International

Climate change is a global challenge and requires a global solution. Through analysis and dialogue, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions is working with governments and stakeholders to identify practical and effective options for the post-2012 international climate framework. Read more

 

Technology Funding in a Post-2012 Climate Framework - Background Note

**This background note was released on June 11, 2008 at the UNFCCC Bonn Climate Change Talks**

In the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, developed countries commit generally to provide financial resources, including for the transfer of technology, needed by developing countries to fulfill their obligations under the Convention. 

In order to successfully support the adoption of climate-friendly technologies in developing countries, multiple sources of investment – including public and private finance, carbon finance, and multilateral funding – are needed. 

This note outlines key design issues and options in considering new means of multilateral funding for climate-friendly technology in a post-2012 climate change agreement.

Download the full paper (pdf) 

0

The European Union's Emissions Trading System in Perspective


The European Union's Emissions Trading System in Perspective

Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
May 2008

By:
A. Denny Ellerman,
Paul L. Joskow

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Press Release

Watch report author Denny Ellerman on E&ETV

Download entire report (PDF)

Download overview presentation (PDF)

Foreword

 

Eileen Claussen, President, Pew Center on Global Climate Change

To meet its obligations to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations under the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union (EU) established the first cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide emissions in the world starting in 2005. Proposed in October 2001, the EU’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) was up and running just over three years later. The first three-year trading period (2005-2007)—a trial period before Kyoto’s obligations began—is now complete and, not surprisingly, has been heavily scrutinized. This report examines the development, structure, and performance of the EU-ETS to date, and provides insightful analysis regarding the controversies and lessons emerging from the initial trial phase.

Recognizing their lack of experience with cap and trade and the need to build knowledge and program architecture, EU leaders began by covering only one gas (carbon dioxide) and a limited number of sectors. Once the infrastructure was in place, other GHGs and sectors could be included in subsequent phases of the program, when more significant emissions reductions were needed. As authors Denny Ellerman and Paul Joskow describe, the system has so far worked as it was envisioned—a European-wide carbon price was established, businesses began incorporating this price into their decision-making, and the market infrastructure for a multi-national trading program is now in place. Moreover, despite the condensed time period of the trial phase, some reductions in emissions from the covered sectors were realized.

The development of the EU-ETS has not, however, proceeded without its challenges. The authors explain some of the controversies regarding the early performance of the EU-ETS and describe potential remedies planned for later compliance periods:

  • Due to a lack of accurate data in advance of the program, allowances to emitters were overallocated. Now with more accurate emissions data and a centralized cap-setting and reporting process, the emissions cap should be sufficiently binding;
  • Concerns about program volatility emerged when initially high allowances prices (driven largely by high global energy costs) dropped precipitously in April 2006 upon the release of more accurate, verified emissions data. Late in the trial phase, there was another sharp decline in allowance price because there were no provisions for banking emissions reductions for use in the second phase of the program. Improved data quality and provisions for unrestricted banking between compliance periods will help moderate price fluctuations in the future;
  • Windfall profits by electric power generators that passed along costs (based on market value) of their freely issued allowances resulted in improved understanding of how member country electricity sector regulations affect the market and calls for increased auctioning in subsequent phases of the program.

Interest in developing a national cap-and-trade program in the United States has intensified in recent years. The first comprehensive greenhouse gas reduction bill ever to be reported out of a committee emerged from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in December 2007. As debate continues on this landmark legislation, the House of Representatives has signaled its intention to design its own emissions trading program. This report provides an excellent resource for those developing U.S. proposals. As Europe’s experience with the EU-ETS suggests, everything does not have to be perfect at the outset of a cap-and-trade program. We do, however, need to get started and, for this, the EU-ETS has provided valuable lessons for us all.

The Center and the authors would like to thank Robert Stavins and Peter Zapfel for comments and suggestions on earlier drafts. None of them are responsible for the analysis, conclusions or any remaining errors. The views expressed here are solely those of the authors.

Executive Summary

The performance of the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) to date cannot be evaluated without recognizing that the first three years from 2005 through 2007 constituted a “trial” period and understanding what this trial period was supposed to accomplish. Its primary goal was to develop the infrastructure and to provide the experience that would enable the successful use of a cap-and-trade system to limit European GHG emissions during a second trading period, 2008-12, corresponding to the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. The trial period was a rehearsal for the later more serious engagement and it was never intended to achieve significant reductions in CO2 emissions in only three years. In light of the speed with which the program was developed, the many sovereign countries involved, the need to develop the necessary data, information dissemination, compliance and market institutions, and the lack of extensive experience with emissions trading in Europe, we think that the system has performed surprisingly well.

Although there have been plenty of rough edges, a transparent and widely accepted price for tradable CO2 emission allowances emerged by January 1, 2005, a functioning market for allowances has developed quickly and effortlessly without any prodding by the Commission or member state governments, the cap-and-trade infrastructure of market institutions, registries, monitoring, reporting and verification is in place, and a significant segment of European industry is incorporating the price of CO2 emissions into their daily production decisions.

The development of the EU ETS and the experience with the trial period provides a number of useful lessons for the U.S. and other countries.



  • Suppliers quickly factor the price of emissions allowances into their pricing and output behavior.
     
  • Liquid bilateral markets and public allowance exchanges emerge rapidly and the “law of one price” for allowances with the same attributes prevails.
     
  • The development of efficient allowance markets is facilitated by the frequent dissemination of information about emissions and allowance utilization.
     
  • Allowance price volatility can be dampened by including allowance banking and borrowing and by allocating allowances for longer trading periods.
     
  • The redistributive aspects of the allocation process can be handled without distorting abatement efficiency or competition despite the significant political maneuvering over allowance allocations. However, allocations that are tied to future emissions through investment and closure decisions can distort behavior. 
     
  • The interaction between allowance allocation, allowance markets, and the unsettled state of electricity sector liberalization and regulation must be confronted as part of program design to avoid mistakes and unintended consequences. This will be especially important in the U.S. where 50 percent of the electricity is generated with coal.

The EU ETS provides a useful perspective on the problems to be faced in constructing a global GHG emission trading system. In imagining a multinational system, it seems clear that participating nations will retain significant discretion in deciding tradable national emission caps albeit with some negotiation; separate national registries will be maintained with some arrangement for international transfers; and monitoring, reporting and verification procedures will be administered nationally although necessarily subject to some common standard. All of these issues have had to be addressed in the trial period and they continue to present challenges to European policy makers.

The deeper significance of the trial period of the EU ETS may be its explicit status as a work in progress. As such, it is emblematic of all climate change programs, which will surely be changed over the long horizon during which they will remain effective. The trial period demonstrates that everything does not need to be perfect at the beginning. In fact, it provides a reminder that the best can be the enemy of the good. This admonition is especially applicable in an imperfect world where the income and wealth effects of proposed actions are significant and sovereign nations of widely varying economic circumstance and institutional development are involved. The initial challenge is simply to establish a system that will demonstrate the societal decision that GHG emissions shall have a price and to provide the signal of what constitutes appropriate short-term and long-term measures to limit GHG emissions. In this, the EU has done more with the ETS, despite all its faults, than any other nation or set of nations.

About the Authors

 

Dr. A. Denny Ellerman

A leading energy economist, Dr. Ellerman is a Senior Lecturer with the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he previously served as the Executive Director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research and of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. Dr. Ellerman is internationally recognized as an authority on emissions trading, and his current research interests focus on the U.S. and European emissions trading programs and on environmental regulations. He is co-author of the report, The European Union’s Emissions Trading System in Perspective, and he coauthored the well-respected text, Markets for Clean Air: The U.S. Acid Rain Program with MIT Sloan colleagues. Dr. Ellerman has also worked for Charles River Associates, the National Coal Association, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Executive Office of the President, and he served as President of the International Association for Energy Economics in 1990.

Dr. Ellerman received his undergraduate education at Princeton University and his Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government from Harvard University. His current research interests focus on emissions trading, climate change policy, and the economics of fuel choice, especially concerning coal and natural gas.

Paul L. Joskow

Paul L. Joskow became President of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation on January 1, 2008. He is presently on leave from his position as Elizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics and Management at MIT. He received a BA from Cornell University in 1968 and a PhD in Economics from Yale University in 1972. Professor Joskow has been on the MIT faculty since 1972 and served as Head of the MIT Department of Economics from 1994 to 1998. He was Director of the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research from 1999 through 2007. At MIT he has been engaged in teaching and research in the areas of industrial organization, energy and environmental economics, competition policy, and government regulation of industry for over 35 years. Dr. Joskow has published six books and over 125 articles and papers in these areas. He serves as a Director of Exelon Corporation, as a Director of TransCanada Corporation, and as a Trustee of the Putnam Mutual Funds. He is a member of the Board of Overseers of the Boston Symphony Orchestra. Dr. Joskow is a Fellow of the Econometric Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a Distinguished Fellow of the Industrial Organization Society.

A. Denny Ellerman
Paul L. Joskow
0

Press Release - EU Emissions Trading System Delivers Valuable Lessons

Press Release
May 8, 2008
Contact: Tom Steinfeldt, (703) 516-4146


EU EMISSIONS TRADING SYSTEM DELIVERS VALUABLE LESSONS
New Report Offers Insights to Policy-Makers on Cap and Trade
 

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change today releases a new report examining the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) that offers a realistic assessment of the system’s initial objectives and outcomes. The report, “The European Union’s Emissions Trading System in Perspective,” by A. Denny Ellerman and Paul L. Joskow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, examines the development, structure, and performance of the system to date.

As the U.S. Congress moves closer to developing a national climate change policy, this report delivers key insights into the world’s first carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program. Through analysis of the controversies and lessons learned from the program’s initial three-year trial phase, the authors provide important information for U.S. policy-makers and other countries. Main findings of the report include:

  • Good information is critical. Accurate data on baseline emissions is needed to create an effective trading system that results in sufficient emissions reductions;
  • Suppliers quickly factor the price of emissions allowances into their business decisions under a cap-and-trade program;
  • Price volatility can be reduced by including banking and limited borrowing of emissions allowances;
  • The relationship between allowance allocation, allowance markets, and the unsettled state of electricity regulation must be understood and addressed to avoid unintended consequences; and
  • The linkage of 28 separate trading programs in the EU ETS provides a valuable prototype for a globally linked carbon market.


“The EU’s experience with emissions trading offers valuable lessons for Congress as they work to craft a sensible cap-and-trade program for the U.S.,” said Pew Center President Eileen Claussen. “The EU has done more than any other nation or set of nations in limiting GHG emissions – and the implementation of their cap-and-trade system has been a key part of their efforts.”

The report finds initial concerns with the EU ETS are being addressed and the program’s trial period has provided important lessons about the creation of new emissions trading schemes. In fact, the system has worked much as it was envisioned ¬– it established a European-wide carbon price; caused businesses to incorporate this price into their decision-making; and created the infrastructure for a multi-national trading program. In addition, emission reductions were realized in some covered sectors which underscore the system’s initial benefits.

The report helps address key cap-and-trade concerns in the U.S. and internationally, including over-allocation, price volatility, and excessive “windfall” profits. While it remains a work in progress, the EU ETS affords many important lessons for policy-makers and major stakeholders to consider when developing appropriate short- and long-term measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

For more information about global climate change and the activities of the Pew Center, visit www.c2es.org.

##


The Pew Center was established in May 1998 as a non-profit, non-partisan, and independent organization dedicated to providing credible information, straight answers, and innovative solutions in the effort to address global climate change. The Pew Center is led by Eileen Claussen, the former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.

Statement: Bangkok Climate Change Talks

Statement of Elliot Diringer, Director of International Strategies
Pew Center on Global Climate Change


April 4, 2008

The Bali agreement was a major step forward, and while the Bangkok talks managed to keep the momentum going, they also underscored the enormous challenges ahead. The aim remains a new global deal in 2009, but it’s hard to leave Bangkok confident that deadline can be met.   

As might be expected at the start of a new negotiating round, it seemed at times that parties were moving backwards, reverting to the hard lines and rhetoric that lead nowhere but stalemate. Thankfully by the end they were able to agree on a work program to move the negotiations forward this year, including workshops on such key issues as adaptation, technology, finance, and sectoral approaches.

While the United States’ refusal to negotiate a binding emissions target remains the single largest obstacle to an effective climate agreement, U.S. negotiators did put forward a number of pragmatic suggestions for structuring the negotiations. Hopefully this new, more constructive approach will make it easier for the next administration to negotiate an agreement setting fair, effective, and binding commitments for all major economies.

It’s clear that all eyes are on the upcoming U.S. election. And there’s every reason to expect that, whatever the outcome, the prospects for U.S. action will be far stronger. But that alone will hardly guarantee a new global agreement in a matter of months. Other parties will have to show new flexibility and a greater willingness to act if there is to be a deal in Copenhagen.

Sectoral Approaches for a Post-2012 International Climate Framework - Background Note

**This brief background paper was released on March 30, 2008 at the UNFCCC Bangkok Climate Talks**

Since climate change first emerged as an international issue in the late 1980s, a recurring policy question has been whether to address it on a comprehensive or a sector-by-sector basis. In recent years, sectoral approaches have received renewed attention and are among the options proposed for the post-2012 period.

This background paper helps clarify different types of sectoral approaches under discussion and how they might fit into a post-2012 international climate framework.

Download the full paper (pdf)

 

Further Reading:

International Sectoral Agreements in a Post-2012 Climate Framework
Working Paper, May 2007

0

Articles & Testimony

Articles

Congressional Testimonies

History of International Negotiations

Climate change is a global challenge and requires a global solution. Greenhouse gas emissions have the same impact on the atmosphere whether they originate in Washington, London or Beijing. Consequently, action by one country to reduce emissions will do little to slow global warming unless other countries act as well. Ultimately, an effective strategy will require commitments and action by all the major emitting countries.


United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
The international response to climate change was launched in 1992, at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, with the signing of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Convention established a long-term objective of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere "at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". It also set a voluntary goal of reducing emissions from developed countries to 1990 levels by 2000 - a goal that most countries did not meet. Currently 191 parties, including the US, have ratified the UNFCCC.

UNFCCC First Ten Years: A Report of the UN Secretariat

Kyoto Protocol
Recognizing that stronger action was needed, countries negotiated the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which sets binding targets to reduce emissions 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The Protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005, which made the Protocol's emissions targets binding legal commitments for those industrialized countries that ratified it (the United States has not ratified it). In addition, the market-based mechanisms established under the Protocol, including international emissions trading and the Clean Development Mechanism, became fully operational with the Protocol's entry into force.

Conference of the Parties (COPs)

COP 21 Paris
November 30 - December 12, 2015

COP 20 - Lima, Peru
December 1 - 12, 2014

COP 19 - Warsaw Poland
November 11 - 23, 2013

COP 18 - Doha, Qatar
November 26 - December 7, 2012

COP 17 - Durban, South Africa
November 28 - December 9, 2011

COP 16 - Cancún, Mexico
November 29 - December 10, 2010
The Cancún Agreements import the essential elements of the Copenhagen Accord into the UNFCCC, including mitigation pledges and operational elements such as a new Green Climate Fund for developing countries and a system of “international consultations and analysis” to help verify countries’ actions. Agreement hinged on finding a way to finesse the more difficult questions of if, when, and in what form countries will take binding commitments. The final outcome leaves all options on the table and sets no clear path toward a binding agreement.

COP 15 - Copenhagen, Denmark
December 7-18, 2009
A new political accord struck by world leaders at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen provides for explicit emission pledges by all the major economies – including, for the first time, China and other major developing countries – but charts no clear path toward a treaty with binding commitments.

COP 14 - Poznan, Poland
December 1-12, 2008
Governments resolved in Poznan to shift into “full negotiating mode” in hopes of delivering a comprehensive new climate change agreement in December 2009 in Copenhagen.

COP 13 - Bali, Indonesia
December 3-15, 2007
In tense and chaotic talks that ran a full day longer than planned, delegates to the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali remained far apart on fundamental issues but in the end agreed to launch a loosely framed negotiating process with the ambitious goal of achieving a new global climate agreement in 2009.

COP 12 - COP/MOP 2
November 6-17, 2006
Government negotiators at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Nairobi continued two processes launched last year in Montreal to consider next steps in the international climate effort, and agreed in the final hours to open another track to review the Kyoto Protocol.

COP 11 - Montreal, Canada
November 28 - December 10, 2005
In two weeks of talks, delegates to the UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal concluded the decade-long round of negotiations that launched the Kyoto Protocol and opened a new round of talks to begin considering the future of the international climate effort.

COP 10 - Buenos Aires
December 6-17, 2004

COP 9 - Milan, Italy
December 1-12, 2003

COP 8 - New Delhi, India
October 23 - Novomber 1, 2002

COP 7 - Marrakech, Morocco
October 29 - November 9, 2001

COP 6 BIS - Bonn, Germany
July 16-27, 2001

COP 6 - The Hague, The Netherlands
November 13 - 24, 2000
 



In a preview of a tough year ahead, governments meeting at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Lima, Peru, went 30 hours over deadline to hammer out a modest set of procedural steps, and made no real progress on the larger issues looming as they work toward a new global climate agreement next year in Paris.

About International

Climate change is a global challenge and requires a global solution. Through analysis and dialogue, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions works with governments and stakeholders to identify practical and effective options for an international climate framework.

C2ES engages with international policymakers in the United States and other key countries; regularly convenes informal discussions among climate negotiators; and organizes conferences, workshops, and briefings on international climate policy developments.

To learn more about the latest news regarding the global climate change negotiations, see our resources for the international talks that culminated in a new climate agreement reached in Paris in 2015 and signed in 2016.

 

International

Climate change is a global challenge and requires a global solution. Through analysis and dialogue, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions is working with governments and stakeholders to identify practical and effective options for the post-2012 international climate framework. Read more

 

2020 Country Emissions Targets

International Emissions Targets

 

Entity

Kyoto Target 2008-2012

Pledged targets under the UNFCCC [1]

Australia

8% above 1990 levels

5% below 2000 levels by 2020

15%-25% below 2000 levels by 2020 under different conditions of a global agreement that stabilizes GHG levels

Canada

6% below 1990 levels

17% below 2005 levels by 2020

European Community

EU-15: 8% below 1990 levels

EU-27: 20% below 1990 levels by 2020

30% below 1990 levels by 2020 if comparable and adequate actions by other countries

Bulgaria

8% below 1988 levels

Part of EU

Czech Republic

8% below 1990 levels

Part of EU

Estonia

8% below 1990 levels

Part of EU

Hungary

6% below average1985-1987 levels

Part of EU

Latvia

8% below 1990 levels

Part of EU

Lithuania

8% below 1990 levels

Part of EU

Poland

6% below 1988 levels

Part of EU

Romania

8% below 1989 levels

Part of EU

Slovakia

8% below 1990 levels

Part of EU

Slovenia

8% below 1986 levels

Part of EU

Japan

6% below 1990 levels

25% below 1990 levels by 2020 on condition of fair, effective international framework with ambitious targets by all major economies

New Zealand

Remain at 1990 levels

10-20% below 1990 levels by 2020 if comprehensive global agreement

Russia

Remain at 1990 levels

15-25% below 1990 levels by 2020; range depends on accounting of forestry sector and actions by all major emitters

United States

 

In the range of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, in conformity with anticipated legislation

Croatia

5% below 1990 levels

5% below 1990 levels by 2020, to be replaced upon EU accession (1 July 2013)

Iceland

10% above 1990 levels

Same as EU target

Liechtenstein

8% below 1990 levels

Same as EU target

Monaco

8% below 1990 levels

Same as EU target

Norway

1% above 1990 levels

 

 

30% below 1990 levels by 2020

40% below 1990 levels by 2020 as part of a global and comprehensive international agreement

Switzerland

8% below 1990 levels

Same as EU target

Ukraine

Remain at 1990 levels

20% below 1990 levels by 2020 under certain conditions

United Kingdom

12.5% below 1990 levels

Same as EU target

Belarus

 

5-10% below 1990 levels by 2020, conditional on access to carbon markets, technology and capacity assistance, as well as clarity on accounting rules for forestry and land-use

Kazakhstan

 

15% below 1992 levels by 2020

Brazil

 

36.1-38.9% below business-as-usual projected emissions level in 2020

Chile

 

20% below business-as-usual projected emissions in 2020, projected from 2007 levels, requiring international support

China

 

40-45% reduction in CO2emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) from 2005 level by 2020

Costa Rica

 

Carbon neutral by 2021

India

 

20-25% reduction in emissions per unit of GDP (excluding agriculture sector) from 2005 level by 2020

Indonesia

 

26% below business-as-usual projected emissions in 2020

Israel

 

20% below business-as-usual projected emissions in 2020

41% below business-as-usual projected emissions in 2020 with international support

Mexico

 

30% below business-as-usual projected emissions in 2020, subject to provision of adequate support

Korea (Republic of)

 

30% below business-as-usual projected emissions in 2020 (4% below 2005 level)

Singapore

 

7-11% below business-as-usual projected emissions in 2020

16% below business-as-usual projected emissions in 2020, contingent on legally binding global agreement

South Africa

 

34% below business-as-usual projected emissions in 2020

42% below business-as-usual projected emissions in 2025, extent of implementation dependent on level of support

Marshall Islands

 

40% below 2009 levels by 2020 (CO2 only)

Maldives

 

Carbon neutrality by 2020

Antigua and Barbuda

 

25% below 1990 levels by 2020

 

European Community

Kyoto Target [2] 2008-2012

EU Climate and Energy Package Effort Sharing targets for 2013-2020 [3]

Austria

13% below 1990

 16% below 2005 level

Belgium

7.5% below 1990

 15% below 2005 level

Bulgaria

 

20% above 2005 level

Czech Republic

 

 9% above 2005 level

Cyprus

 

5% below 2005 level

Denmark

21% below 1990

 20% below 2005 level

Estonia

 

11% above 2005 level

Finland

1990 levels

 16% below 2005 level

France

1990 levels

 14% below 2005 level

Germany

21% below 1990

 14% below 2005 level

Greece

25% above 1990

 4% below 2005 level

Hungary

 

10% above 2005 level

Ireland

13% above 1990

 20% below 2005 level

Italy

6.5% below 1990

 13% below 2005 level

Latvia

 

17% above 2005 level

Lithuania

 

15% above 2005 level

Luxembourg

28% below 1990

20% below 2005 level

Malta

 

5% above 2005 level

Netherlands

6% below 1990

 16% below 2005 level

Poland

 

14% above 2005 level

Portugal

27% above 1990

 1% above 2005 level

Romania

 

19% above 2005 level

Slovenia

 

4% above 2005 level

Slovakia

 

13% above 2005 level

Spain

15% above 1990

 10% below 2005 level

Sweden

4% above 1990

 17% below 2005 level

United Kingdom

12.5% below 1990

 16% below 2005 level

 

References:

1. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2011, FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/INF.1 and FCCC/SB/2011/INF.1/Rev.1

2. The EU-15 nations have joined a "bubble" which allows the joint fulfillment of emissions commitments and preserves the collective emissions reduction goal of 8% below 1990 levels by 2008/2012. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_130/l_13020020515en00010020.pdf

3. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort/index_en.htm. The EU’s collective 20% reduction target from 1990 levels translates to a 14% reduction from 2005 levels, split into sectors covered by the ETS (21% reduction) and those not covered by it (10% reduction). These targets apply to sectors not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), such as buildings, transport, and other commercial activities. The EU ETS applies a sectoral cap and reduction target across the EU countries for emissions from power and heavy industry, and aviation from 2012. The ETS reduction target is 21% below 2005 levels by 2020.

 

 

Syndicate content