4,149
edits
🛢💸 The real deal about Carbon Pricing: Difference between revisions
🛢💸 The real deal about Carbon Pricing (view source)
Revision as of 00:09, 15 January 2021
, 15 January 2021→What are the concrete effects of carbon pricing on climate?
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
Nevertheless, according to European Commission, the GHG emissions of all Member States were reduced by 23% between 1990 and 2018; and they might be on-track to reduce furthermore by at least 40% by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050 (2015 Paris Agreement commitment). From 2017 to 2018 for instance, emissions declined by 2%, most significantly in sectors covered by EU ETS.<ref>EU Commission website, Progress made in cutting emissions, 2019. | Nevertheless, according to European Commission, the GHG emissions of all Member States were reduced by 23% between 1990 and 2018; and they might be on-track to reduce furthermore by at least 40% by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050 (2015 Paris Agreement commitment). From 2017 to 2018 for instance, emissions declined by 2%, most significantly in sectors covered by EU ETS.<ref>EU Commission website, Progress made in cutting emissions, 2019. | ||
source: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/progress_en</ref> However, a large amount of CO2 is embedded in traded goods, making countries able to consume more emissions that they actually produce.<ref>Nature website, <i>Prove paris was more than paper promises</i>, several scientists, 2017. | source: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/progress_en</ref> However, a large amount of CO2 is embedded in traded goods, making countries able to consume more emissions that they actually produce.<ref>Nature website, <i>Prove paris was more than paper promises</i>, several scientists, 2017. | ||
source: https://www.nature.com/news/prove-paris-was-more-than-paper-promises-1.22378</ref> But | source: https://www.nature.com/news/prove-paris-was-more-than-paper-promises-1.22378</ref> But in the meantime, international aviation saw its emissions increase by 19% in only 5 years (2013-2008), while European flights (only) were covered by EU ETS.<ref>EU Commission website, Progress made in cutting emissions, 2019. | ||
source: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/progress_en</ref> This allows us to digress a bit on aviation, a sector that would be among the top 10 emitting countries if it was considered as such. In 2019, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) approved a new offsetting scheme called CORSIA that would force EU to ditch EU ETS for this sector. CORSIA would essentially rely on “forest offsets” (or LULUCF<ref>LULUCF: “land use, land use change and forestry”. In EU commitments, the “no debit” rule ensures that land use emissions are compensated by an equivalent removal of CO2 in the same sector.</ref> offsets), unlike EU ETS that never agreed on this kind of offsets, considering that they “cannot physically deliver permanent emissions reductions […and] would require a quality of monitoring and reporting” that is too hard to maintain. And again, unlike EU authorities, ICAO is considered by environmentalists as not rigorous enough to control the emissions trading of the whole aviation sector because they have too much shared interests. All this might end up with no emissions-cut and “tree-planting” greenwashing, that was shown close to ineffective since environmental threats and illegal logging make it impossible to measure the carbon sequestration of forests over time.<ref>EU Commission website, ETS FAQ n°21 “Will it be possible to use credits from carbon “sinks” like forests?”. | source: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/progress_en</ref> This allows us to digress a bit on aviation, a sector that would be among the top 10 emitting countries if it was considered as such. In 2019, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) approved a new offsetting scheme called CORSIA that would force EU to ditch EU ETS for this sector. CORSIA would essentially rely on “forest offsets” (or LULUCF<ref>LULUCF: “land use, land use change and forestry”. In EU commitments, the “no debit” rule ensures that land use emissions are compensated by an equivalent removal of CO2 in the same sector.</ref> offsets), unlike EU ETS that never agreed on this kind of offsets, considering that they “cannot physically deliver permanent emissions reductions […and] would require a quality of monitoring and reporting” that is too hard to maintain. And again, unlike EU authorities, ICAO is considered by environmentalists as not rigorous enough to control the emissions trading of the whole aviation sector because they have too much shared interests. All this might end up with no emissions-cut and “tree-planting” greenwashing, that was shown close to ineffective since environmental threats and illegal logging make it impossible to measure the carbon sequestration of forests over time.<ref>EU Commission website, ETS FAQ n°21 “Will it be possible to use credits from carbon “sinks” like forests?”. | ||
source: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en#tab-0-2 | source: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en#tab-0-2 | ||