Skip to Content

Carbon Trading

FERN’s aim is to move the climate debate beyond carbon trading and to support communities faced with carbon offset projects.


FERN’s analysis:
The European Commission has described climate change as “one of the greatest environmental, social and economic threats facing the planet”. FERN believes that to attempt to combat such a threat with a market mechanism designed to allow emissions in one place to continue on the back of a claimed reduction in another place is foolish. Reductions need to happen everywhere, particularly in industrialised countries. And they need to happen now. We should not be spending time, money and effort putting in place the infrastructure for a new global carbon trading scheme at the expense of investment in genuine emission reductions and establishing low carbon energy and transport infrastructures. 

 

What FERN is doing: In 2004, FERN co-founded the Durban Group for Climate Justice a group of organisations that believe climate policy needs to move beyond carbon trading and focus on ending fossil fuel dependency. We document how carbon trading delays action to end fossil fuel dependence and thus acts as a distraction from the urgent need to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions, especially in industraliased countries. FERN also supports organisations documenting and exposing the impact of carbon offset projects on local communities.

 

To learn more about this campaign: see www.sinkswatch.org 

Trading carbon: how it works and why it is controversial

August 17, 2010

In the drive to tackle climate change, carbon trading has become the policy instrument of choice among governments. It is also a central element of the UNFCCC’s Kyoto Protocol. National or regional carbon trading schemes are now operational in Europe, the USA, New Zealand and elsewhere.


Yet carbon trading remains highly controversial. Some see it as a dangerous distraction and a false solution to the problem of climate change. Unfortunately the subject is characterised by jargon, abstract concepts, mathematical formulae and technical detail, making it hard for most people to understand its implications and assess its merits or otherwise. This guide attempts to unravel some of this complexity.

For a 20 page version of this guide please see www.fern.org/designedtofail

DocumentSize
application/pdf iconOPEN1.84 MB

Banking on carbon markets: Why the European Investment Bank got it wrong in the fight against climate change

January 18, 2012

This briefing provides an overview of the publicly documented involvement of the European Investment Bank (EIB) is support of failing carbon markets. It is based on a report by the organisations Counter Balance and Campagna per la riforma della banca mondiale (CRBM). The original report is available here.

DocumentSize
application/pdf iconBanking on carbon markets.pdf405.89 KB

Why carbon markets will not deliver for Southern governments, forests and people

November 29, 2011

File 5870

Many governments believe that carbon trading will provide substantial funding to protect or sustainably manage forests in their countries via proposed schemes to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD). This briefing, signed on to by 28 organisations explains why carbon markets will not deliver for Southern governments, forests and peoples.

 

DocumentSize
application/pdf iconcarbonleaflet_25nov.pdf326.76 KB

An end to forest offsets

October 24, 2011

File 5811

This manual was put together by the partners of the Grundtvig Learning Programme “Forests and climate protection – merging topics in environmental education”. The project enabled members of several key NGOs to come together and learn about forest offsets. This culminated in this document which provides background information for developing new approaches in environmental education focusing on the intricate relation of forests and climate. For fully footnoted and referenced information about the problems with carbon trading and offsets please see Designed to fail. For more information about Grundtvig's Lifelong Learning Programme please see their website in English. For information about the Flemish Grundtvig agency please visit their site
DocumentSize
application/pdf iconAn-end-to-forest-offsets-final.pdf355.36 KB

Submission to the UK climate change committee enquiry into the EU ETS

September 6, 2011

This submission to the "EU Emissions Trading System: New Inquiry" shows that fundamental flaws in the design of the EU ETS have been exposed by (a) a series of fraud and cybercrime incidents; (b) the excessive use of carbon offsets by companies hoarding higher-value EU ETS permits received free of charge; and (c) the lack of a functioning regulatory possibility to adjust thesupply of EU ETS emission permits to a sharp economic downturn, and theresulting drop in emissions far below projected levels that were used to calculate permit allocation.

DocumentSize
application/pdf iconFERN submission on the EU ETS to the energy and climate change committee.pdf372.59 KB

Submission to UN consultation on new market-based mechanisms to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and promote, mitigation actions

February 24, 2011

This submission concludes that the EU ETS and the Kyoto Protocol’s carbon trading schemes have been designed to fail: they assume the contribution of carbon permits and offset credits to limiting greenhouse gas emissions to a verifiable target to be the same, when in reality they are not because calculation of offsets depends on unverifiable hypothetical baselines from which offset volumes are calculated. The call for submissions on ‘establishing new market-based mechanisms’ suggests that these ill-conceived mixed permit-credit carbon trading schemes are to be extended to additional sectors, such as the forest and land use sector (where error margins are even bigger and risk of reversal of carbon savings is significant).

Linking trading schemes that operate in jurisdictions where enforcement capacity differs significantly, will provide further ground for trading in ‘subprime’ carbon derivatives, in particular given that much of the trading activity in carbon offsets is carried out over-the-counter. 

DocumentSize
application/pdf iconUN Markets submission_FERN_FOE-US.pdf245.95 KB

FERN submission to a commodity futures trading commission study

December 21, 2010

FERN’s input into the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and interagency working group’s forthcoming study on the oversight of existing and prospective carbon markets. It concludes that the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and the Kyoto Protocol’s carbon trading schemes have been designed to fail and that it is difficult to see how subsequent regulation could remedy a situation where the challenge is not to remedy design flaws but where the design is the flaw.  

DocumentSize
application/pdf icon2010 12 17 FERN Submission to CFTC on carbon markets.pdf52.94 KB

ForestWatch Issue 155 December 2010

December 15, 2010
  • Social criteria are permissible in timber procurement policy
  • Questions remain about Cancun forests agreement
  • A bold move: the EP votes to address ECA flaws
  • The future of CAP: opinions welcome
  • Agrofuel plans drive destruction

DocumentSize
application/pdf iconFW 155 December 2010.pdf217.33 KB

Designed to fail? The concepts, practices and controversies behind carbon trading.

December 2, 2010

Carbon trading has become the central pillar of international efforts to halt climate change. It is a term that most people will recognise, but far fewer will have a good understanding of what it means and how it is supposed to work. Fewer still will feel confident to judge whether it is a success or not.

 
As an accessible introduction to carbon trading, FERN published Trading carbon: how it works and why it is controversial. This summary version provides a synopsis of the key points of that book. We would encourage readers to refer to the full version for references, more detailed explanations, examples and evidence. 
 

DocumentSize
application/pdf iconFERN_designedtofail_internet.pdf796.56 KB

Forestwatch Issue 152 September 2010

September 23, 2010
  • Biofuel landscape changing, but will ILUC be taken into account?
  • Another land case won in Sarawak
  • Carbon trading explained
  • Small improvements in draft Ecolabel criteria
  • World Bank palm oil strategy “reckless”
  • REDD+ Partnership’s chaotic, intransparent process
DocumentSize
application/pdf iconFW 152 September 2010.pdf189.81 KB