Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Box ES.1 / Carbon pricing in numbers
61 carbon pricing initiatives implemented/scheduled
46 national, 32 subnational jurisdictions
Covering 12 GtCO2e (22% of global GHG emissions)
US$45 billion raised in carbon pricing revenues in 2019
More than 14,500 registered crediting projects to date, generating almost 4 billion tCO2e of cumulative carbon credits
Forestry sector credits make up 42% of all credits issued in last five years
31 ETS and 30 carbon taxes
The large circles represent cooperation initiatives on carbon pricing between subnational jurisdictions. The small circles represent carbon pricing initiatives in cities.
Note: Carbon pricing initiatives are considered “scheduled for implementation” once they have been formally adopted through legislation and have an official, planned start date. Carbon pricing initiatives are considered “under consideration” if the government has announced its intention to work towards the implementation of a carbon pricing initiative and this has been formally confirmed by official government sources. The carbon pricing initiatives have been classified in ETSs and carbon taxes according to how they operate technically. ETS not only refers to cap-and-trade systems, but also baseline-and-credit systems as seen in British Columbia and baseline-and-offset systems as seen in Australia. The authors recognize that other classifications are possible.
ETS implemented or scheduled for implementation
Carbon tax implemented or scheduled for implementation
ETS or carbon tax under consideration
ETS and carbon tax implemented or scheduled
Carbon tax implemented or scheduled, ETS under consideration
ETS implemented or scheduled, ETS or carbon tax under consideration
ETS and carbon tax implemented or scheduled, ETS or carbon tax under consideration
Figure ES.1 / Carbon pricing initiatives implemented, scheduled for implementation and under consideration (ETS and carbon tax)
Ukraine
Norway
UK
Portugal
France
Switzerland
Slovenia
Montenegro
Poland
LatviaEstonia
Finland
Sweden
GermanyDen mark
Ireland
LiechtensteinCatalonia
Spain
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
Austria
Chile
São Paulo
TurkeyChina
Northwest Territories Canada
British Columbia
WashingtonOregon
California
Mexico
Brazil
Rio de Janeiro
South Africa
Australia
New Zealand
EU
KazakhstanRepublic of Korea
Japan
Iceland
Colombia
Argentina
Côte d’Ivoire
Senegal Thailand Vietnam
Indonesia
Shanghai
Shenzhen
Fujian
Beijing
Tianjin
HubeiChongqing
Guangdong
TokyoSaitama
Taiwan
Singapore
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
SaskatchewanOntario
Québec
New Brunswick
Alberta
RGGI
Pennsylvania
Newfoundland and Labrador
TCI
Massachusetts
Virginia
Manitoba
Figure ES.2 / Share of global emissions covered by carbon pricing initiatives (ETS and carbon tax)
Note: Only the introduction or removal of an ETS or carbon tax is shown. Emissions are presented as a share of global GHG emissions from (EDGAR) version 5.0 including biofuels emissions. Annual changes in GHG emissions are not shown in the graph from 2015 onwards. In 2020, the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation (TIER) replaced the Alberta Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation, which in 2018 had replaced the Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation. The information on the China national ETS represents early unofficial estimates based on the announcement of China’s National Development and Reform Commission on the launch of the national ETS of December 2017.
Finland carbon tax (1990 ) Poland carbon tax (1990 ) Norway carbon tax (1991 ) Sweden carbon tax (1991 ) Denmark carbon tax (1992 ) Slovenia carbon tax (1996 ) Estonia carbon tax (2000 ) Latvia carbon tax (2004 ) EU ETS (2005 ) Alberta TIER (2007 ) Switzerland ETS (2008 ) New Zealand ETS (2008 ) Switzerland carbon tax (2008 ) Liechtenstein carbon tax (2008 ) BC carbon tax (2008 ) RGGI (2009 ) Iceland carbon tax (2010 ) Tokyo CaT (2010 ) Ireland carbon tax (2010 ) Ukraine carbon tax (2011 ) Saitama ETS (2011 ) California CaT (2012 )
Japan carbon tax (2012 ) Australia CPM (2012 - 2014) Québec CaT (2013 ) Kazakhstan ETS (2013 ) UK carbon price floor (2013 ) Shenzhen pilot ETS (2013 ) Shanghai pilot ETS (2013 ) Beijing pilot ETS (2013 ) Guangdong pilot ETS (2013 ) Tianjin pilot ETS (2013 ) France carbon tax (2014 ) Mexico carbon tax (2014 ) Spain carbon tax (2014 ) Hubei pilot ETS (2014 ) Chongqing pilot ETS (2014 ) Korea ETS (2015 ) Portugal carbon tax (2015 ) BC GGIRCA (2016 ) Australia ERF Safeguard Mechanism
(2016 ) Fujian pilot ETS (2016 ) Washington CAR (2017 )
Ontario CaT (2017 - 2018) Alberta carbon tax (2017 ) Chile carbon tax (2017 ) Colombia carbon tax (2017 ) Massachusetts ETS (2018 ) Argentina carbon tax (2018 ) Canada federal OBPS (2019 ) Singapore carbon tax (2019 ) Nova Scotia CaT (2019 ) Saskatchewan OBPS (2019 ) Newfoundland and Labrador carbon tax (2019 ) Newfoundland and Labrador PSS (2019 ) Canada federal fuel charge (2019 ) Prince Edward Island carbon tax (2019 ) South Africa carbon tax (2019 ) Northwest Territories carbon tax (2019 ) Mexico pilot ETS (2020 ) Virginia ETS (2020 ) New Brunswick carbon tax (2020 ) Germany ETS (2021 ) China national ETS (2021 )
1990
1992
1995
2000
1998
2003
2004
2005
1991
1994
1997
2002
1993
1996
2001
1999
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2018
2019
2020
2021
2017
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Shar
e of
glo
bal a
nnua
l GH
G e
mis
sion
s
3738
41
2 4 5 6 7 8
Number of implemented initiatives
46 48
57
9 10 15 16 19 21
24
32
59
61
Figure ES.3 / Prices in implemented carbon pricing initiatives
Note: Nominal prices on April 1, 2020, shown for illustrative purpose only. The British Columbia GGIRCA, Canada federal OBPS, Kazakhstan ETS, Mexico pilot ETS, Nova Scotia CaT, Newfoundland and Labrador PSS, Saskatchewan OBPS and Washington CAR are not shown in this graph as price information is not available for those initiatives. Prices are not necessarily comparable between carbon pricing initiatives because of differences in the sectors covered and allocation methods applied, specific exemptions, and different compensation methods.
Carb
on p
rice
(US$
/tCO
2e) 120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
119 Sweden carbon tax
68Finland carbon tax (transport fuels)
53 Norway carbon tax (upper)
49 France carbon tax
33 Korea ETS
30 Iceland carbon tax (fossil fuels)
99 Switzerland carbon tax, Liechtenstein carbon tax
58Finland carbon tax (other fossil fuels)
28 Ireland carbon tax (transport fuels), BC carbon tax
21Alberta TIER,
Canada federal fuel charge, Prince Edward Island carbon tax
7South Africa carbon tax
12Beijing pilot ETS
5
Chongqing pilot ETS,RGGI,
Shanghai pilot ETS,Chile carbon tax
3Norway carbon tax (lower),
Tianjin pilot ETS,Japan carbon tax
1
Argentina carbon tax (fuel oil, mineral coal and petroleum coke)
Fujian pilot ETS,Kazakhstan ETS
9Iceland carbon tax (F-gases)
15Québec CaT,California CaT
10 Latvia carbon tax
16 Spain carbon tax
UK carbon price floor, 22 Denmark carbon tax (F-gases), Ireland carbon tax (other fossil fuels)
Colombia carbon tax, Guangdong pilot ETS, 4 Hubei pilot ETS, Singapore carbon tax
Mexico carbon tax (upper), 2 Shenzhen pilot ETS, Estonia carbon tax
Argentina carbon tax (most liquid fuels), 6 Saitama ETS Tokyo CaT
Ukraine carbon tax, <1 Mexico carbon tax (lower), Poland carbon tax
Slovenia carbon tax 19 (fossil fuels), Switzerland ETS, EU ETS
8 Massachusetts ETS
Denmark carbon tax 26 (fossil fuels), Portugal carbon tax
Newfoundland and Labrador carbon tax, 14 New Zealand ETS, Northwest Territories carbon tax
Figure ES.4 / Carbon price, share of emissions covered and carbon pricing revenues of implemented carbon pricing initiatives
Note: Government revenues from carbon taxes, auctioned allowances and direct payments to meet compliance obligations. The size of the circles is proportional to the amount of government revenues except for initiatives with government revenues below US$100 million in 2019; the circles of these initiatives have an equal size. For illustrative purposes only, the nominal prices on April 1, 2020 and the coverages in 2020 are shown. The carbon tax rate applied in Argentina, Finland, Ireland, Mexico and Norway varies with the fossil fuel type and use. The carbon tax rate applied in Denmark and Iceland varies with the GHG type. The graph shows the average carbon tax rate weighted by the amount of emissions covered at the different tax rates in those jurisdictions. The middle point of each circle corresponds to the price and coverage of that initiative.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Share of GHG emissions covered in the jurisdiction
20
10
50
40
30
70
60
100
90
80
110
120
130
0
Carb
on p
rice
(US$
/tCO
2e)
RGGI
Canada federal
fuel charge
Japan carbon tax
Estonia carbon tax
Ireland carbon tax
Spain carbon tax
Switzerland ETS
Latvia carbon
tax
Massachusetts ETSPoland carbon tax
Argentina carbon tax
UK carbon price floor
Slovenia carbon tax
Colombia carbon tax
Liechtenstein carbon tax
Portugal carbon tax
Iceland carbon tax
Switzerland carbon tax
France carbon tax
Finland carbon tax
Chile carbon
tax
Sweden carbon tax
Denmark carbon tax
Prince Edward
Island carbon tax
Hubei pilot ETS
EU ETS
Mexico carbon tax
Newfoundland and Labrador carbon tax
Alberta TIER
New Zealand ETS
Norway carbon tax
BC carbon tax
Korea ETS
Ukraine carbon tax
Northwest Territories carbon tax
California CaT
Québec CaT
Carbon tax ETS
The large circles represent cooperation initiatives on carbon pricing between subnational jurisdictions. The small circles represent carbon pricing initiatives in cities.
Note: RGGI = Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. TCI = Transportation and Climate Initiative. Carbon pricing initiatives are considered “scheduled for implementation” once they have been formally adopted through legislation and have an official, planned start date. Carbon pricing initiatives are considered “under consideration” if the government has announced its intention to work towards the implementation of a carbon pricing initiative and this has been formally confirmed by official government sources. The carbon pricing initiatives have been classified in ETSs and carbon taxes according to how they operate technically. ETS not only refers to cap-and-trade systems, but also baseline-and-credit systems as seen in British Columbia and baseline-and-offset systems as seen in Australia. The authors recognize that other classifications are possible.
Initiatives implemented or scheduled for implementation: National ETSs: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Romania, and Slovakia. National carbon taxes: Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Japan, Singapore, South Africa, and Ukraine. Both national ETSs and carbon taxes: Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Subnational ETSs: Beijing, California, Chongqing, Connecticut, Delaware, Fujian, Guangdong, Hubei, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Nova Scotia, Québec, Rhode Island, Saitama, Saskatchewan, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Tianjin, Tokyo, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington State. Subnational carbon tax: New Brunswick, Northwest Territories, Prince Edward Island. Both subnational ETSs and carbon taxes: Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador. Initiatives under consideration: National ETS or carbon tax: Austria, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Indonesia, Japan, Luxembourg, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Senegal, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Vietnam. Subnational ETS and/or carbon tax: Catalonia, Manitoba, Ontario, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rio de Janeiro, São Paolo, and Taiwan, China.
ETS implemented or scheduled for implementation
Carbon tax implemented or scheduled for implementation ETS or carbon tax under consideration
ETS and carbon tax implemented or scheduled Carbon tax implemented or scheduled, ETS under consideration
ETS implemented or scheduled, ETS or carbon tax under consideration
ETS and carbon tax implemented or scheduled, ETS or carbon tax under consideration
Figure 2.1 / Carbon pricing initiatives implemented, scheduled for implementation and under consideration (ETS and carbon tax)
Ukraine
Norway
UK
Portugal
France
Switzerland
Slovenia
Montenegro
Poland
LatviaEstonia
Finland
Sweden
GermanyDen mark
Ireland
LiechtensteinCatalonia
Spain
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
Austria
Chile
São Paulo
TurkeyChina
Northwest Territories Canada
British Columbia
WashingtonOregon
California
Mexico
Brazil
Rio de Janeiro
South Africa
Australia
New Zealand
EU
KazakhstanRepublic of Korea
Japan
Iceland
Colombia
Argentina
Côte d’Ivoire
Senegal Thailand Vietnam
Indonesia
Shanghai
Shenzhen
Fujian
Beijing
Tianjin
HubeiChongqing
Guangdong
TokyoSaitama
Taiwan
Singapore
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
SaskatchewanOntario
Québec
New Brunswick
Alberta
RGGI
Pennsylvania
Newfoundland and Labrador
TCI
Massachusetts
Virginia
Manitoba
Figure 2.2 / Share of global emissions covered by carbon pricing initiatives (ETS and carbon tax)
Note: Only the introduction or removal of an ETS or carbon tax is shown. Emissions are presented as a share of global GHG emissions from (EDGAR) version 5.0 including biofuels emissions. Annual changes in GHG emissions are not shown in the graph from 2015 onwards. In 2020, the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation (TIER) replaced the Alberta Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation, which in 2018 had replaced the Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation. The information on the China national ETS represents early unofficial estimates based on the announcement of China’s National Development and Reform Commission on the launch of the national ETS of December 2017.
Finland carbon tax (1990 ) Poland carbon tax (1990 ) Norway carbon tax (1991 ) Sweden carbon tax (1991 ) Denmark carbon tax (1992 ) Slovenia carbon tax (1996 ) Estonia carbon tax (2000 ) Latvia carbon tax (2004 ) EU ETS (2005 ) Alberta TIER (2007 ) Switzerland ETS (2008 ) New Zealand ETS (2008 ) Switzerland carbon tax (2008 ) Liechtenstein carbon tax (2008 ) BC carbon tax (2008 ) RGGI (2009 ) Iceland carbon tax (2010 ) Tokyo CaT (2010 ) Ireland carbon tax (2010 ) Ukraine carbon tax (2011 ) Saitama ETS (2011 ) California CaT (2012 )
Japan carbon tax (2012 ) Australia CPM (2012 - 2014) Québec CaT (2013 ) Kazakhstan ETS (2013 ) UK carbon price floor (2013 ) Shenzhen pilot ETS (2013 ) Shanghai pilot ETS (2013 ) Beijing pilot ETS (2013 ) Guangdong pilot ETS (2013 ) Tianjin pilot ETS (2013 ) France carbon tax (2014 ) Mexico carbon tax (2014 ) Spain carbon tax (2014 ) Hubei pilot ETS (2014 ) Chongqing pilot ETS (2014 ) Korea ETS (2015 ) Portugal carbon tax (2015 ) BC GGIRCA (2016 ) Australia ERF Safeguard Mechanism
(2016 ) Fujian pilot ETS (2016 ) Washington CAR (2017 )
Ontario CaT (2017 - 2018) Alberta carbon tax (2017 ) Chile carbon tax (2017 ) Colombia carbon tax (2017 ) Massachusetts ETS (2018 ) Argentina carbon tax (2018 ) Canada federal OBPS (2019 ) Singapore carbon tax (2019 ) Nova Scotia CaT (2019 ) Saskatchewan OBPS (2019 ) Newfoundland and Labrador carbon tax (2019 ) Newfoundland and Labrador PSS (2019 ) Canada federal fuel charge (2019 ) Prince Edward Island carbon tax (2019 ) South Africa carbon tax (2019 ) Northwest Territories carbon tax (2019 ) Mexico pilot ETS (2020 ) Virginia ETS (2020 ) New Brunswick carbon tax (2020 ) Germany ETS (2021 ) China national ETS (2021 )
1990
1992
1995
2000
1998
2003
2004
2005
1991
1994
1997
2002
1993
1996
2001
1999
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2018
2019
2020
2021
2017
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Shar
e of
glo
bal a
nnua
l GH
G e
mis
sion
s
3738
41
2 4 5 6 7 8
Number of implemented initiatives
46 48
57
9 10 15 16 19 21
24
32
59
61
Figure 2.3 / Prices in implemented carbon pricing initiatives
Note: Nominal prices on April 1, 2020, shown for illustrative purpose only. The British Columbia GGIRCA, Canada federal OBPS, Kazakhstan ETS, Mexico pilot ETS, Nova Scotia CaT, Newfoundland and Labrador PSS, Saskatchewan OBPS and Washington CAR are not shown in this graph as price information is not available for those initiatives. Prices are not necessarily comparable between carbon pricing initiatives because of differences in the sectors covered and allocation methods applied, specific exemptions, and different compensation methods.
Carb
on p
rice
(US$
/tCO
2e) 120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
119 Sweden carbon tax
68Finland carbon tax (transport fuels)
53 Norway carbon tax (upper)
49 France carbon tax
33 Korea ETS
30 Iceland carbon tax (fossil fuels)
99 Switzerland carbon tax, Liechtenstein carbon tax
58Finland carbon tax (other fossil fuels)
28 Ireland carbon tax (transport fuels), BC carbon tax
21Alberta TIER,
Canada federal fuel charge, Prince Edward Island carbon tax
7South Africa carbon tax
12Beijing pilot ETS
5
Chongqing pilot ETS,RGGI,
Shanghai pilot ETS,Chile carbon tax
3Norway carbon tax (lower),
Tianjin pilot ETS,Japan carbon tax
1
Argentina carbon tax (fuel oil, mineral coal and petroleum coke)
Fujian pilot ETS,Kazakhstan ETS
9Iceland carbon tax (F-gases)
15Québec CaT,California CaT
10 Latvia carbon tax
16 Spain carbon tax
UK carbon price floor, 22 Denmark carbon tax (F-gases), Ireland carbon tax (other fossil fuels)
Colombia carbon tax, Guangdong pilot ETS, 4 Hubei pilot ETS, Singapore carbon tax
Mexico carbon tax (upper), 2 Shenzhen pilot ETS, Estonia carbon tax
Argentina carbon tax (most liquid fuels), 6 Saitama ETS Tokyo CaT
Ukraine carbon tax, <1 Mexico carbon tax (lower), Poland carbon tax
Slovenia carbon tax 19 (fossil fuels), Switzerland ETS, EU ETS
8 Massachusetts ETS
Denmark carbon tax 26 (fossil fuels), Portugal carbon tax
Newfoundland and Labrador carbon tax, 14 New Zealand ETS, Northwest Territories carbon tax
Figure 2.4 / Carbon price and emissions coverage of implemented carbon pricing initiatives
Note: The British Columbia GGIRCA, Canada federal OBPS, Kazakhstan ETS, Nova Scotia CaT, Newfoundland and Labrador PSS, Saskatchewan OBPS, and Washington CAR are not shown in this graph as price information is not available for those initiatives. The carbon tax rate applied in Argentina, Finland, Ireland, Mexico and Norway varies with the fossil fuel type and use. The carbon tax rate applied in Denmark and Iceland varies with the GHG type. The graph shows the average carbon tax rate weighted by the amount of emissions covered at the different tax rates in those jurisdictions.
Carbon tax ETS
130
120
110
100
90
70
60
50
30
20
10
0
Carb
on p
rice
(US$
/tCO
2e)
80
40
Cumulative emissions covered (MtCO2e)8,0007,0006,0005,0004,0003,0002,0001,0000
Prince Edward Island carbon taxCanada federal fuel charge
Slovenia carbon taxSwitzerland ETS
Sweden carbon tax
Finland carbon tax
Liechtenstein carbon tax
BC carbon taxIceland carbon tax
Denmark carbon taxPortugal carbon taxIreland carbon tax
UK carbon price floorAlberta TIER
Korea ETSNorway carbon tax
France carbon tax
Switzerland carbon tax
Shenzhen pilot ETSEstonia carbon tax
Mexico carbon tax
Argentina carbon tax (fuel oil, mineral coal and petroleum coke) Fujian pilot ETS
Kazakhstan ETSUkraine carbon tax
Poland carbon tax
Shanghai pilot ETS
Chongqing pilot ETS
Guangdong pilot ETS
Japan carbon tax
Colombia carbon tax
Hubei pilot ETS
RGGI
Singapore carbon taxTianjin pilot ETS
Chile carbon tax
Québec CaT
EU ETSSpain carbon tax
California CaT
New Zealand ETS
South Africa carbon taxMassachusetts ETS
Tokyo CaTArgentina carbon tax (most liquid fuels)
Saitama ETS
Beijing pilot ETS
Latvia carbon tax
Northwest Territories carbon taxNewfoundland and Labrador carbon tax
Australia ERF Safeguard Mechanism
Figure 2.5 / Carbon price, share of emissions covered and carbon pricing revenues of implemented carbon pricing initiatives
Note: The size of the circles is proportional to the amount of government revenues except for initiatives with government revenues below US$100 million in 2019; the circles of these initiatives have an equal size. For illustrative purposes only, the nominal prices on April 1, 2020 and the coverages in 2020 are shown. The carbon tax rate applied in Argentina, Finland, Ireland, Mexico and Norway varies with the fossil fuel type and use. The carbon tax rate applied in Denmark and Iceland varies with the GHG type. The graph shows the average carbon tax rate weighted by the amount of emissions covered at the different tax rates in those jurisdictions. The middle point of each circle corresponds to the price and coverage of that initiative.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Share of GHG emissions covered in the jurisdiction
20
10
50
40
30
70
60
100
90
80
110
120
130
0
Carb
on p
rice
(US$
/tCO
2e)
RGGI
Canada federal
fuel charge
Japan carbon tax
Estonia carbon tax
Ireland carbon tax
Spain carbon tax
Switzerland ETS
Latvia carbon
tax
Massachusetts ETSPoland carbon tax
Argentina carbon tax
UK carbon price floor
Slovenia carbon tax
Colombia carbon tax
Liechtenstein carbon tax
Portugal carbon tax
Iceland carbon tax
Switzerland carbon tax
France carbon tax
Finland carbon tax
Chile carbon
tax
Sweden carbon tax
Denmark carbon tax
Prince Edward
Island carbon tax
Hubei pilot ETS
EU ETS
Mexico carbon tax
Newfoundland and Labrador carbon tax
Alberta TIER
New Zealand ETS
Norway carbon tax
BC carbon tax
Korea ETS
Ukraine carbon tax
Northwest Territories carbon tax
California CaT
Québec CaT
Carbon tax ETS
Figure 2.6 / Carbon pricing initiatives implemented or scheduled for implementation, with sectoral coverage and GHG emissions covered
*
*****
****
Note: The size of the circles reflects the volume of GHG emissions in each jurisdiction. Symbols show the sectors and/or fuels covered under the respective carbon pricing initiatives. The largest circle (China) is equivalent to 13.2 GtCO2e and the smallest circle (Switzerland) to 0.05 GtCO2e. The carbon pricing initiatives have been classified in ETSs and carbon taxes according to how they operate technically. ETS does not only refer to cap-and-trade systems, but also baseline-and-credit systems such as British Columbia and baseline-and-offset systems such as in Australia. Carbon pricing has evolved over the years and they do not necessarily follow the two categories in a strict sense. The authors recognize that other classifications are possible.
The coverage includes the China national ETS and eight ETS pilots. The coverage represents early unofficial estimates based on the announcement of China’s National Development and Reform Commission on the launch of the national ETS of December 2017 and takes into account the GHG emissions that will be covered under the national ETS and are already covered under the ETS pilots. The sector symbol refers to the covered sectors in the national ETS or (one of the) ETS pilots. The national ETS will initially cover the power sector only. The covered sectors vary per ETS pilot.Also includes Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Carbon tax emissions are the emissions covered under various national carbon taxes; the scope varies per tax.ETS emissions are the emissions covered under the Tokyo CaT and Saitama ETS. The coverage includes both components of the Canada federal backstop system and the subnational carbon pricing initiatives.
IndustryPower TransportAviation
BuildingsWasteForestryAgriculture
All fossil fuels (tax only)Solid fossil fuelsLiquid fossil fuelsShipping
ETS implemented or scheduled for implementationCarbon tax implemented or scheduled for implementationETS and carbon tax implemented or scheduledEstimated coverage%
Japan***
65%
2%Washington
67%
Massachusetts
20%
Virginia
30% 33%
11%
Switzer- land
Kazakhstan
50%
RGGI
18%
EU**
4%
49%
8% Ukraine
71%
Canada****
41%
34%70%
Republic of Korea
California
85%
Australia
50% 51%
New Zealand
80%
South Africa Singapore
80%
China*
33%
Argentina
20%
Chile
39%
Colombia
24%
Mexico
37%
46%
452 | Regional, national and subnational carbon pricing initiatives
Figure 3.1 / High-level example of how carbon crediting works
Implementation of emission reduction project
Issuance of carbon credits
Business as usual (BAU)Waste water plant, methane is being vented
BAU emissions
Time
Emis
sion
s
Emission reduction projectMethane captured and combusted to generate electricity
Time
Emis
sion
s Emission reductions eligible for crediting
Remaining emissions
BAU levels
Carbon credits generationCreation of carbon credits equal to the emissions reduced in tCO2
Time
Emis
sion
s Carbon credits can be sold as offsets or to determine RBCF payments
Carbon credits
Crediting mechanism
Figure 3.2 / Total credit issuance volumes by registry, sector, and region as of December 31, 2019
AlbertaB
ChinaC
SwitzerlandD
Republic of KoreaE
J-Credit SchemeBritish ColumbiaF
JCMQuébecG
GuangdongH
FujianI
RGGIBeijing J
ACR
Australia ERF
CaliforniaA
CAR
CDM
GS
JI
VCS
Agriculture
Forestry
Fuel switch
Industrial gases
Renewable energy
Transport
Waste
Manu facturing
CCS/CCU
Other land use
Fugitive emissions
Energy efficiency
East Asia & Pacific
East Asia & Pacific
Europe & Central Asia
Latin America & the Caribbean
North America
South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Middle East & North Africa
A California Compliance Offset ProgramB Alberta Emission OffsetC China GHG Voluntary Emission Reduction ProgramD Switzerland CO2 Attestations Crediting Mechanism
E Republic of Korea Offset Credit Mechanism
F British Columbia OffsetG Québec Offset Crediting
H Guangdong Pu Hui Offset Crediting Mechanism
I Fujian Forestry Offset Crediting MechanismJ Beijing Forestry Offset Mechanism
Note: To ensure consistency between the information presented from the different crediting mechanisms, the cut-off date for the data on the crediting mechanisms is December 31, 2019. Only the largest independent carbon crediting mechanisms which issue credits that can be used for compliance obligations have been considered in this report. The authors recognize that numerous other independent crediting mechanisms exist that generate credits sold on the voluntary carbon market. Credits generated under the Saitama crediting mechanism, the Saitama forest absorption certification system, the Switzerland CO2 attestation crediting mechanism and Tokyo offset mechanism are not shown due to data limitations.
Figure 3.3 / Annual number of projects and issuances of covered crediting mechanisms for 2002–2019134
Annual volume of credit issuances Annual number of registered projects
Num
ber o
f pro
ject
s
Volu
me
(kto
n CO
2e)
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
0 0
200,000
400,000
600,000
1,000,000
800,000
2003
2004
2005
2002
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2018
2019
2017
134 Historical trends do not include mechanisms where chronological data on crediting activities are not available. These mechanisms are those under the Chinese pilot ETS’s (Beijing, Fujian and Guangdong), Tokyo ETS and Saitama ETS. The volume of credits involved are small and their exclusion does not impact the overall trends shown.
Figure 3.4 / Annual volume of issuances by crediting mechanism for 2015–2019
China GHG Voluntary Emission Reduction Program Republic of Korea Offset Credit Mechanism British Columbia Offset Program J-Credit Scheme Fujian Forestry Offset Crediting Mechanism Guangdong Québec Offset Crediting Mechanism Beijing Forestry Offset Mechanism RGGI JCM
CDM
JI
VCS
California Compliance Offset Program
GS
Australia ERF
CAR
Alberta Emission Offset System
ACR
Num
ber o
f pro
ject
s
100,000
50,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
0
2015
2016
2018
2019
2017
0
2015
2016
2018
2019
2017
0
2015
2016
2018
2019
2017
Figure 3.5 / Issuance volumes in ktonCO2e by sector and type of mechanism for 2015–2019
350,000300,000250,000200,000150,000100,00050,0000(kton CO2e)
Forestry
Renewable energy
CCS/CCU
Transport
Fuel switch
Industrial gases
Fugitive emissions
Energy efficiency
Agriculture
Other land use
Manufacturing
Waste
International Independent Regional, national, subnational
Figure 3.6 / Status of regional, national and subnational crediting mechanisms
Mexico crediting mechanism
South Africa crediting mechanism
Switzerland CO2 Attestations Crediting Mechanism
Kazakhstan crediting mechanism
Republic of Korea Offset Credit Mechanism
Canada GHG Offset System
China GHG Voluntary Emission Reduction Program
California Compliance Offset Program
J-Credit Scheme,JCM
Beijing Forestry Offset Mechanism
Fujian Forestry Offset Crediting Mechanism
Guangdong Pu Hui Offset Crediting Mechanism
Tokyo offset mechanism
Saitama crediting mechanism,Saitama forest absorption certification system
Washington State crediting mechanism
Alberta Emission Offset System
Québec Offset Crediting Mechanism
RGGI CO2 Offset Mechanism
British Columbia Offset Program
Nova Scotia crediting mechanism
Implemented
Under development
Australia ERF
Note: The large circles represent cooperation initiatives on crediting between subnational jurisdictions. The small circles represent crediting mechanisms in cities. JCM = Joint Crediting Mechanism. RGGI = Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Implemented crediting mechanisms have the required legislative mandate as well as the supporting procedures, emission reduction protocols and registry systems in place to allow for cediting to take place. Crediting mechanisms are considered to be under development if they have legislature in place allowing for the future implementation of carbon crediting system but has currently not issued any credits either due to missing components such as registries and protocols. The authors recognize that numerous other independent crediting mechanisms exist that generate credits sold on the voluntary carbon market. Crediting mechanisms implemented: National: China GHG Voluntary Emission Reduction Program, J-Credit Scheme, Republic of Korea Offset Credit Mechanism, Switzerland CO2 Attestations Crediting Mechanism. Subnational: Fujian Forestry Offset Crediting Mechanism, Guangdong Pu Hui Offset Crediting Mechanism, Québec Offset Crediting Mechanism, Saitama crediting mechanism, Saitama forest absorption certification system, Tokyo offset mechanism. Crediting mechanisms under development: National: Canada GHG Offset System, Kazakhstan crediting mechanism, Mexico crediting mechanism, South Africa crediting mechanism. Subnational: Nova Scotia crediting mechanism, Washington State crediting mechanism.
Figure 4.1 / Status of net zero CO2 emissions targets by country241
Adopted in legislation
Achieved
Proposed in legislation
Suriname
Chile
Fiji
Spain
Bhut
an
Denm
ark
France
New Zealand
Sweden
Uni
ted
King
dom
241 110 countries which, as of April 1, 2020, are developing plans to achieve net zero CO2 emissions are not shown in this figure.
350 companies
427
408
176
206
294
296
67
61
50.1%Change internal behavior
58.4%Drive energy efficiency
61.1%Drive low-carbon investment
42.3%Identify and seize low-carbon opportunities
42.1%Navigate GHG regulations
29.5%Stakeholder expectations
25.2%Stress test investments
8.7%Supplier engagement
9.6%Other
Figure 5.1 / Objectives for implementing an internal carbon price305
305 CDP, CDP Disclosure 2019, https://www.cdp.net/en/climate/carbon-pricing/carbon-pricing-connect