Mercados de carbono
Resumen
Los mercados del carbono se están desarrollando como una palanca económica crucial en el reto de revertir la acumulación de gases de efecto invernadero en la atmósfera de la Tierra, mientras que el CO2 sigue siendo un factor clave en una serie de sectores industriales.
Los gobiernos nacionales están adoptando los mercados del carbono, con una proliferación de políticas de fijación de precios del carbono en todo el mundo. El sector privado está canalizando la financiación de proyectos que generan reducciones y eliminaciones de emisiones de carbono para mitigar sus emisiones difíciles de reducir.
Y las Naciones Unidas están avanzando en la construcción de un mercado global para la reducción de las emisiones de carbono que facilitará los intentos de las naciones de cumplir con sus obligaciones en virtud del Acuerdo de París.
Los sectores industriales siguen siendo una fuente clave de emisiones y consumo de CO2, con la innovación buscando métodos sostenibles de producción y utilización.
Argus prepara el escenario para un período prolongado de crecimiento, evolución e interconexión de los participantes e iniciativas del mercado del carbono.
Últimas noticias de los mercados del carbono
Explore las últimas noticias sobre los mercados del carbono.
NY weighs new yardstick to set climate goals
NY weighs new yardstick to set climate goals
New York, 13 April (Argus) — New York governor Kathy Hochul (D) is asking state lawmakers for more time to reduce emissions. Potentially more important is how the state actually measures them. The state's leaders, at loggerheads over climate policy and other issues, have already blown past a deadline to agree to a new budget. Hochul frustrated progressives by pushing for changes to the state's 2019 climate law, which not only mandates deep emissions reductions but also includes a bespoke system for tracking climate impacts that discourages natural gas and some biofuels. New York requires a 40pc reduction in economy-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 from 1990 levels and an 85pc drop by 2050. But the state's unique emissions-accounting method effectively requires deeper cuts to emissions than targets suggest. Environmentalists say this system will speed New York's transition to renewables and leave the state less exposed to future oil supply shocks. But it also threatens higher near-term energy costs in a state that burns more oil for home heating than any other, where natural gas is the largest source of electricity and where driving predominates outside public transit-connected New York City. Hochul backed off prior efforts to change the GHG accounting rules. Now campaigning for re-election on a platform of making the high-cost state more affordable, she insists changes are necessary. Methane pain State law requires New York to track the warming of GHGs on a 20-year timeline, instead of the 100-year timeline used by nearly all other states. That difference means New York treats a tonne of methane, which packs a bigger punch than CO2 but dissipates in the atmosphere more quickly, as having around three times more climate impact than other states do. Under typical emissions accounting, New York's emissions in 2023 were 24pc below 1990 levels. But according to the state's unique system, they only fell by 14pc over that period. The difference reflects the state's reliance on natural gas for heat and power. New York's system then leaves fewer options to bridge that gap. While incentives in California have helped make renewable diesel more common there than its petroleum-based counterpart, New York treats many biofuels — even if made from waste — as akin to fossil fuels by factoring in tailpipe emissions but not some upstream benefits. Renewable diesel brought into New York would not just count as only slightly better than oil, but it would also count the same whether made from recycled cooking grease or from crops, according to detailed estimates in an energy plan released by state officials last year. New York would consider more production emissions in-state, effectively treating renewable diesel made locally as worse for the climate than imports. The reverse is true for renewable natural gas, which counts as producing negative emissions if made in-state — since turning rotting dairy manure into energy avoids methane emissions — but similar to fossil-fuel natural gas if made elsewhere. While the California system has its critics, the New York energy plan says explicitly that the GHG accounting required by law "creates an incomplete picture" of biofuels' climate impacts. But the system is by design reflecting the wishes of progressive lawmakers who helped pass these requirements into law before Hochul took office, as well as those of environmental justice groups that hold sway in the Democratic-controlled state. Advocates want to stop burning any fuels that worsen air quality and think states like California have overstated the climate benefits of natural gas and biofuels at the expense of efforts to electrify cars and homes. Hochul, backed by business groups, disagrees. A recent memo prepared for her by a state energy agency estimated that polluters will have to pay far more for their emissions than they do in other states — as much as $180/tonne by 2030 — because of "differing accounting standards" and "inflexible" targets, and that fuel prices would spike. Carbon market cop out That memo gets at the core of the debate: rising energy costs are taking precedence in Hochul's policy calculus, putting the future of a carbon market in question. A task force of policy advisors in 2022 recommended a carbon market as the best option to achieve state climate targets. The program, similar to systems in California and Washington, would require fuel suppliers, industrial facilities and others to buy a dwindling pool of carbon allowances from the state. But the Hochul administration missed a 2024 legal deadline to have that plan in place and has been vague on when it will release even draft rules. After environmental groups sued, a state court directed the Hochul administration to release carbon market regulations . Hochul has since been more direct about her concerns and called for punting the rollout of the market to 2030. Environmentalists resent Hochul's argument that New York's targets are infeasible when her administration is slow-walking the rollout of a plan to achieve them. But they recognize the power governors wield in New York's mostly closed-door budget process. One potential compromise that has been discussed among advocates is implementing a carbon market with more typical emissions-accounting rules, while preserving the 20-year warming timeline for other state programs. This could address cost concerns while containing the backlash from climate advocates. It could also leave the door open for linkage with other carbon markets, which would be exceedingly difficult without aligning rules across different programs. Without changes, biofuel supporters also fear that a state "clean transportation standard" that regulators are studying could cut out many of the fuels rewarded by California. Lawmakers likewise have expressed resistance to sweeping changes. Senator Environmental Conservation Committee chair Pete Harckham (D), an influential voice on climate, has signaled some openness, however, to "modest adjustments". "We're committed to working with the governor to find reasonable solutions here, but in my humble opinion, a complete rollback of the state's climate law is untenable," Harckham said last week. By Cole Martin and Ida Balakrishna Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
EU eyes gas filling and oil stock co-ordination
EU eyes gas filling and oil stock co-ordination
Brussels, 13 April (Argus) — EU-wide co-ordination of gas storage filling and oil stock releases are among measures the European Commission will present on 22 April to tackle the energy crisis, said commission president Ursula von der Leyen on Monday. Von der Leyen said bloc-wide co-ordination of gas storage filling is aimed at preventing member states from competing against each other, and co-ordinated oil stock releases are intended to achieve the largest possible effect on markets. The bloc's fossil fuel import bill has increased by more than €22bn ($25.8bn) since the start of the US-Iran war on 28 February, von der Leyen said after discussions with EU commissioners. She said the "smallest" part of energy costs comes from the emissions trading system (ETS). Von der Leyen will "shortly" consult with EU states on updated ETS benchmarks using "all the flexibilities" the legal text allows, she said. The commission is "on track" to present the full review of the ETS in July, and will put forward legal proposals on electricity taxes and grid charges in May, with an "ambitious" new target on electrification. "The grim reality is that fossil fuels will remain the most expensive options in the years to come," von der Leyen said. She added that renewables and nuclear together now account for over 70pc of EU electricity generation. By Dafydd ab Iago Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Q&A: Australian firms explore Regos on low LGC prices
Q&A: Australian firms explore Regos on low LGC prices
Sydney, 13 April (Argus) — Australian environmental services provider Ecovantage registered the first renewable electricity facility under Australia's guarantee of origin scheme, and plans to soon start exploring a new market for the upcoming renewable guarantees of origin (Regos). Chief executive Aaron Jenkins spoke with Argus about expectations for the new product and how historically low large-scale generation certificate (LGC) prices have been impacting the market. Edited highlights follow: Ecovantage registered the first facility that will be able to generate Regos, a small 0.17MW solar installation in New South Wales state . Why did you decide to register early into this voluntary scheme when the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) scheme will last until the end of 2030 ? Certificates in environmental commodities are the core business of Ecovantage. We've already had a lot of interest from ESG-type consumers on time-stamped renewable energy certificates, and Regos fit that brief. We've had interest for years from multinationals who operate under various frameworks outside Australia, where time stamping is a valuable option. With the LGC market being in a very bad way and with participation in the LRET falling, we thought it was a good opportunity to explore what alternatives are there. LGC prices being so low is causing quite a lot of headwind for the commercial solar industry in particular. Business cases are not being approved. Solar deployment is slowing. What are your expectations for these intervening years, where LGCs and Regos will coexist together , and for further ahead? Regos are likely to have a higher value than LGCs depending on the time of the day that they're generated. If they are worth more, we think there could be more engagement from businesses who have generating assets but who don't want to create an LGC for a negligible amount, or from companies looking to make a business case for deploying new rooftop solar assets. At the moment, the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) is letting us register the same power station for the LRET and the Rego programme. We can't create Regos and LGCs against the same MWh, but we can have assets register on both frameworks and pick and choose which one they participate in on a quarter-by-quarter basis. There will be a lot of other entities testing this as well. How do you see the transition from the LRET, a compliance market, to the fully voluntary Rego scheme? It is probably 10 years too early to go forward as a voluntary programme. We've been very vocal in saying it should be a compliance mechanism until the country reaches its 82pc renewables goals . The opportunity we see with Regos is for generation assets which are being underappreciated under the LRET to reap greater financial benefit, by being more transparent and providing more granular certificates to the market. How much of an increased benefit that is, we have to wait and see. How do you think the granularity will work out? LGCs work with annual vintages, while with Regos we're going down to hourly timestamps. But it's left up to industry as to how we stratify them. We see such demand to a small part already with LGCs, for entities that want to purchase certificates generated in a certain month, in a certain region, from a certain type of renewable technology. However, it relies heavily on the certificate creator as to how they put the data into the registry, how detailed they go in tagging it. I think the stratification is going to be much bigger with Regos because of its complexity. One of the things that will be interesting to see is how ESG frameworks recognise the ability to have this granularity, because the voluntary markets are very closely tied to these frameworks. If Climate Active or some of those other major programs don't require time stamping and granularity, then one could make the argument of why would you ever bother buying a nighttime Rego? Even if you're a data centre that runs 24 hours a day, why wouldn't you just buy twice the amount of daytime Regos when they're cheap? I think how ESG frameworks are written are going to have a real direct market impact on what we see Regos selling for. The main ESG frameworks in Australia currently recognise LGCs and not Regos, but voluntary demand for LGCs has been increasing , correct? A lot of the LGC demand at the moment is only there because the LGC price is so low. We work with a lot of organisations which have chosen not to deploy their own renewable assets at this point in history because LGCs are so cheap. They'd rather just buy cheap LGCs than take real action. LGC spot prices in the secondary market were declining steadily but have been hovering around the A$3/MWh mark in recent weeks . Is that mostly because of resistance from some sellers to go below that level due to costs? There's a cost to create. By the time you create the LGCs, pay metering subscriptions to get the data, pay the CER to register them, pay a broker to find a buyer or a seller, and then spend time validating them, it's not worth going below A$3/MWh. Can you please elaborate on those costs? Some market participants mention an issuance fee of A$0.08/MWh as the main cost. You're paying a monthly or an annual metering subscription on every data connection you've got. You're paying someone to sit there and create the LGCs because there's no automated API into the registry, so a human has to do it. You're then paying a broker to find a buyer and a seller and line them up. And on the other end, a company has to pay someone to handle or surrender the LGCs — in our case, we'll surrender them on behalf of the organisations that engage us in that voluntary market. That also takes time. The LGC market as it remains is non-viable. There needs to be a policy update there. If there was a relevant policy update, do you think we could see LGC prices moving up again? If the government wants a rapid mobilisation of commercial and industrial renewables, especially behind-the-meter facilities, they need to get certificate prices above A$20/MWh. Get the price above that, and you will see a flood of new renewables being deployed. By Liang Lei and Juan Weik Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Cop 30 presidency advances climate finance roadmap
Cop 30 presidency advances climate finance roadmap
Sao Paulo, 10 April (Argus) — The UN Cop 30 climate summit's presidency is advancing its Baku to Belem climate financing roadmap along with several multinational partners, aiming to mobilize action towards a goal of $1.3 trillion/yr by 2035. The roadmap sets out paths to scale climate finance for developing countries. The Cop 30 presidency, held by Brazil, will prioritize developing a framework and monitoring tool to evaluate and keep track of global finance mobilization, it said. Stronger and more coordinated contributions among governments will be the next step to reach a global response to climate change, focusing on implementation of already-settled nationally determined contributions and adaptation plans. The Cop 30 presidency wants to deliver a first implementation update on global financing progress towards the $1.3 trillion goal by the Cop 31 summit, to be held in Antalya, Turkey, in November. It is an initial step to be continued in further climate-focused efforts. The roadmap also includes clarifying policy interventions and future pathways needed to scale finance across public and private resources. The Cop 30 presidency is also working on separate roadmaps to phase out fossil fuels and reduce deforestation. It has asked for public contributions on both . By João Curi Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Contenido de carbono destacado
Explore la última información sobre carbono producida por nuestro equipo global de expertos en carbono
