Carbon emission trading

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Carbon emission trading sits at the intersection of environmental policy and market economics, and the numbers involved are staggering. In 2023, the global carbon market reached a record value of 881 billion euros. That is roughly 949 billion US dollars changing hands in a single year, all in the name of limiting how much carbon dioxide countries and companies are allowed to pump into the atmosphere.

  The core idea sounds deceptively simple. Set a hard cap on total emissions. Issue permits up to that cap. Let businesses buy and sell those permits among themselves. Polluters who clean up their act can sell surplus permits to those who cannot. The market, in theory, finds the cheapest path to cutting emissions across an entire economy.

  But behind that simplicity lie decades of political battles, perverse incentives, accused abuses, and a fundamental question: can you fix a public good by pricing it? Carbon emission trading began as a diplomatic experiment in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It now shapes industrial decisions from Tokyo to Quebec to Shanghai. And the next chapter may involve a global carbon market covering every participating country on earth, potentially arriving as early as 2026.

• 2. Rio, Kyoto, and the First Rules

  ›

  In 1992, representatives of 160 countries gathered in Rio de Janeiro and agreed on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It was a statement of intent, not a rulebook. The details were left to future negotiations through the UN Conference of Parties, known as the COP process.

  Five years later, in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol filled in those details for the first time. Thirty-eight developed countries committed to specific targets and timetables for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The protocol was the first major international agreement aimed squarely at cutting GHG output.

  The framers of Kyoto recognized that rigid, domestic-only compliance would be expensive. Allowing countries to trade emissions permits with each other could lower the overall cost of reaching the same environmental goal. Emissions trading programmes that emerged from that thinking, including the European Union Emissions Trading System, complemented Kyoto's country-to-country obligations by opening private permit trading within national targets.

  One complication the Kyoto framework exposed was the problem of surplus allowances. Russia, after the Soviet Union's collapse, saw its industrial economy shrink dramatically. That left Russia holding far more allowances than its actual emissions required. Other countries could have bought those Russian surplus units without reducing a single tonne of real-world emissions. As of 2010, Kyoto parties had not chosen to purchase those surplus allowances, but the flaw in the architecture was visible to anyone paying attention.

• 3. How the Market Actually Works

  ›

  Under a cap-and-trade system, a government or international authority sets a total quantity limit on emissions across all participating entities. That cap is then divided into individual permits, each representing the right to emit a specific quantity. A business that emits more than its allocation must purchase additional permits from businesses that emit less.

  The atmosphere itself is treated as a global public good, and greenhouse gas emissions are classified as an international externality: a cost imposed on everyone that the emitter does not personally bear. Cap-and-trade attempts to internalize that cost by making the right to emit scarce and tradeable.

  Other greenhouse gases beyond carbon dioxide can be included in these markets. They are quoted as standardized multiples of CO2 based on their global warming potential, which allows a single market to cover methane, nitrous oxide, and other gases without running separate accounting systems for each.

  Compliance is verified by comparing a company's actual emissions against the permits it surrenders at the end of each accounting period. The price of permits is not fixed by regulators. It emerges from supply and demand across the market, which means the price can fall very low if too many permits are issued, or climb sharply if the cap is tight. The EU Emissions Trading System price stood at around 63 euros per tonne of CO2 as of September 2021. China's national carbon trading scheme, which started in 2021, operated at approximately 7 euros per tonne at the same point in time.

• 4. Who Gets Permits and Who Pays

  ›

  Governments face a foundational choice when setting up a carbon market: give permits away for free or auction them to the highest bidder. Economists almost uniformly recommend auctioning. Businesses almost uniformly resist it.

  The free-allocation approach, known as grandfathering, assigns permits based on a company's past emissions record. Garnaut's Climate Change Review found that grandfathered permits carry serious downsides. Because permits are scarce and valuable, the benefit flows entirely to the emitter at first. But profit-maximizing firms will still raise prices for customers, since the opportunity cost of not selling the permit is real even when the permit was received for free. Companies that emit the same amount as before, with no change in technology, end up with windfall profits equal to the value of their free permits.

  Grandfathering also creates a perverse incentive: a company that voluntarily cuts its emissions early may receive fewer permits in future allocation cycles, effectively punishing early action. The International Air Transport Association, whose 230 member airlines represent 93% of all international air traffic, argued that basing permit allocations on industry averages rather than individual historical emissions would better reward operators who modernized their fleets.

  Auctioning permits redirects that value to the government, which can then fund low-carbon investment, cut other taxes, or return revenue to households. President Barack Obama's proposed 2010 federal budget envisioned generating an estimated 78.7 billion dollars in fiscal year 2012 alone from auctioning greenhouse gas emissions credits, rising to 83 billion dollars by fiscal year 2019. That proposal was never enacted. Washington state, however, launched its own cap-and-trade programme in 2021, explicitly calling it a Cap-and-Invest scheme and directing auction revenue into climate programmes.

• 5. Carbon Leakage and Border Adjustments

  ›

  Any carbon market that covers only some countries or sectors faces a structural vulnerability: emissions can migrate to wherever they face less regulation. This is called carbon leakage, and it undermines the environmental purpose of the scheme.

  As of 2021, roughly 22% of global greenhouse gas emissions were covered by 64 carbon taxes and emissions trading systems combined. The 78% that remained outside those systems represented a large regulatory gap. Energy-intensive industries operating under a carbon price may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage against rivals in jurisdictions with no such cost, creating an incentive to shift production abroad.

  One policy response is border adjustment: imposing a tariff on imports from countries with weaker carbon regulation. The EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism is scheduled to take effect across six sectors in 2026. Research examining stock market reactions at three key stages of the EU legislative process found that EU-based firms in covered sectors experienced share price declines roughly 2-3 percentage points larger than comparable non-EU firms. Companies with heavy reliance on non-EU suppliers and companies with thin profit margins showed the sharpest negative reactions.

  China publicly stated that it prefers a global carbon market to the EU's border mechanism, arguing it would produce better outcomes than unilateral trade measures. That preference points toward a global solution, but building one requires aligning dozens of national systems with different price levels, different sector coverage, and different political constraints. Free permits to internationally exposed industries remain another tool for addressing leakage, though the Garnaut Review argued that revenue from full permit auctioning would allow governments to address competitiveness concerns more transparently.

• 6. Criticisms, Abuses, and Limits

  ›

  Carbon markets have attracted sustained criticism from environmental groups, economists, and policymakers across the political spectrum, and some of that criticism is backed by documented failures.

  In China, some companies manufactured greenhouse gases artificially for the sole purpose of destroying them and claiming carbon credits. The same practice occurred in India. Credits earned through these fictitious reductions were then sold to buyers in the United States and Europe, meaning real money flowed for emissions reductions that never happened. Corporate and governmental carbon trading schemes have also been modified in ways linked to money laundering.

  Annie Leonard's 2009 documentary The Story of Cap and Trade highlighted three specific problems: free permits gave major polluters unjustified advantages; carbon offsets created opportunities for fraud; and the whole apparatus functioned as a distraction from more fundamental changes to fossil fuel use. The campaigning group FERN published a detailed compilation of arguments against carbon trading titled "Trading Carbon: How it works and why it is controversial" in September 2010. Carbon Trade Watch concluded that carbon trading had a disastrous track record.

  At the system design level, the recurring failure mode is oversupply of permits. When regulators issue too many allowances, prices collapse and the incentive to cut emissions disappears. Current schemes have not been consistently harmonized with the carbon budgets required to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius or well below 2 degrees Celsius. Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki called in August 2022 for a temporary suspension of the EU ETS to relieve pressure on household energy bills, describing the permit price increase as out of control. The complexity of cap-and-trade rules across Australia, Canada, China, the EU, India, Japan, New Zealand, and the US has produced ongoing uncertainty, leaving some organizations with little incentive to comply.

• 7. Toward a Global Carbon Market

  ›

  The Paris Agreement gave carbon markets a legal foundation at the international level. Progress toward a unified global system has been slow, but a specific mechanism began taking shape at the COP30 meeting, where an international coalition called the Open Coalition on Compliance Carbon Markets started to form.

  The plan as drafted calls for a global emissions cap starting near current emissions levels and declining steadily until net-zero is reached by 2050. Any activity producing emissions would require allowances. As the cap tightens, allowance prices rise, creating a financial incentive for decarbonization that would grow stronger over time. A border adjustment mechanism governed by all participants would be included. Poorer countries would pay reduced amounts or nothing, with part of the revenue directed to helping them address the climate crisis. The formal launch of the Coalition is expected during 2026.

  The EU's trading rules already allow connection with other national systems, and a link with Switzerland's scheme has already been established. Merging China's and the EU's carbon markets has been described as capable of sending a powerful signal to the rest of the world and catalyzing international buy-in while letting both economies achieve stronger results at lower cost.

  The scale of what a functional global system could accomplish is significant. A global carbon market is projected to speed up emissions reduction seven-fold across all participating countries, while generating 200 billion dollars per year for clean-energy and social programmes. The global carbon market value stood at approximately 948.75 billion dollars in 2023. Analysts project that figure reaching 2.68 trillion dollars by 2028, and 22 trillion dollars by 2050, numbers that reflect both the growth of coverage and the rising price of carbon as caps tighten.