The Price of Carbon
by Jo Abbess
20 April 2010
Policy strategy for controlling risky excess atmospheric greenhouse gas (Gowdy, 2008, Sect. 4; McKibben, 2007, Ch. 1, pp. 19-20; Solomon et al., 2009; Tickell, 2008, Ch. 6, pp. 205-208) mostly derives from the notion that carbon dioxide emissions should be charged for, in order to prevent future emissions; similar to treatment for environmental pollutants (Giddens, 2009, Ch. 6, pp. 149-155; Gore, 2009, Ch. 15 “The True Cost of Carbon”; Pigou, 1932; Tickell, 2008, Ch.4, Box 4.1, pp. 112-116). Underscoring this idea is the evidence that fines, taxes and fees modify behaviour, reigning in the marginal social cost of “externalities” through financial disincentive (Baumol, 1972; Sandmo, 2009; Tol, 2008). However this approach may not enable the high-value, long-term investment required for decarbonisation, which needs adjustments to the economy at scale (CAT, 2010; Hepburn and Stern, 2008, pp. 39-40, Sect. (ii) “The Consequences of Non-marginality”; MacKay, 2008, Ch. 19; Tickell, 2008, Ch. 2, pp. 40-41). Economists propose that protection of the commons of the skies should be achieved by creating monetary value out of atmospheric property rights (Tickell, 2008, Ch. 3). The basic choice is between privatising the air, allowing economically efficient competition between wealthy credit buyers; or making emissions a human right to be shared, via permits, distributed and sanctioned by central authorities; although recent designs are effectively hybrid (Dessler and Parson, 2010, pp. 184-185; Hepburn, 2009b; Laing and Grubb, 2010; Marshall, 2008, Ch. 2 pp. 35-39; Stavins, 2008, p. 217, Sect. (ii) “Carbon Taxes”; Stern, 2009, pp. 100-111). Rather than being dispersed back into the economy as compensation for climate damages and carbon rents (Cap and Share, n.d., Cap and Dividend n.d., Hallegatte et al, 2010), the resulting corporate profits or tax revenue should be “hypothecated”, recycled into carbon dioxide emissions reductions; through energy efficiency, demand control, fuel switching and infrastructure asset transition, taking energy and transport into their low carbon future (Tickell, 2008, p. 16 “Box 0.2 In a nutshell”). It seems like a tried-and-tested approach to a “sticky” ecological problem (Beamish, 2002, Ch. 2, pp. 42-45; Walsh, 2009; Whiteside, 2006, Ch. 2 “Debating Precaution”, pp. 32-33), yet so far it does not appear to be reaching its goals (Williams, 2010). It is clear we need to respect the climate sensitivity indicated by the best scientific research, by adopting some form of quota arrangement, but will pricing emissions enforce this ?
2. An all-too-normal waste gas
Trading under a cap of permitted allowances has been useful in addressing both the problems of acid rain and the ozone layer hole (Meadows et al, 2005, Ch. 5), by creating markets in real emissions reductions. It could be argued that a system of regulation, taxation and targeted purchase would have seen greater financial efficiency in implementing the Sulphur Emissions Reduction and Montreal Protocols; but both the sulphur dioxide and the CFC emissions problems have been clearly tractable with commoditised operations (UNEP, 2007). These problems were confined to niche markets of “point source emitters”, and coupled with the easy substitution of the problem chemistry, that was clearly helpful in generating good outcomes (Ahmed, 1995). By contrast, carbon dioxide is very widespread throughout the economy, with many point sources (Tickell, 2008, Ch. 4, pp. 90-91), and substitution is costly, as it entails sweeping changes in infrastructure and machinery plant in all sectors, including manufacturing, transport, buildings and energy (Monbiot, 2007). Solving this transformation equation obviously requires financial flows, and since many emissions come from corporations, private capital, in addition to public revenue, needs to be stimulated to launch new investment (Durning, 2009; nef, 2009). The polluter should pay, or at least feel the threat of a pinch (Reuters, 2009a). Plus, there needs to be a unified global position taken, so that social and industrial inertia against carbon reductions do not compromise progress (Marshall, 2008, pp. 81-82).
3. The trading floor opens
Carbon is endemic, and trading promises good returns (Macalister, 2009). The inter-regional and transnational trading of unused carbon quota permits and project-created credits has commenced, with the long view being to link all these markets together (Hepburn. 2009b, p. 384; Stern, 2009, p. 111). Using a market construct, there is no reason to assume that a negatively valued, virtual commodity should have a high price (Tol, 2005 cited in Barker, 2008a, p. 6; Tol, 2007 cited in Barker, 2008a, p. 7). Furthermore, the unknown price curve leads to uncertainty about programmes to remove carbon from processes and machinery by new investment. Too low a price and only the “low-hanging fruit” will be plucked, and the higher fruit will become unreachable. Yet targets based on the science indicate the total decarbonisation of the economy will be required in a clear timeframe. Can a market in carbon, on its own, be sure to drive this ? As evidence to the contrary, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) has a market to drive a defined ratchet downwards for the overall carbon cap, but it also has a variety of innovative schemes, subsidies and measures in place all over the economic region. The drive for the decarbonisation of the supply of energy appears to be coming from European Union Directives and regional targets, rather than the emissions trading market.
In addition, there are a number of flaws with the trading element of the European approach. The “grandfathering” of the assumed right to emit, based on historical behaviour of high carbon emitters, is a massive market distortion in the EU ETS; as is the initial zero charge for these granted rights, a “windfall”, as prices have risen in anticipation of future permit costs (Feasta, 2007; Tickell, 2008, Ch. 2, p. 49). Carbon-intensive sectors are continuing to lobby for this “dispensation” (Brady, 2009), even after carbon allowance permits become auctioned in 2013. Furthermore, the National Allocation Plans were too high, and the cap has been set too loosely; an effect only aggravated by the global economic recession (Sandbag, 2010). As a result, the price of carbon has remained predictably poor (Houghton, 2009, Ch. 10 “A strategy for action to slow and stabilise climate change”, p. 299 “Carbon trading”).
4. The slow growth in the creation of new carbon credits
Despite the media attention paid to carousel fraud, cloning and illegal recycling of carbon credits (Commodities Now, 2010; Europol, 2009; Morison, 2010; Reuters, 2010), the biggest issue remains the risk that carbon markets will not materialise in volume (Rahman et al., 2010). Critics of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), and the emissions trading elements of the UK’s Climate Change Committee carbon budgets, berate the large proportion of the emissions reductions set to come from “project offsets”, created from “hot air” in Eurasia (den Elzen et al., 2009), the Kyoto Protocol’s “flexible mechanism” of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) worldwide, and Joint Implementation (JI) credits from inside the European Union (Bullock et al., 2009, p. 18, Sect. 4.4; Reyes, 2009). The European Union offered to increase carbon dioxide emissions reductions under any Copenhagen Treaty from 20% by 2020 to 30%. The implication is that the “Effort Sharing Decision” difference would be made up from market offsets that would have become available from the reformed CDM “sectoral” carbon markets enshrined in the treaty (Gilbertson and Reyes, 2009, Ch. 3, pp. 45-46, Ch. 5, p. 91; Hepburn, 2009a, pp. 420-426; Hepburn and Stern, 2008, pp. 51-53).
The CDM provided about 0.4 gigatonnes carbon dioxide equivalent of Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) in 2008 (Hepburn, 2009a; World Bank, 2009), and there is still a pipeline of projects waiting to be accredited. Research on the growth in unchecked emissions (Garnaut et al., 2008) shows that roughly 13 gigatonnes of offsets/reductions from Business As Usual (BAU) will be required by 2012 to meet the timeline of international targets (see Appendix); and CDM remains the central policy to contribute somewhere between 5 and 10 gigatonnes of that, each year by 2020 (Hepburn, 2009a). However, as of March 2010, the UNEP Risoe Capacity Development for CDM projections are that only just over 1 gigatonne of CERs will be available by the end of 2012 (UNEP Risoe, 2010), although the World Bank projects 1.5 gigatonnes (World Bank, 2010, Ch. 6, Table 6.3).
5. Addressing existing carbon emissions liabilities
Embedded in the supply chain of virtually all the products consumed in the industrialised world, carbon dioxide is perhaps too pervasive to be susceptible to a market or a tax. Overall, production has not been de-coupled from carbon intensity in the global economy; which is continuing to grow, as are emissions (Jackson, 2009, Ch. 5, “The Myth of Decoupling”, pp. 68-76). In fact, carbon dioxide emissions are a direct result of most wealth-creation activities (CAIT, 2000), so it could be said that carbon dioxide emissions underpin the value of money. If so, how can money be used to control carbon dioxide, without de-valuing itself, thereby losing its power to control ? The carriage cannot pull the locomotive.
Eventually we may come to accept that monetising carbon will not, by itself, disincentivise breaching the “integrity of the atmosphere” (Wagner, 2009, pp. 392-394). Attempting to create a financial incentive to decarbonise has so far resulted in moves to outsource obligation from those carbon-intensive to those carbon-light or carbon-nascent. This globalisation of emissions reductions obscures the need for major change in industrialised infrastructure, essential to meet the long-term goals for global emissions control. Without massive upheaval, some industrial sectors will remain carbon-intensive, despite improved waste management and “skimming” intensity reductions (Barrett, 2009, pp. 73-75; Jackson, 2009, Ch. 5, pp. 75-82; Tickell, 2008, Ch. 5 “Non-market solutions” pp. 157-167). Until low carbon technology is more widespread, more growth means more energy use, as a rule, and more energy use means more carbon emissions. Industrialised-world carbon emissions are locked-in, and economic growth remains in lock-step with emissions (Fischer and Preonas, 2010; Jackson, 2009, Ch. 5; Meyer, 2004, p. 5, Sect. 4), as evidenced by the UK’s minor drop in emissions during the ongoing recession (Adam, 2010). The current carbon market is intended to simulate a downward trend in industrialised-world consumption, “offsetting” by stimulating decarbonisation in developing countries. If this is not sufficient, or sufficiently fast-acting (Meadows et al., 2005, Ch. 6, pp. 222-234), to implement staged carbon caps, it may be necessary to ration energy in the industrialised world (Challen, 2009, pp. 186-187; EAC, 2008; Fleming, 2007; Giddens, 2009, pp. 155-158; Hillman, 2004, pp. 126-145). Energy rationing would mostly affect such sectors as power production, transport, petrochemicals, metals and construction. Any cap on industrialised-world consumption and production would entail an economic contraction, that would affect rates of consumption and production in the developing world as a side effect, creating economic degrowth there too, likely obviating the need for the current carbon market.
6. Carbon property rights & responsibilities
In some respects, a carbon cap and a market at the downstream, consumption end of the economy is not addressing the real underlying problem – the reliance on fossil fuels at the upstream, production end of the energy supply chain. It is unrealistic to think that the ordinary European or American householder will be able to reduce their personal carbon consumption by 50% to 85% if the energy resources they are provided with are still all fossil fuel-based (IPCC, 2007b; Mandelson, 2009, p. 90). In the mid- to long-term almost total decarbonisation of the energy supply must be effected (Jackson, 2009, Ch. 5, pp. 82-86). The recent admission amongst mainstream economists that this problem is substantial suggests that marginal charging will not make structural change happen (Barker, 2008a, p. 10). It is difficult to see how economists can continue to propose equilibrium mechanics, under a marginal corrective perturbation in financing (Wickens, 2008, Ch. 2), to a system that will have to undergo significant transition.
7. Marketising enhanced deliberative expenditure
The evidence is that up until now, despite the bailout of the financial systems, capital has not been liberally freed to create the new low carbon energy infrastructure, fuel production and generation plant; investment that should have happened in response to the carbon price signal. Most policy treatments now propose significant public money to fill yawning investment and research gaps (Crooks E., 2010; Dessler and Parson, 2010, p. 185; Healing, 2010; Hudson, 2010; Maher, 2010; Tankersley and Muskal, 2010). Some argue that certain sectors of the economy were always going to need public money and private capital to boost them over the research, development and investment hurdles, and that the carbon market was never intended to cover everything (IEA, 2008). There are others who argue that everything should be incorporated into the carbon market, especially expensive novelties such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and new Nuclear Power (Marshall, 2008, p. 119) – for this reason it is proposed to add CCS to the CDM (Hepburn and Stern, 2008, p. 53). This could share the cost burden, but reveals that some emissions control takes significantly more money than others, because it involves high levels of new investment, some as “sunk costs”. This leads to the question of whether there is a workable carbon price that can emerge; as “…a result of discontinuities and path dependence… there is no longer a unique solution for the equilibrium carbon tax” (Barker, 2008a). With CCS and new Nuclear in CDM, less costly decarbonisation efforts would be done at a higher market price, which would be financially inefficient. End consumers facing carbon charging under a full global carbon market that includes rich world carbon credit-makers will experience this across the spectrum of domestic spending – energy, fuel, retail, food and water. Carbon charges could thus be a general economic depressant, or even cause general inflation (Barker, 2008b), thus negating the relative disincentive of the initial charge. After a period of adjustment, energy and fuel consumption could no longer be elastic to carbon charging, and the overall cap on emissions will become impossible to push downwards. Charging would not enforce the deeper stages of a carbon cap. And without enforcing the deeper caps, the carbon price would become ineffectually low.
8. The one true price
If the market cannot reveal a useful or stable carbon price, that could mean a shifting aggregate price over different parts of the investment lifecycle, or even over the cycle of carbon permit auctions, leading to great uncertainty about the future costs in large parts of the economy (Dessler and Parson, 2010, pp. 169-170). CDM sectoral benchmarking and CER discounting could smooth price discrimination (Hepburn, 2009a), but the global carbon price is likely to remain inherently volatile, and risk long-term financing decisions. Indeed it is possible that carbon prices might never rise high enough to effect significant “behaviour change” (Gowdy, 2008). Research has shown a Marginal Abatement Cost curve indicating that a good proportion of carbon neutralisation can take place at low cost, or even be cost-negative (McKinsey, 2009). If economy-wide decisions were taken by nations, such as mass building retrofits for insulation, this would undercut the market carbon price. It can be argued that this is a good thing, making unavoidable carbon emissions reasonably charged. However, this could undermine the ability of firms to justify de-carbonising “heavy” industry, particularly power generation. Yet, since it is cheap to insulate homes and optimise the use of heating, lighting and transportation on such a wide scale, these are the options that are likely to be chosen by economy-stricken administrations (Bowen and Stern, 2010; DECC, 2010; State of Texas, n.d.).
9. Carbon markets, born free, are everywhere in (supply) chains
Economists argue that the true price of carbon should be revealed by the market; that a market framework, in a context of free trade, will have the best possible information (Grossman and Stiglitz, 1980), and the competitive effect will deliver the optimal, aggregate price, especially in a regime of scarcity. Yet, existing markets in carbon, particularly in fossil fuel energy, are not generally open to new entrants, are highly regulated, and the dependency on carbon energy by all other parts of the economy creates barriers to competition. Electricity, for example, within most industrialised countries operates as a virtual monopoly (Patterson, 2007, Ch. 6, p. 74), or at best, a wealth-creation cartel, enjoying the unenviable position of being an obvious target for government “rent-seeking behaviour”. And since energy has been comparatively cheap in developed countries, the will to adopt conservation measures has been lax. The question has been asked many times, energy efficiency and conservation are such an cheap win, why haven’t they already been done ? (DeLong, 2009; Gayer, 2009; Roberts, 2009; Roberts, 2010) One of the answers is asset “lock-in”, whereby plant and other infrastructure with long lifecycles cannot easily become low carbon. Another of the answers is that carbon energy is effectively highly subsidised (Biello, 2009; Tickell, 2008, pp. 162-163). This means we are currently not paying the correct price for the carbon embedded in that energy; and thus, even when superimposing an environmental price for carbon via a market, or extracting an extra levy, we will still not pay to internalise the full cost of carbon dioxide damage to the environment. Besides which, the decarbonisation signal may well get lost entirely, swamped by wild variations in the commodities and energy supply markets (Helm, 2009, p. 15; Jackson, 2009, Ch. 1, pp. 8-11).
10. Counting the right numbers
So we may not be able to establish an optimal price for carbon within a market, and even if we do, it might not be the most effective one for cutting emissions. However, even though we cannot grasp the right number for the price of carbon, we can approach an understanding of the correct amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (Anderson and Bows, 2008). An extensive range of studies reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), show that the environmental protection goal of mankind should be the stabilisation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, effectively within a human lifetime (Arrow, 2007; Bala et al. 2005; IPCC 2007c; Lenton et al, 2006). Evidence of possible early signs of dangerous climate change (Hogarth, 2010; NSIDC, 2010; Stone et al., 2010; Velicogna, 2009) strongly support a global carbon dioxide emissions budget over a period of several decades, a timeframe way beyond normal economic analysis (Allen et al., 2009; Meinshausen et al., 2009). This translates into a worldwide annual budget, which further breaks down into annual national allowances (WBGU, 2009).
11. Where Kyoto mis-stepped
The focus should therefore be on carbon and not on cost. A money market solution to carbon obviously runs the risk of allowing the rich emitters to pay to carry on emitting, and within the global carbon budget this could translate into refusing energy access and economic development to the poor (Gilbertson and Reyes, 2009, Ch. 1). This is, in essence, the root of the problems at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conferences, attempting to negotiate a global treaty. The ultimate deal will need to be made on the basis of equal per capita carbon rights for each country, as nothing skewed in favour of the rich will satisfy the poor (Kraus, 2009). Under such a deal, the wealthy industrialised nations must pay to decarbonise, but it is now clear that the efforts to do it “on the cheap” (Reuters, 2009b) through the CDM-facilitated globalisation of carbon emissions reduction, are not going to provide a complete solution (Lohmann, 2008).
12. The way forward out of Kyoto
A global carbon budget, implemented in a set time would be a “contraction event”, and equal per capita rights to carbon entitlements within that cap would require a rate of convergence, since it cannot be effected overnight or the economy would implode (Hillman, 2007, pp. 262-264). The Global Commons Institute proposes that the UNFCCC accept that it move from ideas of establishing “carbon shares proportional to income” over to “carbon shares proportional to per capita”, which is known to be acceptable to all nations and blocs. This is the Contraction and Convergence (C&C) framework (Meyer A. 2007). In order to establish the C&C framework for carbon dioxide emissions, at least two Kyoto Protocol kernels would need to be cracked.
The “common but differentiated responsibilities” of the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC, 1998) would need to be reviewed on the basis that some industrialising countries look a lot like industrialised countries already (Botzen et al. 2008). Releasing all nations from the definition of development assigned at Kyoto would allow the recipes for emissions intensity and efficiency under the national mitigation action (NAMA) of the Bali roadmap, to become firm commitments to control (NAMC) as the Convergence per capita levels of growing countries were reached (UNFCCC, 2008). This sliding scale would put all countries in the same lifeboat (Barrett, 2008, p. 68, Sect. V).
The other key component would be to admit that those who consume carbon-laced products are as responsible for the emissions as those that initially embedded the carbon by their production processes (Helm et al., 2007; Steckel et al., 2010; Tickell, 2008, Ch 4. pp. 88-89). Thus, for example, the United States should feel obliged to account for a proportion of the emissions from the full lifecycle of products it imports from China; and conversely China should feel the regulation pull to reduce carbon intensity in production for export to the United States (Helm et al., 2007, p. 4). Numerical facts crystallise this view. For example, direct emissions from the United Kingdom figure at around about 2% of the global total, yet the FTSE 100 British-based businesses alone are responsible for about 12% to 15% of emissions worldwide (Christian Aid, 2007; Trucost, 2005). It would be unaffordable for the industrialised world to accept the financial responsibility for the total of their cumulative historical “sins of emission” (De Backer, 2008) as the profit of the past has all been spent. However, financial flows from wealthy to not-wealthy nations, necessary to enable low carbon transition for the developing countries, could be justified on the basis of “mutually assured protection” (Schellnhuber, 2009), in recognition of the consumer’s role as polluter. Future consumption will need to be low carbon, and so wealthy consumers should pay for not-wealthy producers to transition (Hepburn and Stern, 2008, p. 48), rather than aiming to protect their “silos” of remaining wealth. However, the high-cost transition in the wealthy nations should not be neglected simply because there are some short-term financial gains to be had from emissions trading and financing lower-cost transition in the not-wealthy nations. Putting off the day when industrialised-world emissions reductions need to be effected does not mean it can be forever avoided.
13. Compliance through systemic alterations
Issues of enforcement in the capped carbon market will remain problematic. Compliance with advanced caps could be addressed by re-routing the processes that enable carbon emissions to take place. Clearly one part of the picture is the liberal financial and legislation arrangements (Barker, 2009). The partly re-nationalised banks could reign in these “engines of carbon chaos”, changing the goalposts and conditions for economic investment, to bail out the difficulties of enforcing the later stage deep carbon caps (Silver, 2009). As the lifecycle of carbon-intensive physical “sub-prime” assets (ENS, 2008) comes around to the investment stage, bank lending rules could dictate such things as fuel-switching in electricity generation (IPCC, 2007d), the banning of coal for new power generation (Hansen, 2009) and the revocation of tar sands exploitation (FairPensions, 2010; Smith, 2008).
As for voluntary compliance, there are signs that scope for the dematerialisation of the economy may have reached its limit (Boden et al, 2009; Helm et al., 2007, p. 12; Jackson, 2009, Ch. 8, pp. 128-133). Given that we have somewhat less than ten years to effect a global peak in emissions (Anderson, 2009), we would best turn to structural mechanisms (Czisch, 2010; McKinsey et al., 2010; PwC, 2010) to change the energy supply and consumption patterns (Pacala, 2007 cited in Saxifrage, 2009), rather than wait for a carbon market to mature and widen (Wickens, 2008, Ch. 9).
Piecemeal constructs, such as a universal carbon market, or sectoral taxation, cannot add up to the sum of emissions reductions necessary, unless they are operated within an overall framework (Meyer, 2000, Ch. 6 “Framework versus Guesswork”). It is essential to calculate what contribution each initiative and policy must achieve, and apply resources there to make it happen (Copenhagen Accord Commitments, 2010). In parallel, it is necessary to plug “carbon leakage” (Barrett, 2008, pp. 64-66, Sect III) and rebound effects (Alcott, 2005; Sorrell, 2007; Sorrell, 2009). Under the framework of C&C, it would be possible to trade carbon in a market, but carbon property rights would only be created for that tranche of emissions tradable between parties below their Convergence per capita quota, and those above it (Meyer, 2004, p. 5, Sect. 5; Wagner et al., 2009, pp. 387 & 390-391). For the rest of the emissions reductions, a global post-Kyoto treaty based on agreed rates of Convergence and an agreed timeline for Contraction, negotiated between all parties, signalling commitment, could offer the legislative power, insurance and industrial confidence needed to leverage public and private funds to effect wholesale substitution of energy resources, as direct, targeted investment (Giddens, 2008; Jackson, 2009, Ch. 11, pp. 177-178). Trading emissions rights does not appear to be capable of delivering the full low carbon transition. The carbon market is displacement activity. We should be paying for what we want to happen, not for what we don’t.
GtCO2e = Gigatonnes Carbon Dioxide equivalent
Column 1 : Year
Column 2 : Emissions Business as Usual (BAU) (GtCO2e)
Column 3 : Target Emissions (GtCO2e)
Column 4 : Reductions in Emissions (GtCO2e)
Column 5 : References
2000 44.70 45.00 -0.30 (IPCC, 2007a)
2001 45.74 44.95 0.79
2002 46.80 44.90 1.90
2003 47.89 44.85 3.04
2004 49.00 44.80 4.20 (IPCC, 2007a)
2005 50.01 44.75 5.26
2006 51.03 44.70 6.33
2007 52.08 44.65 7.43
2008 53.14 44.60 8.54
2009 54.23 44.55 9.68
2010 55.34 44.50 10.84
2011 56.47 44.45 12.02
2012 57.63 44.40 13.23
2013 58.81 44.35 14.46
2014 60.01 44.30 15.71
2015 61.24 44.25 16.99
2016 62.50 44.20 18.30
2017 63.78 44.15 19.63
2018 65.08 44.10 20.98
2019 66.42 44.05 22.37
2020 67.78 44.00 23.78 (Lazarowicz, 2009)
2021 69.16 43.20 25.96
2022 70.58 42.40 28.18
2023 72.02 41.60 30.42
2024 73.50 40.80 32.70
2025 75.00 40.00 35.00
2026 76.54 39.20 37.34
2027 78.11 38.40 39.71
2028 79.71 37.60 42.11
2029 81.34 36.80 44.54
2030 83.00 36.00 47.00 (Garnaut et al., 2008)
2031 84.70 35.20 49.50
2032 86.44 34.40 52.04
2033 88.21 33.60 54.61
2034 90.01 32.80 57.21
2035 91.86 32.00 59.86
2036 93.74 31.20 62.54
2037 95.66 30.40 65.26
2038 97.61 29.60 68.01
2039 99.61 28.80 70.81
2040 101.65 28.00 73.65
2041 103.73 27.20 76.53
2042 105.86 26.40 79.46
2043 108.03 25.60 82.43
2044 110.24 24.80 85.44
2045 112.49 24.00 88.49
2046 114.80 23.20 91.60
2047 117.15 22.40 94.75
2048 119.55 21.60 97.95
2049 121.99 20.80 101.19
2050 124.49 20.00 104.49 (Lazarowicz, 2009)
Adam D., 2010. “UK greenhouse gas emissions drop by 8.6% : Economic contraction and move away from fossil fuels saw overall emissions fall from 533m tonnes to 481m tonnes in 2009”. The Guardian, [Internet] 25 March 2010. Available at:
Ahmed K., 1995. “Technological Development and Pollution Abatement : A Study of How Enterprises Are Finding Alternatives to Chlorofluorocarbons”. Washington, D. C.: The World Bank, “World Bank Technical Paper Number 271 : Energy Series”. Available at:
Alcott B., 2005. “Jevon’s Paradox”. In: Ecological Economics 54 (2005) pp. 9 – 21. Available at:
Allen M. et al., 2009. “The exit strategy”. Nature Reports Climate Change, 30 April 2009. doi:10.1038/climate.2009.38, 30 April 2009. Available at:
Anderson K., 2009. “Global emission pathways : A ‘fair’ deal for Non-Annex 1 nations : what’s left for Annex 1 ?”. Four Degrees and Beyond Conference, 28 – 30 September 2009, Session 10: Avoiding Large Climate Changes 2. Presentation at:
Anderson K. and Bows A., 2008. “Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends”. London: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 29 August 2008. Available at:
Arrow K. J., 2007. “Global Climate Change: A Challenge to Policy”. In: Economists’ Voice, June 2007, Berkeley Electronic Press. Available at:
Bala G. et al., 2005. “Multicentury Changes to the Global Climate and Carbon Cycle: Results from a Coupled Climate and Carbon Cycle Model”. In: Journal of Climate, American Meteorological Society. Vol. 18, pp. 4531 – 4544. Available at:
Barker T., 2008a. “The economics of avoiding dangerous climate change : An editorial essay on The Stern Review”. In: Climatic Change, Springboard Editorial, DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9433-x Available at:
Barker T., 2008b. “The Macroeconomic Effects of the Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy”. The Climate Group, “Breaking the Climate Deadlock” Briefing Paper. Available at:
Barker T., 2009. “Will the reconstruction of the global economy be positive for mitigating climate change?”. In: “Building a low-carbon future : The politics of climate change” Giddens A., Latham S. and Liddle R. (eds). London: Policy Network. Ch. 2. Available at:
Barrett S., 2009. “Climate Treaties and the Imperative of Enforcement” In: D. Helm and C. Hepburn, eds. 2009 “The Economics and Politics of Climate Change” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch. 4, Sect. (ii) “Enhanced Mitigation: The Merit in Sectoral Approaches”
Baumol W., 1972. “On Taxation and the Control of Externalities”. In: “The American Economic Review”, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 307 – 222. Available at:
Beamish T. D., 2002, “Silent Spill : The Organization of an Industrial Crisis”. London: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press.
Biello D., 2009. “How much in subsidies do fossil fuels get anyway?”. In: Scientific American, [Internet] 18 September 2009. Available at:
Boden, T. A., Marland G. and Andres R. J., 2009. “Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions”. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A., doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001. Available at:
Bowen A. and Stern N., 2010. “Environmental policy and the economic downturn”. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper No. 16, Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy Working Paper No. 18. Available at:
Botzen et al., 2008. “Cumulative CO2 emissions: shifting international responsibilities for climate debt”. In: Climate Policy 8, Earthscan, doi: 10.3763/cpol.2008.0539 Available at:
Brady S., 2009. “Carbon trading is not enough to tackle climate change : Unambitious emissions caps provide no incentive for businesses to cut CO2 output”. The Guardian, [Internet] 3 December 2009. Available at:
Bullock S. et al., 2009. “A Dangerous Distraction : Why Offsetting is Failing the Climate and People: The Evidence”. Friends of the Earth, [Internet] June 2009. Available at:
CAIT, 2000. “World GHG Emissions Flow Chart”. Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, [Internet]. Available at:
Cap and Dividend, n.d. “Common questions”. On The Commons, [Internet]. Available at:
Cap and Share, n.d. “Frequently Asked Questions”. Feasta, [Internet]. Available at:
CAT, 2010. “Zero Carbon Britain 2”. Report from the Centre for Alternative Technology, 2010. Report at:
Challen C., 2009. “Too Little, Too Late : The politics of climate change”. Hove: Picnic Publishing.
Christian Aid, 2007. “Coming Clean : Revealing the UK’s true carbon Footprint”. Available at:
www.ChristianAid.org.uk, [Internet] February 2007. Available at:
Commodities Now, 2010. “EU ETS: Closing the door to fraud”. Commodities Now, [Internet] 11 February 2010. Available at:
Copenhagen Accord Commitments, 2010. Summary of national commitments to Carbon Emissions Reductions. Available at:
Crooks E., 2010. “Cash for carbon capture projects”. Financial Times, [Internet] 13 March 2010. Available at:
Czisch G., 2005. “Szenarien zur zukuenftigen Stromversorgung – Kostenoptimierte Variationen zur Versorgung Europas und seiner Nachbarn mit Strom aus erneuerbaren Energien”. Institut fuer elektrische Energietechnik und Rationelle Energiewandlung, Unversitaet Kassel, 2005. Available at:
In translation: “Scenarios for a Future Electricity Supply: Cost-Optimised Variations on Supplying Europe and Its Neighbours with Electricity from Renewable Energies”, 7 August 2010 :
De Backer W., 2008. “Sins of emission: Dieter Helm on EU climate policies”. 3EIntelligence, [Internet] 13 March, 2008. Available at:
DECC, 2010. “Insulation Made Easy By Britain’s Top Businesses”, Press Release on “Insulate Today” programme. Department of Energy and Climate Change, [Internet] 30 March 2010. Available at:
DeLong J. B., 2009. “The Brookings Institution Needs to Exercise Some Quality Control”. DeLong.typepad.com, [Internet] 29 December 2009. Available at:
den Elzen M. G. J. et al., 2009. “Too hot to handle? The emission surplus in the Copenhagen negotiations”. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), December 2009. Available at:
Dessler A. and Parson E. A., 2010. “The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change : A Guide to the Debate” 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Durning A., 2009. “Clean-Energy Stimulus”. www.WorldChanging.com, [Internet] 28 May 2009. Available at:
EAC, 2008. “Personal Carbon Trading : Fifth Report of Session 2007–08” House of Commons, Environmental Audit Committee 13 May 2008. Available at:
ENS, 2008. “Gore Warns of Sub-Prime Carbon Catastrophe”. Environmental News Service, [Internet] 27 September 2008. Available at:
Europol, 2009. “Carbon Credit fraud causes more than 5 billion euros damage for European Taxpayer”. Europol, [Internet] 9 December 2009. Available at:
FairPensions, 2010. “Tar Sands : Counting the cost”. The campaign for responsible investment, [Internet]. Available at:
Feasta, 2007. “The Great Emissions Rights Give-Away”. Dublin: The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability”. Feasta, [Internet] March 2007. Available at:
Fischer C. and Preonas L., 2010. “Combining Policies for Renewable Energy”. Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper, March 2010. Sect. 5.2, pp. 26 – 27. Available at:
Fleming D., 2007. “Energy and the Common Purpose : Descending the Energy Staircase with Tradable Energy Quota (TEQs)”. London: The Lean Economy Connection. Available at:
Garnaut R. et al., 2008. “The Implications of Rapid Development for Emissions and Climate-change Mitigation”. In: D. Helm and C. Hepburn, eds. 2009 “The Economics and Politics of Climate Change” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch. 5.
Gayer T., 2009. “The EPA Tackles Greenhouse Gas : But the reductions won’t come cheap”. Forbes, [Internet] 29 December 2009. Available at:
Giddens A., 2008. “The politics of climate change : National responses to the challenge of global warming”. London, Policy Network, September 2008. Available at:
Giddens A., 2009. “The Politics of Climate Change”. Cambridge: Polity Press, 13 March 2009. ISBN-13: 978-0745646930
Gilbertson T. and Reyes O. 2009. “Carbon Trading : How it works and why it fails”. In: “Critical Currents” No. 7., November 2009. Uppsala: Dag Hammarskjoeld Foundation. Available at:
Gowdy J. M., 2008. “Behavioral Economics and Climate Change Policy”. In: Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 68 (2008) 632 – 644. Available at:
Gore A., 2009. “Our Choice : A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis “. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 3 November 2009.
Grossman S. J. and Stiglitz J. E., 1980. “On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets”. In: The American Economic Review, June 1980 pp. 393 – 408. Available at:
Hallegatte S. et al., 2010. “A Note on the Economic Cost of Climate Change and the Rationale to Limit it Below 2°C”. The World Bank, Background Paper to the 2010 World Development Report, January 2010. Available at:
Hansen J., 2009. “Coal-fired power stations are death factories. Close them”. The Guardian, [Internet] 15 February 2009. Available at:
Healing D., 2010. “Carbon capture possible, but deemed money-loser : CO2 levy would need to rise: study”. Calgary Herald, [Internet] 13 March 2010. Available at:
Helm D., 2009. “Climate-change Policy: Why has so Little been Achieved?” In: D. Helm and C. Hepburn, eds. 2009 “The Economics and Politics of Climate Change” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch. 2.
Helm D. et al., 2007. “Too Good To Be True? : The UK’s Climate Change Record”. www.DieterHelm.co.uk, [Internet] 10 December 2007. Available at:
Hepburn C., 2009a. “International Carbon Finance and the Clean Development Mechanism”. In: D. Helm and C. Hepburn, eds. 2009 “The Economics and Politics of Climate Change” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch. 20. Referenced at:
Hepburn C., 2009b. “Carbon Taxes, Emissions Trading, and Hybrid Schemes”. In: D. Helm and C. Hepburn, eds. 2009 “The Economics and Politics of Climate Change” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch. 18.
Hepburn C. and Stern N., 2008. “The Global Deal on Climate Change”. In: D. Helm and C. Hepburn, eds. 2009 “The Economics and Politics of Climate Change” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch. 3. Referenced at:
Hillman M., 2004. “How We Can Save the Planet”. London: Penguin, 27 May 2004
Hillman M., 2007. “Afterword: Where Do We Go From Here?”. In: “Surviving Climate Change : The Struggle to Avert Global Catastrophe”, Cromwell D. and Levene M. (eds). London: Pluto Books. pp. 253 – 265.
Hogarth P., 2010. “Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise”. Available at:
Houghton J. T., 2009. “Global Warming : The Complete Briefing” Fourth Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hudson B., 2010. “Australian Governments Spend Big Capturing Carbon”. www.Scoop.co.NZ, [Internet] 1 February 2010. Available at:
IEA, 2008. “Now or Never – IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 shows pathways to sustained economic growth based on clean and affordable energy technology”. International Energy Agency, Press Release, 6 June 2008. Available at:
IPCC, 2007a. “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report : Summary for Policymakers”. Fig. SPM.3 (a) “Global annual emissions of anthropogenic GHGs from 1970 to 2004”. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Plenary XXVII, [Internet] Valencia, 12 – 17 November 2007. Available at:
IPCC, 2007b. “Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change : Summary for Policymakers” Table SPM.5 “Characteristics of post-TAR stabilization scenarios”. IPCC 9th Session of Working Group III, [Internet] Bangkok, 30 April – 4 May 2007. Available at:
IPCC, 2007c. “Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis : Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections”. Available at:
Jackson T., 2009. “Prosperity without Growth”. London: Earthscan.
IPCC, 2007d. “Energy Supply”. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group 3. Available at:
Kraus K. S., 2009. “Contraction & Convergence and Greenhouse Development Rights: A critical comparison between two salient climate-ethical concepts”. Diplomarbeit im Studiengang, Landschaftsoekologie und Naturschutz am Botanischen Institut der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-
Laing T. and Grubb M., 2010. “The Impact of Instrument Choice on Investment in Abatement Technologies: A Case Study of Tax versus Trade Incentives for CCS and Biomass for Electricity”. Cambridge University, Electricity Policy Research Group, February 2010. Available at:
Lazarowicz M., 2009. “Global Carbon Trading : A framework for reducing emissions”. Norwich: TSO (The Stationery Office). p. 4, Fig. 1.2. Available at:
https://www.decc.gov.uk [Accessed 10 April 2010]
Lenton T. et al., 2006. “Climate change on the millenial timescale”. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Technical Report 41, February 2006. Available at:
Lohmann L., 2008. “Carbon Trading, Climate Justice and the Production of Ignorance : Ten Examples”. The Corner House, August 2008. Available at:
McKibben B., 2007. “Deep Economy : Economics as if the world mattered”. Oxford: OneWorld Publications, 1 July 2009.
McKinsey & Company, 2009. “Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy : Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve”. Available at:
McKinsey et al., 2010. “Roadmap 2050: A Practical Guide to a Prosperous, Low Carbon Europe”. McKinsey & Company, KEMA, The Energy Futures Lab at Imperial College London, Oxford Economics, European Climate Foundation, April 2010. Available at:
Macalister T., 2009. “Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade : Market could be worth $3tn a year but enthusiasm to place it at heart of Copenhagen is matched by growing criticism of concept”. The Guardian, [Internet] 29 November 2009. Available at:
MacKay D. J. C., 2008. “Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air”. Cambridge: UIT. ISBN-10: 0954452933 ISBN-13: 978-0954452933. Available at:
https://www.withouthotair.com/ [Accessed 11 April 2010]
Maher S., 2010. “World cool on Rudd’s clean coal funding”. The Australian, [Internet] 29 March 2010. Available at:
Mandelson P., 2004. “Climate change: the political and business challenge”. In: “Building a low-carbon future : The politics of climate change” Giddens A., Latham S. and Liddle R. (eds). London: Policy Network. Ch. 9. Available at:
Marshall C., 2008. “The Political Economy of Sustainable Energy”. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. “Energy, Climate and the Environment Series”.
Meadows D. et al., 2005. “Limits to Growth : The 30-Year Update”. London: Earthscan, ISBN: 1-84407-144-8. Ch. 5 “Back from Beyond the Limits: The Ozone Story”; Ch. 6 “Technology, Markets and Overshoot”
Meinshausen M. et al., 2009. “Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C”. Available at:
Meyer A., 2000. “Contraction and Convergence : The Global Solution to Climate Change”. Totnes: Green Books, The Schumacher Society, “Schumacher Briefings : 5”
Meyer A., 2004. “Briefing: Contraction and convergence”. In: Proceedings of the ICE – Engineering Sustainability, Volume: 157, Issue 4, Pages: 189 – 192, ISSN: 1478-4629, E-ISSN: 1751-7680, DOI: 10.1680/ensu.188.8.131.52900. London: Institution of Civil Engineers. Available at:
Meyer A., 2007. “The Case for Contraction and Convergence”. In: “Surviving Climate Change : The Struggle to Avert Global Catastrophe”, Cromwell D. and Levene M. (eds). London: Pluto Books. Ch. 1.
Monbiot G., 2007. “Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning”. New York: South End Press. ISBN-10: 0896087794 ISBN-13: 978-0896087798.
Morison R., 2010. “European Commission takes action over EU ETS fraud”. Energy Risk, [Internet] 5 February 2010. Available at:
nef, 2009. “The Cuts Won’t Work”. London: the new economics foundation, December 2009. Available at:
NSIDC, 2010. National Snow and Ice Data Center, “Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice Extent : March 1979 to 2010”. Available at:
Pacala S. W., 2007 cited in Saxifrage B., 2009. “The Rich: Our Biggest Carbon Problem : Math, Not Morality, Requires Wealthy to Make Biggest Reductions.” www.Saxifrages.org, [Internet] 12 February 2009. Available at:
Patterson W., 2007. “Keeping the Lights On : Towards Sustainable Electricity”. London: Earthscan with Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs).
Pigou A.C., 1932. “The Economics of Welfare”, London: Macmillan (first edition 1920; editions to 1932). Available at :
PwC, 2010. “100% renewable electricity: A roadmap to 2050 for Europe and North Africa”. Available at:
Rahman S. M. et al., 2010. “Will the Clean Development Mechanism Mobilize Anticipated Levels of Mitigation?” The World Bank, Development Research Group, Agriculture and Rural Development Team, Policy Research Working Paper, March 2010. Available at:
Reuters, 2009a. “Carbon tariff threat useful in climate talks”. Reuters Breakingviews, [Internet] 20 October 2009. Available at:
Reuters, 2009b. “U.N. carbon market a success despite criticism: Enel”. Reuters Newswire, [Internet] 24 May 2009. Available at:
Reuters, 2010. “EU acts to shut out recycled CERs”. Carbon Positive, [Internet] 19 March 2010, (Reuters, 18 March 2010). Available at:
Reyes O., 2009. “UK carbon budget: offshoring emissions reductions”. www.CarbonTradeWatch.org, [Internet] 23 April 2009. Available at:
Roberts D., 2009. “Economics as pathology : All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds”. Grist, [Internet] 30 December 2009. Available at:
Roberts D., 2010. “Economics as pathology, part two”. Grist, [Internet] 5 January 2010. Available at:
Sandbag, 2010. “EU emissions plunge leaving emissions trading scheme high and dry”. www.Sandbag.org.uk, [Internet] 1 April 2010. Available at:
Sandmo A., 2010. “The Scale and Scope of Environmental Taxation”. Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration (NHH), October 2009. Available at:
Schellnhuber H. J., 2009. “Three Ways of Going MAD”. www.ReThinkClimate.org, [Internet] 2009. Available at:
Silver N., 2009. “Royal Bank of Sustainability”. World Development Movement, “Clean the Banks” Report, 19 October 2009. Available at:
Smith K., 2008. “Cashing in on Coal : RBS, UK Banks and the Global Coal Industry”. London: PLATFORM, [Internet] August 2008. Available at:
Solomon S. et al., 2009. “Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), vol. 106 no. 6 1704-1709 doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812721106, [Internet] 10 February 2009. Available at:
Sorrell S., 2007. “The Rebound Effect: an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings from improved energy efficiency”. United Kingdom Energy Research Centre (UKERC), Sussex Energy Group, October 2007. Available at:
Sorrell S., 2009. “Improving Energy Efficiency: Hidden Costs and Unintended Consequences”. In: D. Helm and C. Hepburn, eds. 2009 “The Economics and Politics of Climate Change” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch. 17.
State of Texas, n.d. “Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP)”. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, [Internet]. Available at:
https://184.108.40.206/ea/wap.htm [Accessed 10 April 2010]
Stavins R. N., 2008. “Addressing Climate Change with a Comprehensive US Cap-and-trade System”. In: D. Helm and C. Hepburn, eds. 2009 “The Economics and Politics of Climate Change” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch. 10.
Steckel J. C. et al., 2010. “Should carbon-exporting countries strive for consumption-based accounting in a global cap-and-trade regime?”. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PIK Working Paper, March 2010. Available at:
Stern N., 2009. “A Blueprint for a Safer Planet”. London: The Bodley Head.
Stone E. J. et al., 2010. “The effect of more realistic forcings and boundary conditions on the modelled geometry and sensitivity of the Greenland ice-sheet”. The Cryosphere : An Interactive Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union, The Cryosphere Discuss., 4, 233-285, 2010. Discussion at:
Tankersley J. and Muskal M., 2010. “Obama pledges $8 billion for new nuclear reactors”. Los Angeles Times, [Internet] 16 February 2010. Available at:
Tickell O., 2008. “Kyoto2 : How to Manage the Global Greenhouse”. London: Zed Books. ISBN: 978-1-84813-024-1 hb ISBN: 978-1-84813-025-8 pb
Tol R. S. J., 2005 cited in Barker, 2008a. “The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties.” Energy Policy 33(16) pp. 2064 – 2074
Tol R. S. J., 2007 cited in Barker, 2008a. “The social cost of carbon: trends, outliers and catastrophes” Economics Discussion Papers, pp. 2007 – 2044.
Tol R. S. J., 2008. “Social Cost of Carbon”. SciTopics, [Internet] 3 September 2008. Available at:
Trucost, 2005. “The Carbon 100 : Quantifying the Carbon Emissions, Intensities and Exposures of the FTSE 100”. Henderson Global Investors, [Internet] June 2005. Available at:
UNFCCC, 1998. “Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change” New York: United Nations, Article 10. Available at:
UNFCCC, 2008. “Report of the Conference of the Parties on its thirteenth session, held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007 : Decision 1/CP.13 Bali Action Plan” (as known as the “Bali Roadmap”). New York: United Nations. Available at:
UNEP Risoe, 2010. “UNEP Risoe CDM/JI Pipeline Analysis and Database, March 1st 2010”, “CDM/JI Pipeline Overview Page”. Roskilde: UNEP Risoe Centre. Table: “CERs”. Available at:
UNEP, 2007. “A Success in the making : The Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer : Celebrating 20 years of progress in 2007”. Nairobi: The United Nations Ozone Secretariat, United Nations Environment Programme. Available at:
Velicogna I., 2009. “Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE”. In: Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 36, doi:10.1029/2009GL040222, 2009. Available at:
Wagner G. et al., 2009. “Docking into a Global Carbon Market: Clean Investment Budgets to Finance Low-carbon Economic Development”. In: D. Helm and C. Hepburn, eds. 2009 “The Economics and Politics of Climate Change” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch. 19.
Walsh B., 2009. “Still Digging Up Exxon Valdez Oil, 20 Years Later”. In: Time Magazine, [Internet] 4 June 2009. Available at:
WBGU, 2009. “Solving the climate dilemma: The budget approach”. Berlin: German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). Available at:
Whiteside K. H., 2006. “Precautionary Politics : Principle and practice in confronting environmental risk”. London: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press.
Wickens M., 2008. “Macroeconomic Theory”. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Available at:
Williams D., 2010. “UK carbon scheme ‘not learning from EU’s errors’ “. www.PublicFinance.co.uk, [Internet] 11 February 2010. Available at:
World Bank, 2009. “State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2009”. Washington, D. C.: The World Bank. Table 1, “Carbon Market at a glance, Volumes & Values in 2007-08”. Available at:
World Bank, 2010. “World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change”. World Bank, [Internet], final files 22 October 2009. Available at: