Category: Europe

Is it time to open up the EU ETS again?

dchone January 20, 2022

As the new year gets going, the EU is facing much higher energy prices than it has had to contend with in the recent past, topped off with an escalating carbon price driven both by the energy price and the ambitious decarbonisation plans of the EU Commission. Starting in late 2020 at a price of around €20, the purchase of an EU allowance (EUA) in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) now costs between €80 and €90 per tonne of CO₂.

The current allowance price in the EU ETS provides a significant incentive to reduce emissions, including investment in substantial mitigation technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS). As such, this is a welcome and critically important change from over a decade of prices below €20 and a low of €3 where the system did little to encourage the energy transition. For much of the 2010s the ETS was awash in allowances, with the surplus brought about by the financial crisis and subsequent EU recession, the influx of units from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol and the overlaying of other policies in the ETS sector, a practice that erodes the need for a specific carbon price and will undermine its impact.

We are now in a world where the EU ETS is driving substantial mitigation action, which is exactly what it is supposed to do. The question that arises is what comes next? One way of answering that question is to look at a scenario analysis of the EU net-zero emissions goal, such as in the Shell EU Sketch released by the Shell Scenario team a bit over a year ago.

A deeper look at the Shell EU Sketch highlights the ambition of the Fit for 55 (FF55) goal. Even in the scenario, the reduction planned under FF55 for the EU ETS sector isn’t fully met in 2030, but instead requires another five years of effort. In addition the energy transformation in the EU is not yet fully matching that of the Sketch. Take for example the build rate of CCS facilities in the Sketch versus the real world. At the rate of change in the Sketch, some 40 major (~ 1 mtpa each) CCS facilities need to be operating by 2030 and over 100 by 2035. The EU has finally started developing CCS clusters, but not yet fast enough to meet these goals. This implies that during the 2020s the EU ETS could see further price escalation if project activity does not fully match the reduction goals of the system.

The Fit for 55 package of measures and targets is extraordinary ambitious, contributing to the global reductions required to avoid passing 1.5°C of warming and setting up the EU for a landing at net-zero emissions in 2050. It does need a meaningful carbon price to usher in the transition, but in the Shell EU Sketch it rises to around €60 by 2030 and €200 by 2050 (but on a much smaller level of emissions than today). The current price of an EU allowance should usher in real change for industry and industrial processes, which is needed, but a continuing steep up-trend may also be a sign of a system that is becoming overly constrained by the rate of reduction required compared to the rate at which projects can be implemented.

When the EU ETS first started the Kyoto Protocol was coming into force and we all imagined a world of interconnected cap-and-trade systems, ambitious clean energy projects in developing countries and a resultant liquid global carbon market. With substantial demand coming from the Kyoto signatory countries with targets and good supply from clean energy projects, the resultant carbon market would be of sufficient size to deliver cost savings to all participants. Importantly, major price spikes could be managed. Almost none of this happened.

In the process, the EU ETS was designed with external hooks to make use of the mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol (CDM and Joint Implementation or JI) and to connect with other systems. With the prospect of an Australian ETS about a decade ago the EU began early negotiations with the Australian Government to link the systems, but a change of government in Australia put an end to the Australian efforts. With the US leaving Kyoto and other countries making little use of the mechanisms, the EU ETS was left as the only real buyer of emission reduction units (CER) from the CDM. So it was flooded with them, contributing to the 2008 price collapse. The EU rightly closed the doors and it wasn’t until 2020 when they were partly reopened with a link to the Switzerland ETS.

Industry will be feeling the competitive pressure and rising fuel bills for citizens opens the door to voter anger when it comes to elections if the EU ETS price continues to rise without adequate relief valve mechanisms. The Market Stability Reserve (MSR) would offer some reprieve as it starts releasing banked allowances, but a longer term solution could also be found through Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. The EU ETS could open itself to projects executed under the 6.4 mechanism and transferred into the EU ETS via 6.2, along with the necessary corresponding adjustments to the counterparty country nationally determined contribution (NDC). I discussed the corresponding adjustment mechanism in my last post of 2021. The transfer provision under 6.2 also provides an opportunity to link with other trading systems, such as the recently created UK ETS.

Making use of Article 6 will be a very different experience to that with the CDM. This is a mechanism that operates between two nationally determined contributions (NDC), each with its own plan to reduce emissions, but each plan must be converted to a carbon budget for the period of the NDC in order to use Article 6. The rules for doing this were thrashed out in Glasgow and can be found in III.B of the decision. When the transfer between NDCs is executed, a corresponding adjustment must be made to the respective carbon budgets. This means that the selling country must make up the amount of the sale through additional actions within their NDC, which ensures that the overall reduction goals of the respective NDCs are maintained. Under the CDM, no such provision existed.

With robust Article 6 accounting standards, the EU can have confidence that environmental integrity is preserved and that real reductions are delivered through the ETS. This was always a concern with the CDM. However, there is a fine balance to be achieved when creating a relief valve in that a sharp fall in the carbon price is not helpful for investment. As such, the EU might initially look to trade with a very limited number of countries, such as those with similar ETS structures. The UK, New Zealand and South Korea could all fall into this category.

By opening up the ETS the EU will promote confidence in international carbon trading, which will become an increasingly important part of the mitigation toolkit as the world gets closer to net-zero emissions. This is because remaining emissions and the availability of sinks to balance won’t always be in the same jurisdiction. But most importantly, a larger trading system will lower overall costs for the same reduction goals or alternatively may promote greater ambition, which is certainly needed and was called for in the Glasgow Climate Pact. This will benefit everyone.

Article 6 at COP26

dchone October 11, 2021

My home country, Australia, seems to reside permanently in the international climate doghouse, but a closer look reveals that they have made steady progress on some of the less advertised fronts related to mitigation. This was highlighted again recently when the government’s Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor announced that carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects would be eligible for emission reduction credits.

This might seem like a distraction to some, but Australia has been forging a clear path towards growing its carbon removal capacity for some years now. The Federal Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) has long targeted opportunities in soil carbon, forest management and reforestation and now CCS is added to the list. Short of a miracle in energy technology development and deployment, the current mechanisms for energy supply do not hold within them a net-zero emissions solution available within 30 years, so it is only through the addition of direct carbon dioxide management in the form of removals that the goal of the Paris Agreement can be met. Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to be widely appreciated, with the exception of the United States and their 45Q tax incentives for CCS, Canada with their early demonstration projects and Australia with its behemoth Gorgon CCS project, creation of the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute and domestic focus on removals. Other countries are now scrambling to establish similar initiatives, but are somewhat lagging.

The case for CCS and carbon removals is an easy one to make – it emerges from any credible analysis of the energy system that accounts for likely future energy demand, real world deployment rates and the expected fossil fuel legacy that will persist into the 22^nd century even as significant reductions in use are made. Depending on assumptions, removals can stretch to a trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide over the course of the century. It is only in a scenario with a very constrained future energy demand that removals become less important, but still don’t disappear. The chart below, which I have posted before, shows the four IPCC 1.5°C archetype scenarios (P1, a high sustainability consciousness develops across society, to P4, a technology driven society with high energy demand and technical solutions to environmental issues) and the Shell Sky 1.5 scenario – all require carbon removals. In the P1 scenario sink use is quite low, highlighted by an end to land based anthropogenic emissions and the subsequent development of the land as an enhanced sink from mid-century on, at about 5 Gt per year drawdown of carbon dioxide. P1 makes no use of geological storage. By contrast, the P4 scenario makes very extensive use of geological sinks with BECCS playing a substantial role even as land based emissions are eventually reigned in.

So how does all the above relate to COP26? Of course ambition is very much on the agenda and removals are required to deliver on that ambition, but so are many other steps. However, one of the features of carbon removals is that they will likely have to emerge through cooperative action between governments. Remaining emissions and the availability of removal sinks probably won’t exist in the same geographies, so a global trade in emission sinks will need to emerge. This would happen under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which still remains as unfinished business after the rulebook negotiations at COP24 in Katowice. Article 6 establishes a framework for cooperative action between countries in realizing their NDCs, which includes trading carbon units across borders.

The charts below illustrate how a standstill in global emissions (at 300 units in the illustration) is brought to net-zero through cooperative action between governments and the aviation sector. Large scale cross border investment results from the development and trading of carbon units, including removals, that would otherwise not take place. This is why Article 6 is so important – it helps all sectors and Parties to the Paris Agreement reach net-zero emissions.

While the UK Government has many ambitious plans for COP26, and Article 6 is certainly among them, I believe that agreement on the Article 6 rulebook is the most important outcome needed from Glasgow. Apart from its future value to society, an agreement on this difficult piece of rule-making would demonstrate that countries can work together to achieve an outcome that may not be in their immediate self-interest. Article 6 brings a rigour to emissions reporting and accounting that we must have for net-zero emissions. It introduces concepts such as carbon budgets and emissions inventory adjustments for trade to take place, which progressively caps the emissions of nationally determined contributions and forces them towards exact quantification, rather than narrative description. Of course nations aren’t required to use Article 6, it’s voluntary, but once they choose to they must also choose accounting rigour.

After the failure to agree on the Article 6 rule-book at Katowice, great progress was made at COP25 in Madrid, but final agreement still wasn’t possible. Nevertheless, a text emerged that would do the job, although it was entirely bracketed. But the text did capture the key elements that are required for Article 6 to function;

Removals specifically referenced.
A simple but robust approach for adjusting nationally determined contributions (NDC – the national plan for emissions reduction and adaptation put forward by a country) when an Article 6 transfer takes place.
A centralized accounting and reporting platform, with a clear focus on the avoidance of double counting of mitigation actions.
The creation of a supervisory body for the 6.4 mechanism.
Specifications for the design of a 6.4 activity and subsequent issuance of associated emission reduction units.
An approach to meet the requirements for adaptation funding required under 6.6 of the Paris Agreement.
A transition arrangement for ending the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. The CDM has left several countries holding project carbon units that they are keen to monetize so as to support the underlying internal project investment.
A simple framework giving some structure to Article 6.8, the non-market approach cooperation.

Nevertheless, some disagreement between countries remains and these issue will need to be resolved in Glasgow.

There is a set of issues related to the scope of an NDC and whether some activities that are in addition to the NDC and involved in a transfer should be subjected to the same adjustments as the Madrid text outlines. This feels like a distraction for two reasons; the NDCs should rapidly expand to cover all activities within an economy and if there are activities still not covered by the NDC, they have no place under Article 6 anyway as this provision of the Paris Agreement is about cooperation to achieve NDCs.

Another tough issue has been the need to give meaning and substance to 6.4 (d) To deliver an overall mitigation in global emissions. The proposal in the Madrid text is to cancel a portion of the emission reduction units issued to the 6.4 activity, but this is unnecessarily punitive. It also risks pushing all activities into simple 6.2 transfers, which would undermine the whole purpose of having a project based mechanism which is more suited to many countries. The discussions in Glasgow simply need to recognize that, by definition, a 6.4 activity and related transfer with NDC adjustments always results in an overall reduction in global emissions. This is illustrated in the diagrams above and is the inherent purpose of an emissions trading structure.

Finally, there is the lingering problem of how best to wind up the CDM and what then becomes of the projects still delivering reductions and the legacy unused CERs sitting in registry accounts. For projects that continue to deliver reductions, the answer seems straightforward – they continue to operate, produce CERs and these are transferred under the provisions of 6.2, which ensures corresponding adjustments to NDCs. In the case of legacy units, I think the IPCC have answered the question, both in the 2018 SR15 and the 2021 AR6 reports. Both reports show that the temperature rise is now around 1.2°C and both offer a carbon budget requirement from 1.1.2018 and 1.1.2020 respectively to ensure that 1.5°C isn’t passed. By rebasing the climate issue in 2020 (in the case of AR6), anything that happened before that is now irrelevant in that it is part of the 1.2°C baseline. The carbon budget they developed has subsequently informed Parties on their NDC requirements and is already being used by the UNFCCC to assess the NDC gap . Adding pre-2020 units to current mitigation activities is simply undermining the carbon budget calculation.

With an agreement hopefully reached on Article 6 in Glasgow, the spotlight will then turn to national governments to open up the possibility of cooperative arrangements. This could come through linking of trading systems, opening up trading systems to external units and encouraging the private sector to develop mitigation projects through Article 6.4. Importantly, governments should also follow the lead of Australia and develop protocols for removals, as these are the units that will be in particular demand as net-zero emission goals and targets need to be met. Europe, in particular, will need to accelerate its removals thinking, an area where it is lagging in its mitigation efforts.

On to Glasgow!

Carbon sinks and reform of the EU ETS

dchone November 19, 2020

On Wednesday morning of this week, POLITICO held a virtual event: “Energy Visions: Carbon removal and natural sinks in reaching climate neutrality by 2050”.

I was fortunate to have the opportunity to open the event with a few minutes of remarks to set the scene. This was followed by a discussion between the POLITICO moderator and Tina Bru, Norway’s Minister of Petroleum and Energy and then a panel session with;

MEP Bas Eickhout, Vice Chair of the Parliament’s Environment Committee and spokesperson for the Greens political group
Mauro Petriccione, European Commission Director General for Climate Action
Jannicke Gerner Bjerkås, CCS Director at Fortum
Gert-Jan Nabuurs, professor European Forest Resources, Wageningen University and Research IPCC Co-ordinating Lead Author

Although the panel couldn’t agree on how to handle the introduction of sinks into the EU as an emissions balancing mechanism, for me at least it is clear that the EU Emissions Trading System offers the simplest route forward. I have also written about this previously. See below for my opening remarks at the POLITICO event.

Good morning.
I want you to imagine for a moment that it is 2050, perhaps your autonomous electric car is already waiting in the driveway to shuttle you to the railway station, and as you step outside the house system shuts off most indoor electricity consumption. On your way to work you start thinking about an event your company had participated in a few days earlier; the last allowance auction under the EU Emissions Trading System. Now that the EU has reached net-zero emissions there would be no further allocation or auctions, in fact no more allowances.
But there is the familiar sound of planes at the nearby airport as the 787 and A350 departures continue, seemingly without pause. Although the first hydrogen fueled Boeing 808 and Airbus A500 planes can now be seen in the skies, a good proportion of air traffic still runs on jet fuel produced from crude oil. Biojet makes up the difference.
The railway station you use is in an industrial part of the city and the cement plant that was constructed there in 2030 using the most efficient process design of the day continues to operate, running on natural gas. It was built to supply concrete foundations for the gigantic 20 MW turbines in the burgeoning wind energy market.
These planes and industrial facilities are part of the 2050 EU landscape and continue to operate but do so in the absence of allowances under the EU Emissions Trading System. How will that be possible?
It is important to recognize that net-zero emissions in 2050 does not represent a point in time when there is no fossil fuel use and therefore no emissions. Today we are 70% dependent on fossil fuels for energy in the EU and although that number is clearly falling, it won’t be zero in 2050. In some cases the technologies required to remove dependence on fossil fuels don’t yet exist or are only at the earliest stages of their development. While some facilities using fossil energy should have carbon capture and storage operating by 2050, that won’t be true in all cases. Planes cannot do this and there will be regions within the EU where local at source carbon capture and storage either isn’t practical or cannot be implemented.
Rather, net-zero represents a balance between remaining emissions and the remote removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This can be achieved by 2050 in the EU, but we need the policy tools to guide us towards such an outcome. The EU Emissions Trading System is an excellent candidate for change.
Today the Emissions Trading System operates by surrendering allowances against emissions, but when the system ceases to have allowances in 2050, what happens? The Emissions Trading System needs to progress from an allowance-based system to one that manages net-zero emissions by requiring the surrender of sink based units against annual emissions. A sink unit wouldn’t be issued in the way an allowance is but would be created through projects that captured carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and permanently stored it. There are broadly three ways to do this;
One – through industrial projects that strip carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it geologically or use it in a way that offers near permanence, such as in making building materials.
Two – through the use of biomass to create energy but capturing and storing the carbon dioxide released in the process, which originated from the atmosphere as the biomass was grown. There is a bio-ethanol plant doing this today in the United States.
And three – by engaging in natural based projects such as rewilding and reforestation, or encouraging farmers to employ different grazing and cultivation techniques which help build soil carbon stocks.
Verified removal units from these types of projects will need to be part of the Emissions Trading System so that some parts of industry and various energy system services can continue operating past 2050. But the change to the trading system needs to be well before 2050, ensuring that enough capacity can be created by incentivising sink activity. A very early milestone would be establishing the certification process for removals within the EU.
Earlier this year Shell released a scenario Sketch illustrating a pathway forward for the EU to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. In that analysis, industrial bioenergy facilities with carbon capture and storage start to operate in the EU by 2035, which points to market signals emerging in the 2020s for project activity to start. We also showed that a gap between what can be achieved and what needs to be achieved for net-zero by 2050 also starts to emerge in 2035. This gap could be filled with nature-based sinks, at least until industrial capacity can catch up, but once again this will require a commercial carbon sink mechanism to incentivise action.
We shouldn’t forget about the period after 2050, at which point the world may require progressive regions such as the EU to extend their reductions into negative territory, in other words having more sinks than emissions. Trading of sinks could be a valuable export opportunity for the EU.
The EU Emissions Trading System is the right commercial lever to drive sink activity forwards, partly because of its carbon pricing structure but also because it must evolve to become a sinks and sources balancing system by 2050. As part of the current rethink of the trading system in preparation for 2030 and beyond, a sink mechanism should be included. Initially this could simply be the recognition of sink units from projects within the EU but should eventually be extended to global recognition of units. These would be transferred under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement along with the necessary safeguards to guarantee environmental integrity and the adjustment of trading partner carbon registries.
Without action in the 2020s to incentivise carbon sinks and subsequent follow-up in the 2030s, the EU may find itself unable to meet its net-zero emissions goal in 2050.
Thank you

Shining a light on carbon dioxide removal

dchone July 13, 2020

An important research paper emerged recently from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, SWP), raising the profile of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere. CDR covers a set of technologies and practices that result in carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere being captured and stored, effectively removing it from the system where it is leading to surface temperature warming. This might be done for one of two reasons;

To balance emissions from an ongoing source of carbon dioxide, so there is no net effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and therefore no warming associated with that source. This is basis for the term net-zero emissions.
To reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in an attempt to lower surface temperature warming. This might be necessary if warming has exceeded a particular goal, such as 1.5°C, and there is a need to bring the temperature back down again.

There are two categories of CDR and within each of them a subset of approaches. These are;

Natural solutions, which come from increasing the total carbon held within the natural biosphere. Examples include;
- Reforestation and afforestation.
- Various farming practices to increase soil carbon.
- Wetland restoration and expansion.
- Sustainable harvesting of timber plantations to build structures such as houses, where the carbon is locked away for decades or longer.
Technical solutions linked with geological storage of carbon dioxide. Examples include;
- Direct air capture of carbon dioxide paired with geological storage (DACCS). This happens today on a very small scale in Iceland [Link], but is likely some years away from a first large scale demonstration.
- Pairing traditional carbon capture and geological sequestration (CCS) with an energy facility using biomass as the feedstock (BECCS). This is indirect air capture in that the carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere when the biomass is grown. This is a scalable technology today and a major facility exists in the USA. Bioethanol production is widespread in the USA, with the fermentation step producing significant amounts of pure carbon dioxide. At such a facility in Illinois around one million tonnes per year of this carbon dioxide is captured and geologically stored, effectively removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. An example discussed in the EU Commission’s Hydrogen Strategy released recently notes the possibility of negative emissions from clean hydrogen production (bio-gas +CCS).

Carbon capture and storage is a version of (2) above, but the capture is directly associated with the generation of carbon dioxide, such that it is never emitted. As such, there is no removal from the atmosphere, but the geological storage step remains the same.

The paper gives a good summary of the approaches for CDR (both natural and technology based) and picks apart the various reasons for an almost complete lack of action so far. It also makes the case for why CDR is important and notes the lack of progress so far. Two key findings are given below;

If the EU truly wants to meet its own climate policy goals, it will not be able to avoid pursuing the unconventional mitigation approach of CO2 removal from the atmosphere – in addition to far-reaching conventional emission reduction measures.

Although the European Parliament is one of the more progressive players in EU climate policy, it has so far made little progress on the issue of CDR. During the negotiations on the Regulation on the Governance System for the Energy Union, which was concluded in 2018, it was the EP which succeeded in getting the Council to explicitly mention the long-term option of a European net negative emissions pathway. However, this did not result in any noticeable action on the part of the EP with regard to CDR. In its own-initiative reports, CO2 removal has not been given priority to date. Nor has a firm CDR approach played any role in recent legislative procedures – for example, in the amendments to the Emissions Trading Directive, the Effort Sharing Regulation, and the revision of the LULUCF Regulation during the last legislative period. Currently, there is no solid evidence of how the EP in its current composition will position itself on CDR. The first indication will be the EP’s negotiation position on the EU Climate Law.

Nevertheless, the EU Commission has recognised the role of CDR in its strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy in 2050. They include within the report the image shown below.

Some weeks ago, Shell released a Scenario Sketch which illustrates how the EU might achieve its goal of net-zero emissions in 2050. The Sketch made maximum use of available and expected technologies, including CCS on various industrial facilities, but a gap still remained with emissions of some 700 million tonnes per annum. This gap was filled with CDR, both nature based and artificial. In 2020 (pre-COVID 19), the EU energy system emission flows can be represented as shown below (all numbers in million of tonnes CO2 per year);

For the most part, energy needs are met with fossil fuels, with some portion of that (~160 Mt per year) ending up in finished products such as plastics. Net emissions of carbon dioxide exceed 3 billion tonnes per annum. The use of bioenergy in the EU is also shown, but is effectively emission neutral. A much smaller portion of the energy system is non-emitting, from sources such as wind, solar and nuclear.

By 2050, the picture looks very different. The non-emitting sector has grown substantially and net emissions are zero. However, actual emissions from the continued use of fossil fuels is 670 million tonnes per year and the total potential emissions from fossil fuel use is 1.13 billion tonnes per year.

Several factors are contributing to the overall net-zero outcome;

Some fossil fuel is use for making products such as plastics, as is the case today.
A bioplastics industry has emerged, with 50 million tonnes per year of atmospheric carbon dioxide ending up in finished products.
There is large scale use (240 million tonnes per year) of CCS in industry, such as in smelters and petrochemical plants.
There is 620 million tonnes per year of CDR, in two categories;
- 350 million tonnes of BECCS.
- 270 million tonnes of nature based solutions.

While the use of CDR may well decline in the ensuing decades after 2050 and might have vanished completely by the 22^nd century as further substitution for fossil fuels permits, the 2050 situation is one of very large scale deployment of technologies and practices that are either non-existent in the EU today or hardly visible. The level of deployment is such that a major commercial solution needs to emerge, driving the business sector to invest in CDR.

That solution could come from within the EU ETS as I discussed in a recent post, or a new mechanism could emerge that forces deployment of CDR through mandate or encourages it through a feed-in tariff. Both have been used successfully to get the renewable energy industry going. Whatever the approach for activating a commercial response, it needs to start soon. Building an industry on the scale shown will take many years and time is in very short supply.

The SWP paper comes to the same conclusion, i.e. start now, but it is already proposing upper deployment limits for individual sectors and overall use of CDR so as to maximise direct mitigation and the shift away from fossil fuels. This is hardly the way to unleash a commercial engine. Those who invest in CDR need to be assured that there isn’t some artificial limit put in place that may in turn limit the return on their investment, particularly if they are early adopters who take on additional commercial risk. In any case, CDR isn’t an inexpensive option that is easy to do – even large scale reforestation in the EU will be a challenge in terms of land use, maintenance, protection and longevity. The case for investing in CDR may well be a hard won battle in the boardroom, with many companies preferring to find direct mitigation options anyway.

The time for turning our minds towards CDR is now, as the EU rolls out its Green Deal and sets the rules for engagement that may well prevail to 2050 and beyond. Although the subject of CDR has been broached and by 2023 the EU Commission wants to put forward a carbon removal certification framework, CDR needs to be a priority within the immediate policy framework that emerges from the European Parliament.

A Climate-Neutral EU by 2050

dchone May 5, 2020

As the EU works to reset its emission reduction goals to align more closely with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, a question arises around the scale and scope of the energy transition required. What will it look like? How fast should it proceed? Which technologies need to be accelerated to achieve the desired outcome? To help answer these and provide a perspective on the transition, my colleagues in the Shell Scenario team have produced a scenario sketch of the journey forward, arriving in 2050 with a net-zero emissions energy system (NB: The pathway was formulated in late 2019 prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore does not include the energy system disruption being seen in 2020).

From a policy perspective, the EU has been addressing the climate issue for at least 15 years, with the EU Emissions Trading System in place since 2005. The 2020 energy situation arises from the 2007 climate and energy package, which included three key targets:

20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions (from 1990 levels)
20% of EU energy from renewables
20% improvement in energy efficiency

The targets were set by EU leaders in 2007 and enacted in legislation in 2009. They are also headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Within this, the EU Emissions Trading System is the EU’s key tool for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from large-scale facilities in the power and industry sectors, as well as the aviation sector. The ETS covers around 45% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. In 2020, the target is for the emissions from these sectors to be 21% lower than in 2005.

The year 2020 represents a halfway point from 1990 to 2050, during which 20% of the hard deployment work has been done, but with a number of key technologies available at scale that hardly existed or didn’t exist around the turn of the century. Solar PV and Electric Vehicles are two examples (although solar PV did exist in 2000, it was expensive and small scale). That leaves just 30 years for the remaining 80% reduction, which must also include bringing to scale several other technologies which are yet to be deployed in the EU. This is a tall order and the scenario sketch illustrates how extraordinarily stretching it will be.

The additional key technologies that must move quickly to scaled deployment are as follows;

Clean hydrogen production via electrolysis of water or removing and storing the carbon from natural gas;
Hydrogen fuel cell road transport for heavy goods (see chart below).
Carbon capture and storage in various industrial settings – e.g. steel, cement, petrochemicals.
Biomass power plants fitted with carbon capture and storage (as a negative emissions technology).
Air transport that utilizes hydrogen as a fuel – in the sketch first flights are imagined in the mid-2030s.
Advanced biofuels for planes, ships and heavy road transport (see chart below).
Grid scale electricity storage.
Electrification of light and heavy industry processes.
Use of hydrogen in homes for heating and cooking.
Some technologies that appear late in the sketch will need intensive development over the medium term. Hydrogen as a fuel for industrial facilities, but particularly iron ore smelting, is a good example.

On the assumption that development and demonstration of all the above proceeds rapidly, deployment kicks in for most during the 2030s. But in the 2020s the energy technologies that have been nurtured over the last twenty years must be accelerated. For example, by 2030 solar must be quadruple current deployment, wind nearly triple current deployment and nuclear must be growing again, not declining.

In the 2030s the really hard work starts, with carbon capture and storage moving from first demonstration in the EU by 2025 to 40 medium sized facilities (one million tonnes CO2 stored per annum) by 2030 and over 100 by 2035. New technologies such as hydrogen fuel cell trucks must become ubiquitous during the 2030s, with at least 600,000 vehicles on the road by the end of that decade.

All of the above will require both technology development incentives and deployment policies. The analysis assumes a rising carbon pricing mechanism – whether explicit or implicit – to more than €200 per tonne of CO2 equivalent by 2050 to deliver and sustain the emission cuts and CO2 management necessary for the EU to reach climate neutrality. But even the EU ETS will need to change, as I discussed in a recent post.

While carbon pricing is an efficient lever for reallocating resources and driving behavioural change, it will not be enough on its own. A sectoral approach to policy which brings clean technologies, fuels and products to market, as well as their deployment and diffusion at scale, must urgently be developed. It is essential that policy should help provide consumers and businesses with low-carbon alternatives to adopt.

In the sketch, 2050 marks a point of climate neutrality for Europe, helped by the development of large scale carbon sinks through reforestation. But this isn’t the end of the transition, merely a point of significance. The hydrogen economy will continue to grow, electrification of industry will expand and efficiency gains will continue to be made. As was illustrated in the Sky Scenario, Europe will likely shift to become a net-negative emission economy during the second half of the century, a necessary requirement to ensure global net zero emissions and a 1.5°C limit on warming.

Download the EU Sketch here.

Getting to net-zero emissions with the EU ETS

dchone February 3, 2020

Perhaps the biggest policy development of 2020 (possibly lasting through to 2023 or so as all the legislative requirements are agreed and put in place) will be the EU laying the foundations for its declared goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Although the goal of net-zero was always there as an intention, the date of 2050 brings it close enough to require policy makers to give thought and then substance to the mechanisms that will deliver it. One such mechanism is the EU Emissions Trading system, which has now been operating for 15 years (but effectively 20 years from a design perspective) and covers the large emitters across the EU as well as encompassing intra-EU aviation.

The EU ETS functions by progressively reducing the number of allowances available to emitters on a linear trajectory, which means that under current plans the number of allowances issued each year will fall by about 48 million units, with 2020 allocation limited to around 1.8 billion allowances. Subsequent phases of the EU ETS, potentially including the current Phase IV, will need to see an increase in the annual reduction of allowances such that the system reaches zero in 2050. Based on a continuation of the EU ETS under the current trajectory it won’t reach zero until the late 2050s. A revision in the system could operate from the start of Phase IV, i.e. in January 2021, which means that the current 2030 goal would change. If the revision comes in from the start of Phase V, then that implies an even steeper decline for the period 2031 to 2050.

While the mechanics of the cap-and-trade architecture is very simple, the reality of 2050 is not. Under a revised EU ETS, from January 1st 2050 (or perhaps 2051) there will be no further allocation of allowances, either by auction or freely given. Yet this may not be a time in which there are no emissions – thirty years is possibly insufficient time for the complete turnover of everything in the large emitters system. Some industrial facilities, much of the aviation sector and even some power stations in parts of Europe may still be using fossil fuels as their energy source or will be emitting carbon dioxide from a conversion process (e.g. cement manufacture). Any remaining banked allowances and allowances in the Market Stability Reserve (MSR) will be quickly consumed against these ongoing remaining emissions.

The potential for remaining EU emissions can be seen in the Shell Sky Scenario, released in 2018. Even though the scenario represents a period of very rapid energy system and industrial transition, the time from now to 2050 isn’t sufficient to bring heavy industry, aviation and power generation to zero. Even in 2070 significant aviation emissions remain and require balancing with the net negative situation reached in the power sector through the deployment of bioenergy with CCS.

N.B. Sky aviation emissions include international aviation whereas the EU ETS does not.

So how will the EU ETS work once it runs out of allowances?

The key to the future operation of the EU ETS lies within the objective it is trying to deliver, net-zero emissions. Net-zero means that there is a balance between remaining emissions and the removal of the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide form the atmosphere, i.e. a sink. This stems from Article 4 of the Paris Agreement;

Article 4

. . . . . . so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century . . . . . .

However, the EU ETS is currently an allowance issuance and surrender system, which points to a change in its structure at some point in the period leading up to 2050. This would require the introduction of a unit into the EU ETS that represented a ton of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere and permanently sequestered. From 2050, the EU ETS would then become a system without allowances that managed the balance between remaining emissions and sinks, at least until emissions actually reached zero. Policy makers would need to define the parameters of the unit such that it could be relied upon to provide sufficient volume for the required balance. Two considerations would be key;

Whether the units came from within the EU or also from outside the EU under the accounting framework of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement (i.e. the use of corresponding adjustments between NDCs to avoid double counting);
The type of sequestration opportunities permitted, which could include geological (e.g. direct air capture with geological storage), natural (e.g. reforestation projects) or product based (e.g. manufacture of products used in society such as plastics).

These units wouldn’t be issued directly by the EU governments in the way allowances are today, but would be made available for sale to emitters from projects that sequestered carbon dioxide. Governments would of course be involved in issuance of units to the sequestration projects against verified permanent storage of carbon dioxide.

A further consideration would be when such a unit is introduced into the EU ETS and how sufficient removal capacity is developed prior to 2050 to ensure there is enough available when net-zero emissions is required. This will be a judgment call arrived at through transition scenario analysis. However, the point in time when the unit will first be needed is not 2050, but when the allowance decline pathway first crosses the actual decline in emissions pathway. The illustration below shows how this might happen as reductions become more challenging over time.

To date, the actual reduction in emissions has typically been faster than the decline in allowance availability, hence the allowance surplus that developed in the 2010s and the creation of the MSR which has acted as an allowance removal mechanism (but it can also return allowances). These lines could potentially cross at some point in the 2030s, so the point of introduction could be at the start of Phase V of the ETS, i.e. 2031.

The EU Commission has developed a similar chart for their own communications, although this is for the transport sector as a whole, much of which is not currently covered by the EU ETS. However, expanding coverage is another option on the table. If such an expansion introduces more activities that may have remaining emissions in 2050, then the need for a sink unit becomes more important.

A provision such as described above might be seen by some as a backstop in EU ETS, but nevertheless an essential one for continuing smooth operation of the system. Without it, the EU ETS could become unstable in the years approaching 2050 as immediate mitigation opportunities for remaining emissions become unavailable and there are insufficient allowances available to cover these emissions.

Carbon pricing policy in 2018. Was it a year of progress??

dchone January 10, 2019

Carbon pricing remains at the centre of most government policy discussions on climate change, but in a year which saw the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) give an unambiguous warning on the need for mitigation action, carbon pricing policy development rather stumbled along.

Undoubtedly the highlight of the year was the restoration of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) to again become a meaningful mechanism, with prices rising to over €20 as EU growth gained momentum and allowance supply tightening. The recognition that the Market Stability Reserve would be a feature of Phase IV in the 2020s certainly contributed to this. Also in the EU, discussions opened around the need for an EU ETS floor price, following the successful example set by the UK which has seen coal almost vanish from the generation mix since their implementation of such a system.

Singapore also moved forward with the implementation of its carbon tax.

But outside the EU and Singapore it was hard to find any stellar examples of progress, although intent remains high in many jurisdictions. Rather, 2018 was a year troubled by a number of developments in the carbon pricing space;

In Canada, a new government was elected in the province of Ontario and true to their election manifesto the new Premier took rapid action to remove Ontario from the cap-and-trade system it had only recently joined with California and Quebec.
Also in Canada, the Federal government moved ahead with its backstop pricing mechanism which will kick in for individual provinces if they do not implement a price through some mechanism of their choice. While this was a positive development, the prospect of litigation from some provinces (either by the current provincial government or by an opposition in waiting) means that this program may have a bumpy ride in the years to come.
In Brazil there has been discussion for some time now on implementation of a carbon pricing policy, but this is unlikely to continue under the new administration.
In Australia, even the possibility of a carbon based policy being implemented seemed to create political turmoil. Nevertheless, Australia is not devoid of a mechanism in that the Safeguard Mechanism put in place with the Emissions Reduction Fund has created a secondary market for Australian reduction units on the back of some industrial facilities exceeding their safeguard cap.
In France, protests erupted late in the year on the back of a carbon tax implemented in the fuels market, although many other factors also lay behind the demonstrations. The government was forced to delay implementation.
Finally, the year ended with failure at COP24 to agree on the rule-book for Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. While the Article 6 mechanisms are not there to directly implement carbon pricing, their use would certainly help catalyze such developments in many economies.

In between the highs and lows of 2018, there was still progress. China announced further details of its upcoming cap-and-trade system and continues to make progress in implementing their plans and Kazakhstan is now looking to reboot their early system. The very long running discussion on a carbon tax continued in South Africa with the prospect of a system emerging in 2019, although the parliamentary process has yet to conclude.

But this is not the required profile of action for a world that is intent on reaching the goals of the Paris Agreement. That profile was illustrated by the May release of the Shell Sky Scenario which highlighted the extraordinary rate of progress required in this policy area in the 2020s. Whereas in 2020 Sky shows only modest uptake of carbon pricing, reflective of the situation today, by 2030 some form of carbon pricing is covering the bulk of the global economy at a level between $25 and $60 per tonne of carbon dioxide.

Sky Scenario carbon pricing profile (Source: Shell analysis)

Developments in this space need to pick up pace dramatically in 2019, but perhaps the transparency and reporting framework agreed at COP24 will help in that regard. While the Paris rulebook makes no specific demands on governments to implement policy, it will put a spotlight on the actions they choose to take and the mitigation they seek to achieve. Carbon pricing policy ought to see some uptick under such circumstances.

Overview of carbon pricing developments (Source: own analysis)

Note: Scenarios are not intended to be predictions of likely future events or outcomes and investors should not rely on them when making an investment decision with regard to Royal Dutch Shell plc securities. Please read the full cautionary note in http://www.shell.com/skyscenario.

The Role of the EU Emissions Trading System

dchone August 22, 2018

Over recent weeks, a number of media outlets have noted the launch of a new commission in Germany, officially known as the “Commission on Growth, Structural Change and Employment”. The initiative is a welcome development and is born out of two concerns;

That German emissions are not falling fast enough, with an apparent reason that there is continued reliance on coal in the power sector. Demand has not fallen significantly in recent years despite the emphasis on renewable energy through the Energiewende. However, it should also be noted that German nuclear output has nearly halved in ten years as that industry has been forcibly wound down.
That when emissions do fall, the impact on the personal welfare of those in the coal sector could have wider ramifications for the economy.

According to the Financial Times, the objective of the task force is to lay out a plan for the elimination of coal from the country’s energy mix and to report by the end of the year. In doing so, the task force must look at the employment and regional development issues associated with such a move, so as not to repeat the problems that manifested in other countries when coal use went into rapid decline. The FT concludes with the observation that chances are the outcome will be radical rather than minimal, with the commission perhaps even setting a date for the complete elimination of coal that is much earlier than many observers expect.

In the Shell Sky scenario released earlier this year where the goals of the Paris Agreement are met, coal use in the EU roughly halves from current levels by 2035. Over the same period, natural gas use rises, peaks and begins to fall, while wind and solar grow several fold. This would certainly involve significant change for Germany and the coal sector in particular, hence the need for the Commission to look at employment and structural impacts for such a shift.

But should the Commission also develop a plan for the elimination of coal itself, or should it focus on the societal impacts of such a change?

German power generation is covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and has been since 2005. That system embodies an emissions trajectory that is now declining at 2.2 percentage points per annum (against a 2005 baseline), which implies an overall reduction of EU ETS emissions by 43% in 2030 relative to 2005. Extending that rate of change out further, the system will have no further issuance of allowances from 2056, or in other words emissions must be zero by then (or at least net-zero if the system allows for storage units via carbon capture and storage (CCS)). That system alone ought to be sufficient to guide the transition in terms of the energy mix.

But the EU ETS has been the subject of much criticism, in large part because of the low prices seen from 2008 through to 2017 (~€5 for much of that time). This isn’t to say that the EU ETS wasn’t working in that allowance allocation and surrender against emissions proceeded without a hitch. That is still the case today. The problem was a growing surplus of allowances and a market view that such a surplus would persist, leading to very low prices. That surplus initially grew for a number of reasons (i.e. the 2008+ recession, inflow of units from the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol) but persisted for another reason; overlapping policies. These are actions taken by government which force emissions down at a rate faster than the EU ETS, thus throwing up allowances and adding to the surplus. Perhaps the most prominent of these policies was the EU wide push for renewable energy, which includes the German Energiewende.

Policies that overlap a cap-and-trade system will tend to do two things;

Lower the prevailing carbon price;
Raise the cost of emissions reduction across society.

These effects are illustrated in the charts above and this is exactly the impact that the Energiewende and other similar policies had on the EU ETS. This was eventually recognised and a correcting mechanism has now been built into the ETS, the Market Stability Reserve (MSR). The MSR removes and banks surplus allowances according to a formula built into its design.

With the MSR now starting to impact market perception, allowance prices are on the rise from a low of just €3 in 2015. Recently IETA noted in a tweet;

The EU ETS always was and remains the single most effective tool to push coal out of the power generation mix. For a period that will favour natural gas, but over time renewable energy, nuclear and possibly coal or gas with CCS will grow to dominate power generation. Coal would depart first. That is exactly what has happened in the UK, with that country bolstering the weak EU ETS with a floor price of £18 per tonne of CO2 (~€21). But it didn’t happen in Germany because of interventions on two fronts; the Energiewende favouring renewable energy and the national nuclear policy phasing out that technology.

Moving forward, the EU ETS is fully capable of shifting the EU power system (and industry) to an effective state of zero emissions in the 2050s. That date could even be brought forward by implementing more aggressive linear reduction rates from 2030 onward. A shift to 3% per annum from 2031 onward would deliver a zero emissions outcome by 2050. Notably, the system would deliver that outcome at lowest cost to society, an inherent design feature of the mechanism.

As the EU ETS bites, decisions will have to be made about the closure of individual generating stations and this is where the Commission could add value, ensuring that the transition is just and fair for various parts of the country. But if the Commission also proposes state intervention to force coal down an even faster exit route for Germany alone, there may be downwards pressure on allowance prices and the effectiveness of the EU ETS could be undermined, not just in Germany but right across the EU. While some of the surplus allowances will be absorbed by the MSR, others will flow out of Germany and underpin the longevity of coal in other EU member states. This means that the environmental benefits of early coal closure could be undermined as well.

But should the Commission land on a recommendation for accelerated phase out of coal, it could then advise on the use of newly introduced measures to cancel ETS allowances where governments take actions in addition to the EU ETS. This means that allowances can be cancelled in the case of deliberate coal phase out.

Directive (EU) 2018/410 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2018, states;

In the event of closure of electricity generation capacity in their territory due to additional national measures, Member States may cancel allowances from the total quantity of allowances to be auctioned by them referred to in Article 10(2) up to an amount corresponding to the average verified emissions of the installation concerned over a period of five years preceding the closure. The Member State concerned shall inform the Commission of such intended cancellation in accordance with the delegated acts adopted pursuant to Article 10(4).

While the cancellation of allowances represents a further intervention in the ETS, it would at least address the issue of environmental leakage to other Member States. But the simple alternative is to leave the EU ETS to perform its job and phase coal out as part of a lowest cost driven transition. This might be the most prudent approach. The EU ETS is a robust, well designed system that will deliver on the required emission reduction goals.

What does the carbon dioxide shortage tell us about the energy transition?

dchone June 28, 2018

Much has been made in the UK media over the last week or so regarding the shortage of carbon dioxide as an industrial gas. The supply issues are now so acute that some retailers are restricting sales of beer and soft drinks, abattoirs are closing, frozen food shipments that rely on dry ice are being disrupted and food manufacturers are struggling with storage of short shelf-life goods. The shortage is not restricted to the UK, but has also appeared in some parts of Europe.

The problem has arisen from the coincidental shutdown of several sites that produce carbon dioxide as a by-product. These are typically hydrogen manufacturing units, where the hydrogen is then used to produce ammonia for industrial and agricultural use. Ammonia is an important material in the food chain due to its use as a fertilizer in the form of urea. The latter is made by reacting ammonia with carbon dioxide (yet another use). The reason for the shutdowns is that summer is the low period for fertilizer demand, but this year there has been some unfortunate timing as the shutdowns have coincided with technical difficulties at facilities that have remained running.

The hydrogen required for the ammonia plants is made by steam reforming of natural gas (or coal) to produce synthesis gas, a combination of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. A further step, known as the water-gas shift reaction, increases the yield of hydrogen at the expense of carbon monoxide, with carbon dioxide also being produced.

The link from natural gas (or coal) through to beer and even pig slaughter (where carbon dioxide is used to stun the animals first), illustrates the complexity of the energy system and the way in which fossil fuels end up in the supply chain of all goods and services. A transition away from fossil fuels must also find alternatives for all of these uses. In my book, ‘Putting the Genie Back: Solving the Climate and Energy Dilemma’, I discussed the pervasive nature of fossil fuels in the global economy, not from the perspective of products we know well, such as gasoline, but rather products like ammonia.

While our immediate contact with fossil fuels is the gasoline we put in our cars or the natural gas we burn in our homes, there is more, much more. This includes the unappealing, somewhat messy but nevertheless essential chemical plants where products such as sulphuric acid, ammonia, caustic soda and chlorine are made (to name but a few). Combined, about half a billion tonnes of these four products are produced annually. Manufactured by energy-intensive processes operating on an industrial scale, but concealed from daily life, these four products play a part in the manufacture of almost everything. Even the ubiquitous can of soft drink relies on sulphuric acid; the chemical is used to give the aluminium can the shiny look that is expected before opening it and consuming the contents. These core base chemicals rely in turn on various feedstocks, many of which come from the fossil fuel industry. Sulphuric acid, for example, is made from the sulphur found in oil and gas and removed during refining and treatment processes. Although there are other viable sources of sulphur, they have long been abandoned for economic reasons. And of course there is ammonia!

In thinking through the energy transition required to fully address the climate issue, the end game is zero emissions, which means that there is no further accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The Paris Agreement achieves this by calling for a balance between sources of emissions and sinks during the second half of the century, or what is referred to for the energy system as net-zero emissions. In the Shell Sky scenario, which meets the goals of the Paris Agreement, this is achieved in 2070. In Sky, there isn’t an alternative pathway developed, commercialized and scaled for every use of fossil fuels in just 50 years, far from it. Rather, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is deployed as the mechanism to allow the multitude of uses to continue until alternatives are fully in place. When Sky reaches net-zero in 2070, emissions from the continuing use of fossil fuels are countered by direct application of CCS or indirect removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But the story doesn’t end in 2070, for example by 2100 in Sky industrial CCS has declined compared to 2070 as hydrogen has grown as an alternative.

The process of commercialising and scaling alternatives for all the uses of fossil fuels will likely take us well into the 22^nd century. Some alternatives are emerging today, such as the use of solar PV to generate electricity, but as clearly demonstrated in recent days, the dependency on fossil fuels remains pervasive and entrenched in our society.

Note: Scenarios are not intended to be predictions of likely future events or outcomes and investors should not rely on them when making an investment decision with regard to Royal Dutch Shell plc securities. Please read the full cautionary note in http://www.shell.com/skyscenario.

Carbon market developments in 2017

dchone January 15, 2018

Looking back at my 2017 post on developments in 2016, it becomes clear that the past twelve months have been more consolidation than progress in terms of carbon market development. It also means that the coloured map (below) hasn’t really changed, apart from a slight set-back and the very positive addition of Singapore.

A big story that emerged in 2016 was the prospect of a nationwide emissions trading system in China. Observers waited throughout 2017 for the formal commencement or at least an announcement, but news didn’t come until mid-December of an imminent launch. Rather than an economy wide cap-and-trade system, the government announced that an emissions rate based system would commence in the electricity sector. Harvard’s Rob Stavins has written extensively about it in a recent blog post.

The Chinese carbon market will double the share of global CO2 emissions covered by worldwide carbon-pricing systems to almost 25 percent.

China wasn’t the only country in the news. Also within the Asian economy, Singapore announced the start of a carbon tax based system from 2019, with a draft Bill appearing for consultation during 2017. The tax will be applied on power stations and other large direct emitters which produce more than 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gases a year. There are currently 30 to 40 of such large emitters, mainly from the petroleum refining, chemicals and semiconductor sectors. The proposed tax will be around S$10-$20 per tonne CO2.

In North America, progress was mixed. The focus continued to be on Canada with the September announcement that Ontario had entered into an agreement to formally link its carbon market with markets in Quebec and California effective January 1, 2018. The Agreement will allow the governments of Ontario, Quebec and California (the Parties) to hold joint auction of greenhouse gas emission allowances and to harmonize regulations and reporting requirements. An important addition to this was the passage of a Bill in California to extend that State’s cap-and-trade system through to 2030. But with the announcement that the US would be leaving the Paris Agreement and that the Administration would be rolling back the Obama Clean Power Plan, progress in the rest of the country was muted.

In Central Asia, the Kazakhstan emissions trading system remained suspended (hence the change from green to orange), but following an announcement by the government, this should revert to operational status in 2018.

South Africa also moved forward slightly, with a further consultation announced on its draft carbon tax legislation.

Here in the EU, the ETS continued, but 2018 saw much needed reforms agreed. The main elements of the agreement are:

The linear reduction factor will be 2.2 % from 2021;
Each year from 2019 to 2023, 24 % of the cumulative surplus of allowances will go to the Market Stability Reserve; from 2023 the allowances held in the reserve above the total number of allowances auctioned during the previous year should be cancelled;
Conditional lowering of the auction share by 3 % of the total quantity if needed, to avoid application of the cross-sectoral correction factor;
Member States may voluntarily cancel allowances to offset national climate and energy policies that reduce the demand.

The EU ETS expanded slightly with the agreement of a link with the Swiss ETS, although it may be some time before this comes into practice. The ratification of the agreement will require the approval of the Council and Parliament, which is expected in early 2018. When parties are technically ready to connect the two systems, they will formally deposit their instruments of ratification. The agreement will enter into force at the start of the following year.

As the year concluded and nations met in Bonn for COP23, it was also clear that carbon pricing, both through taxation or a trading system was being widely considered. This offers considerable hope for the years to come.