4,149
edits
🛢💸 The real deal about Carbon Pricing: Difference between revisions
🛢💸 The real deal about Carbon Pricing (view source)
Revision as of 18:12, 19 March 2020
, 19 March 2020→Emissions Trading Schemes
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
[[File:emission-vs-free-allowances_2013_carbonleakage_evidence_project_ecorys.png|thumb|Thumbnailed image|“For every year under the EU ETS thus far, the verified emissions in the iron & steel sector as a whole were lower than the allocation of free EU Allowances for that year. During 2008-2012, mainly due to the economic downturn, almost 360 million tonnes CO2-eq were built up from the excess of EUAs, which if valued by the yearly average price result in freed-up allowances of roughly €5 billion.” | [[File:emission-vs-free-allowances_2013_carbonleakage_evidence_project_ecorys.png|thumb|Thumbnailed image|“For every year under the EU ETS thus far, the verified emissions in the iron & steel sector as a whole were lower than the allocation of free EU Allowances for that year. During 2008-2012, mainly due to the economic downturn, almost 360 million tonnes CO2-eq were built up from the excess of EUAs, which if valued by the yearly average price result in freed-up allowances of roughly €5 billion.” | ||
Emission versus free allowances in the steel industry. Carbon-leakage evidence project, Ecorys, 2013, p.33. | Emission versus free allowances in the steel industry. Carbon-leakage evidence project, Ecorys, 2013, p.33.]] | ||
[[File:transfer-mispricing-fraud_2013_Interpol_Guide-to-Carbon-Trading-Crime.png|thumb|Thumbnailed image|“It is possible that companies that need to purchase carbon credits to offset their emissions may also have investments in derivatives trading and in businesses responsible for generating carbon credits.68 This raises the potential for those related companies to engage in transfer mispricing. Transfer mispricing, also known as transfer pricing manipulation, refers to trades between two related parties at artificial prices for the purposes of tax avoidance.” | |||
Interpol, Guide to Carbon Trading Crime, 2013, p.23.]] | |||
Exaggerating the carbon benefits of an offset is a common practice too<ref>Take for instance the HFC-23 GHG destruction model that made China built 18 new refrigerant manufacturing plants equipped with HFC-23 incinerators for $100 millions, thus generating $5,7 billions in CDM offsets credits. This type of offset credit has since been eliminated by EU officials (in 2011). | Exaggerating the carbon benefits of an offset is a common practice too<ref>Take for instance the HFC-23 GHG destruction model that made China built 18 new refrigerant manufacturing plants equipped with HFC-23 incinerators for $100 millions, thus generating $5,7 billions in CDM offsets credits. This type of offset credit has since been eliminated by EU officials (in 2011). | ||
source: https://www.carbontax.org/carbon-tax-vs-the-alternatives/offsets/</ref>; and same goes with what is called “carbon leakage” scam: companies are threatening governments, pretending they will close plants and delocalize in countries with no or less costly carbon pricing systems. Governments are then weakened when it comes to the negotiation of free allowances, but all this claim that carbon pricing could disadvantage companies dangerously has never been proven right in years. EU commissioned reports show no proof of carbon leakage<ref>See those different documents: | source: https://www.carbontax.org/carbon-tax-vs-the-alternatives/offsets/</ref>; and same goes with what is called “carbon leakage” scam: companies are threatening governments, pretending they will close plants and delocalize in countries with no or less costly carbon pricing systems. Governments are then weakened when it comes to the negotiation of free allowances, but all this claim that carbon pricing could disadvantage companies dangerously has never been proven right in years. EU commissioned reports show no proof of carbon leakage<ref>See those different documents: | ||