at CIBC World Markets.

The report details the potential for the industry to adapt and integrate into the emerging bioenergy sector. Specifics vary from region to region, depending on federal and provincial programs, costs of fibre and market prices for products.

Roberts said in an interview that change is coming and the forest industry needs to seriously consider the growing number of options coming on stream.

"We've got a series of new technologies either out there or in the pipeline that we really ought to be taking a closer look at," Roberts said.

He said it could be as simple as a sawmill partnering with a producer of pyrolysis oil, an oil derived from wood waste and bark, that can be used as a fuel, a source of bio-chemicals or other products, including food additives.

Or it could be a pulp mill adding a bio-refinery to its existing product line.

Roberts said researchers looked not only at return on capital but also on employment numbers for a cubic metre of wood. What they found was that bioenergy plants developed on their own may create a strong return on capital but they do not produce many jobs.

But if the new technologies are combined with the existing wood products industry, the return on capital and job creation potential are both strongest.

"The traditional guys and the new guys are better off if they do it together. This isn't brain surgery, but we actually had to do the numbers to show it," Roberts said.

The report also points out that government regulations and programs are not being applied equally, creating some winner and losers. FPAC is calling on Ottawa and provincial governments to review their existing programs to ensure that all sectors in the emerging bioenergy field have equal access to programs and funds.

ghamilton@vancouversun.com

Carbon Taxes to replace Carbon Trading

2009-12-21 - COPENHAGEN: Carbon Tax to replace Carbon Trading

At the UN Climate Change Summit (COP 15) in Copenhagen, a leading climate scientist from NASA, Dr James Hansen, has claimed that “cap-and-trade schemes are a terrible idea”. He went on to say that “…a carbon tax, which is simple and honest, is a much easier task...all you have to do is get the major players to agree to put a carbon price on.”

Therein lies the rub. Hansen is a scientist and not an economist.

Three good economic reasons exist for not favouring a carbon tax over a cap-and-trade solution:

• A “one size fits all” tax would require an impossible calculation of the average costof reducing emissions over a given period of time. Compare this to an emission trading system that works on the free floating marginal cost of emission abatement;
• Taxes are levied locally and so are impossible to properly administer on a global scale. A global carbon market price is perfectly pervasive;
• Tax cannot guarantee a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions: emitters could opt to pay the tax and continue emitting at will. Conversely, a cap-and-trade solution introduces an absolute carbon ceiling and the price acts as no more than a useful barometer of how close we are to achieving that goal: prices will tend to zero as the requisite level of emission reductions are achieved.

The latter point dispels the political myth that “we need to establish a carbon price”.

Why does it matter if we achieve the necessary quantity of emission abatement at $2USD per ton of CO₂ or at $50USD per ton of CO₂?

In fact, our objective ought to be to achieve the environmental goal at the lowest unit cost. This goal can only be accomplished through the flexibility of emission trading.

Politicians should not be focussing any attention on carbon pricing. All focus at the summit should be on setting a satisfactory carbon cap: the price will determine itself.

Analysis of Carbon Taxation

Under a system of carbon taxation, a company possessing no economically viable emission abatement opportunity would be burdened with a penalty tax for emitting too much. The imposition of such an inequitable financial penalty, on a company with no alternative course of action available to it, would bring about absolutely no natural benefit to the environment. The sole beneficiaries of a carbon tax would be the Government Treasury Departments.

Meanwhile, a company with access to low cost emission abatement opportunities would receive absolutely no encouragement under a carbon taxation system to achieve any more than that which was legally required of it. Moreover, it may not be financially viable for a company to invest in large scale emission abatement opportunities without the ability to share the cost of such an investment with other companies. As such, many of the biggest and lowest cost emission reduction opportunities may be passed by.

Finally, under carbon taxation system a company is deprived of the ability to properly hedge long term investments in emission abatement projects. Revenue intensive projects require investment to be amortised over several years and without a market in which to hedge such investments the risk of undertaking the investment would be considered too high resulting in yet more high-quality emission reduction opportunities being ignored.

The net result of the imposition of a carbon tax is the achievement of sub-optimal emission reductions at a higher marginal unit cost to the economy as a whole.

Analysis of Carbon Trading

By contrast, a cap-and-trade system encourages any company with a low cost emission abatement opportunity to exploit that opportunity to the full. Such a company will take comfort in the knowledge that, through the open market, it is able to sell any over-achievement to a company with no economically viable means of reducing its own emissions.

A priori, all manner of emission abatement opportunity will be exploited to the maximum, no matter how large or small. Additionally, it is perfectly possible to properly assess the viability of an investment over the many years of life of a carbon abatement project and to hedge that risk through the sale of carbon allowances in the futures market.

The net result is optimal emission abatement at the lowest unit cost to industry: entirely in keeping with the principles of the Kyoto Protocol.

Hypothecation of taxes

Carbon taxation would result in leakage of money away from the environmental cause of tackling climate change. By taxing emitters, money would flow away from industry and into the Government’s coffers. Once appropriated by the national Treasury, these funds will be applied to budgets for defence, healthcare, education, infrastructure, welfare and perhaps a very small proportion will find its way back to the environmental objective. Moreover, funds that are hypothecated for environmental purposes may then be misapplied by politicians in such a way that no immediate environmental benefit is gained: perhaps investments will be made into research around Carbon Capture and Storage technology which is not currently a cost effective solution and, while it may or may not provide a solution in the future, it does nothing to curb greenhouse gas emissions today.

By contrast, the cap-and-trade solution encourages money to flow from those with poor opportunities to reduce their emissions to those with the ability to make a difference to the environment. Carbon trading provides a company with the absolute flexibility of reducing its own emissions or else paying another company to make an emission reduction on its behalf.

The carbon market is the conduit through which money being invested will find its way to the best (lowest cost) emission abatement technologies and therefore provide the most efficient mechanism for tackling the climate change problem. Cap-and-trade is a zero sum game in economic terms as the money that flows through the system remains within industry and is entirely applied to the environmental cause.

Pricing a tax

The final arrow through the heart of the archaic argument in favour of carbon taxation is the question of what level at which to impose carbon tax to bring about the desired emission reductions. If the taxation level were set too low then companies would simply view the tax as a means of buying itself out of its obligation to curb its emissions, to the detriment of the environment. If the level were set too high then it would bring unnecessary strain on the economy. The perfect level for a tax would be the level of the marginal cost of emission abatement for the desired quantity of emission reductions. However, this is a moving target dependent on multiple variables including industrial output, relative fuel prices and the weather.

It is this issue above all else that distinguishes carbon trading as the best available mechanism for tackling climate change. The open market creates a floating price for the emission of one metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent determined by the forces of supply and demand. Over the course of the past eighteen months, this free floating pricing mechanism has seen EU Carbon Allowances trading in a very wide range from €8 to €30. At each moment in time the market price represents the marginal cost of the requisite level of emission abatement necessary to achieve the emission caps prescribed by governments. With such wild fluctuations in the marginal cost of emission abatement the task of setting a “one price fits all” carbon tax is quite impossible.

Conclusion

The carbon tax argument is as out of date and extinct as the dinosaurs. Let it rest in peace. Long live carbon trading!

DJE – London – 8^th December 2009

James Emanuel

Commercial Director at CantorCO2e Ltd

Tel: +44 (0)20 7894 7315

Cell Phone: +44 (0)7956 048 049

jemanuel@cantorco2e.com

Carbon Tax or Trade