Carbon markets left out of Paris agreement rules

  • Market: Emissions
  • 17/12/18

Countries have postponed until 2019 a decision on how carbon markets will function under the Paris climate agreement, after the issue threatened to derail negotiations in the final hours of the UN's annual climate summit (Cop 24) in Katowice, Poland.

Negotiators from nearly 200 countries on 15 December agreed a set of rules that will put the Paris agreement into operation when it takes effect in 2020.

The guidelines cover how countries will track and report their emissions, as they take action to deliver the agreement's goal to limit global warming to 2˚C by the end of the century, and pursue efforts towards 1.5˚C.

But negotiators failed to reach agreement on contentious issues including carbon markets and the transfer of climate finance to developing countries beyond 2020. Decisions on these parts of the rulebook have been pushed into meetings next year.

Carbon markets

Talks on carbon markets reached an impasse in the final hours of Cop 24, which had been scheduled to end on 14 December, but overran late into the night on 15 December.

Article 6 of the Paris agreement contains rules that would allow countries to trade emissions reductions, and count these reductions towards their national CO2 cutting targets under the Paris treaty.

This could provide the foundations for an international carbon market.

Negotiations reached a gridlock when Brazil attempted to insert a loophole into the text that would allow it to count CO2 cuts towards its national emissions target, and sell the same CO2 cuts to another country, for use towards that country's target.

This would have resulted in double counting of emissions cuts — a red line for countries including the EU, which rejected Brazil's proposal. Decisions on article 6 will be taken at a fresh round of UN talks in November 2019.

Countries also failed to agree whether certified emissions reduction (CER) credits can be used for compliance with the Paris agreement's goals.

Allowing parties to count CERs towards their Paris pledges could create a new source of demand in the CER market, which has been plagued by low prices and oversupply in recent years. But environmental groups warned that CER use would undermine the Paris agreement's effectiveness, owing to concerns over the environmental integrity of CER-issuing projects.

The delayed decisions on article 6 will complicate developments in UN aviation agency Icao's Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (Corsia). Icao will confirm in 2019 which types of offset credits will be eligible for compliance with Corsia.

Climate compromises

The final Paris agreement rulebook received a mixed reception. Lawmakers hailed it as a compromise that will lay the groundwork for future climate action, while environmental groups said the text would fail to cap global warming at a level scientists have said is safe.

The rulebook lays out guidelines for countries to report their CO2 output and progress towards meeting their national climate goals.

It sets up a committee, which will investigate countries that fail to submit emissions data on time. The committee will help countries get back on track with their reporting. It will not "impose penalties or sanctions", according to the text.

Criticisms of the rulebook have focused on its perceived lack of ambition, as the text holds countries to their current pledges to cut CO2, but does not oblige them to set tougher targets.

The combined efforts of current pledges would result in global warming of 3°C by 2100 — far beyond the level agreed by scientists to be safe.

The EU, Canada and a group of 50 developing countries have already said they intend to increase their emissions pledges before 2020. Countries are expected to formally announce new, more ambitious, targets at a summit in September 2019, led by the UN secretary-general.

"From now on, my five priorities will be — ambition, ambition, ambition, ambition and ambition," UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres said at the conclusion of Cop 24.

The Paris agreement rulebook also fails to "welcome" a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warning that global warming must be capped at 1.5˚C above pre-industrial levels to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change.

The EU had led a large group of countries in the negotiations pushing for the rulebook to "welcome" the IPCC report, to signal that countries would take action to limit warming to 1.5˚C.

The final text "welcomes" the "timely competition" of the IPCC report, but does not welcome the report's findings. And it "invites", but does not require, countries to make use of the IPCC research.

Delayed decisions

Negotiators also postponed decisions on climate finance beyond 2020, and the issue of "common timeframes".

The rulebook confirms that, from 2031, countries' emissions reduction pledges will all run on the same timeframe. A decision will be made on whether this is a five- or 10-year timeframe at a meeting in June next year.

Countries' current national emissions targets do not all follow the same format. For example, the EU pledged a 40pc cut in its emissions by 2030, while the US pledge runs to 2025.

And countries will take decisions at a UN meeting in November 2020 on the rules to transfer climate finance to developed countries after 2020.

Chile will play host to the annual UN climate summit in 2019. Brazil had been slated to host the event, but the country withdrew its offer last month, citing financial constraints and the impending transition to a new government. President-elect Jair Bolsonaro, who takes office on 1 January, has threatened to pull the country out of the Paris agreement.

The UK last week formally expressed interest in hosting the UN climate summit in 2020.


Sharelinkedin-sharetwitter-sharefacebook-shareemail-share

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

News
28/03/24

Australia to delay mandatory climate reporting to 2025

Australia to delay mandatory climate reporting to 2025

Sydney, 28 March (Argus) — Australia's biggest companies will likely face mandatory climate reporting from 1 January 2025, six months later than originally planned, according to a bill the Australian federal government introduced in parliament. Under the revised proposal, the country's largest companies and financial institutions will need to start disclosing their climate-related risks and opportunities, including scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, within their annual sustainability reports from 1 January 2025 instead of 1 July as previously intended . Scope 3 emissions disclosure will continue to be required from the second year of reporting. Companies will be arranged in three groups, with group 1 entities including companies meeting at least two of three criteria: more than A$500mn ($324mn) of annual revenues, over A$1bn of gross assets, 500 or more employees. Group 2 companies will have lower thresholds — above A$200mn of revenues, $500mn of assets and 250 employees — and will start reporting from the financial year starting on 1 July 2026. Reporting for group 3 entities — those with more than A$50mn of revenues, $25mn of assets and 100 employees — will begin from 1 July 2027. The 1 January 2025 start date might be pushed further to 1 July 2025, if the bill does not become law before 2 December. It will now be debated in parliament and needs to pass both houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives, before receiving royal assent. Its approval will support more investment in renewable energy as well as help companies and investors manage climate risks, the government said. Companies are currently not required to report their scope 3 emissions under Australia's National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act, which is used to measure and report GHG emissions and energy production and consumption. Scope 3 can include emissions within supply chains that occur inside or outside Australia, such as emissions from the combustion of Australian coal or LNG exported to other countries. By Juan Weik Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Read more
News

Oil transition plans inadequate for investors: Report


27/03/24
News
27/03/24

Oil transition plans inadequate for investors: Report

London, 27 March (Argus) — Oil and gas producers' energy transition plans are "insufficient for investors to accurately gauge transition risk", according to a report released today from investor initiative Climate Action 100+ and investor research group Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI). Several companies measured have net zero goals, but there is an "absence of disclosure on critical elements", which makes it difficult for investors to understand how companies will achieve net zero, as well as the transition risks posed. The lack of sufficient transition plans presents a "material financial risk", Climate Action 100+ said. The report assessed 10 publicly-listed oil and gas producers — European firms BP, Eni, Repsol, Shell and TotalEnergies, and North American companies Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Occidental and Suncor. The companies scored lowest against 'alignment' metrics, measuring if they are in line with the Paris climate agreement that seeks to limit global warming to 1.5°C above the pre-industrial average. "More disclosure is required on the central aspects of transition planning, including measures to neutralise emissions, and production forecasts", TPI found. Companies assessed failed to score on 87pc of metrics related to quantifying emissions cuts, and on 89pc of metrics related to future oil and gas production. Most North American firms assessed have stated they plan to lift output, the report noted. But "without acknowledging the impact of the transition on the core business, companies risk deploying capital that… accentuates the risk of assets becoming stranded", it said. The report flagged a stark difference between the two regions. "European companies provide substantially better disclosure, set more aligned targets and are investing more in climate solutions", it said. North American firms are "not planning to meaningfully diversify into low carbon energy production", while European ones are exploring a range of lower-carbon options, including biofuels, hydrogen and renewable power. The companies assessed are also not reaching for "easy wins" on methane abatement, with just two having "convincing strategies" on this, the report found. Of the 10 companies, seven have joined reduction initiative the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership, but "most companies have not set a methane emissions reduction target with a clear and specific base and target year." Investment is crucial for companies looking to decarbonise. A report this week from non-profit CDP and consulting firm Oliver Wyman found that more than half of corporations in high-emitting sectors said access to capital was "a key concern in decarbonisation efforts". Their report analysed data from 1,600 European companies, which reported via CDP's environmental disclosures programme. "This implementation gap between concrete business actions and stated climate goals persists despite most businesses reporting they have a transition plan and emissions reduction targets in place", CDP said. By Georgia Gratton Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Australia softens fuel efficiency standard targets


27/03/24
News
27/03/24

Australia softens fuel efficiency standard targets

Sydney, 27 March (Argus) — The Australian federal government has agreed on draft legislation for its fuel efficiency standards for new passenger and light commercial vehicles, which will come into effect with reduced targets and later than originally proposed. The scheme will start on 1 January 2025 as planned by the government but manufacturers will not begin earning credits or penalties until 1 July 2025. This will enable it to prepare and test data reporting capabilities in partnership with the industry, the federal government said. Some sport utility vehicles, such as the Toyota Landcruiser and Nissan Patrol models, will also be recategorised as light commercial vehicles that will now have smoother targets compared with the government's preferred model released in early February. The government said this reflects recent adjustments announced by the US Environmental Protection Agency to its vehicle standards, which gave US auto manufactures more time to scale up the production of electric vehicles (EVs). Under Australia's proposed emissions standards, whose bill was introduced for a vote in parliament on 27 March, manufacturers will be set an average carbon dioxide (CO2) target for the range of vehicles they sell. Those will be lowered over time to mandate the sale of more fuel efficient, low or zero emissions vehicles. Companies that exceed their emissions targets will receive credits, which they might sell to less efficient manufacturers or use in future years. Those that fail to meet the requirement will need to make it up over the following two-year period, pay a penalty or acquire credits. The government's preferred model was criticised by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) as unreasonable , given the short timeframe for manufacturers to adjust their fleets. The FCAI welcomed the changes made by the government, although it said it would still need to review the draft legislation in detail to understand the impact to the industry and consumers. Associations such as the Electric Vehicle Council of Australia and the Climate Council supported the bill, with the former saying the "strong, ambitious standards" will drive a greater update of EVs. Charging boost Together with the bill, the federal government announced it will provide A$60mn ($39.2mn) to boost EV charging at Australian car dealerships. It said the standards will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new passenger vehicles by more than 60pc by 2030, while those from new light commercial vehicles will be nearly halved over the same period compared with a 60pc reduction originally. Environmental group Greenpeace said the final proposal is a meaningful effort to reduce transport pollution but it will achieve only 80pc of the emissions reduction originally planned for light commercial vehicles. "The decision to weaken the standards when it comes to light commercial vehicles will mean around 20pc more carbon pollution will be allowed by 2030 compared to the original proposal, so we expect the government will be looking at other options for reducing pollution from transport in order to meet their climate targets," Greenpeace said. Transport makes up 98mn t/yr or 21pc of Australia's total GHG emissions. By 2030 it is expected to be the largest source of emissions as the electricity sector decarbonises. Government data show that on average passenger cars in Australia emit at a rate 20pc higher than the US vehicle fleet. Passenger cars contribute 41mn t/yr of CO2 equivalent (CO2e), or 42pc of all transport emissions, with light commercial vehicles emitting 18mn t/yr CO2e or 18pc of total transport emissions. By Juan Weik Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Electrification key to cut UK offshore emissions: NSTA


27/03/24
News
27/03/24

Electrification key to cut UK offshore emissions: NSTA

London, 27 March (Argus) — The UK offshore oil and gas industry must make "decisive emissions reduction actions now and on an ongoing basis", with asset electrification and low carbon power central to making cuts, regulator the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) said today. "Where the NSTA considers electrification reasonable, but it has not been done, there should be no expectation that the NSTA will approve field development plans", the regulator said in a new emissions reduction plan. The NSTA set out "four clear contributing factors to decarbonising the industry" — including asset electrification, investment and efficiency and action on flaring and venting. It will also look at "inventory as a whole", ramping up scrutiny on assets with high emissions intensity. Relevant companies must produce emissions reduction action plans for offshore assets, the NSTA said. New developments with first oil or gas after the beginning of 2030 must be either fully electrified or run on "alternative low carbon power with near equivalent emission reductions", the NSTA said. New developments with first oil or gas before 2030 should be electrification-ready at minimum. If electrification is not reasonable, other power emissions reductions must be sought, the regulator said. The offshore industry must from 1 June provide "a documented method of the split of projected flaring and venting figures into categories", and must from 1 June 2025 have a plan and budget to "deliver continuous improvements in flaring and venting", it said. New developments — including tie-backs — must be planned on the basis of zero routine flaring and venting, which every asset must reach by 2030. Industry flaring almost halved between 2018-22, the NSTA said. The regulator has flagged a particular focus on methane emissions. The NSTA may require developers to agree to cease production of assets with high emissions intensity "with reference to societal carbon values", it said. Societal carbon values are calculated by the UK government to reflect the marginal cost to society of additional CO2 emissions. It will discuss end dates for production for assets with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity 50pc over the average for the UK offshore, and which intend to produce oil or gas beyond 2030. This represents a slight watering down of the initial plan the NSTA consulted on last year. The North Sea Transition Deal, agreed in 2021, commits the UK offshore industry to reducing its production emissions of GHGs by 10pc by 2025, by 24pc by 2027 and by 50pc by 2030, from a 2018 baseline. Industry has itself committed to a 90pc reduction by 2040 and a net zero basin by 2050, the NSTA said. It "would welcome industry owning and delivering these reductions", it said, adding that its plan is focused on emissions cuts and "emissions offsetting will not be considered towards meeting the obligations." By Georgia Gratton Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Germany sees no return to easy EU climate decisions


26/03/24
News
26/03/24

Germany sees no return to easy EU climate decisions

Brussels, 26 March (Argus) — German environment minister and green party politician Steffi Lemke has warned that easy decision-making processes for climate change and environment policies in the EU are unlikely to return after the election in June. This comes after a key EU vote on a provisional deal for climate, nature and environment was withdrawn because of a lack of member state support. Global challenges and geopolitic "are all too profound" to go back to what the EU decision-making process was like five years ago, Lemke said. But she noted that ultimately depends on the EU elections results in June and "how far extreme and populist parties gain majorities". This comes as the adoption the nature restoration law was cancelled yesterday after a number of countries, including Hungary, withdrew their support. Lemke said the vote was supposed to be "a formality" but that it is now unclear whether the law can still pass in this legislative period. The European Parliament had previously approved the nature restoration law, agreed with EU states, that commits EU countries to restoring at least 30pc of habitats in poor condition by 2030, 60pc by 2040, and 90pc by 2050. Lemke said that not adopting the nature restoration law would leave the EU more exposed to climate change. "We'll not be able to manage climate risks without nature in order," she said. Unstable ecosystems exacerbate the problems faced because of climate change, for the economy, infrastructure, human health, she said. "It's also about protecting agriculture from climate change". "US insurers are withdrawing from different regions because they can't insure climate risks anymore". "We shouldn't make the mistake of scoring easy points against climate and environmental protection," she added. "Climate-friendly states will try to get [the law] up for adoption at a later date," she added. When asked whether Germany has some responsibility for encouraging others to block provisional agreements on EU laws, she said that the country has not always been an "easy negotiation partner". But Lemke pointed out that Germany had finally approved many important laws, most recently the packaging and packaging waste regulation . The phase-out of the internal combustion engine had been particularly difficult for the German government. Other member states have also encountered major difficulties in securing government approval or parliamentary support, she said, pointing again the geopolitical situation after Russia's attack on Ukraine. Many countries have seen populist parties and right-wing extremist parties fueling uncertainty, and have had to contend with the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and global inflation. "This had made democratic governance significantly more difficult in the member states themselves, but also in Europe," she said. By Dafydd ab Iago Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more