Talk:European Union Emissions Trading System

banking & borrowing

This section contradicts itself, in one it states that interperiod bankins is not allowed and in another it says most countries allow it between phase 2 and 3. Also, I could not find anything about interperiod banking between phase 2 and phase 3 in the reference link. It would be great if somebody that knows for real could rewrite the section with proper references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.83.35.48 (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I came here to ask the very same question. I have read the legislation backwards, and have seen no official mention of allowing banking between phases, but have seen this mistake repeated in news articles and unofficial guidance pieces (and countless other mistakes!). I'm taking it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.218.82 (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Art. 13 - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0029&from=EN

Its absolut for sure that banking from II to III was allowed — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertNesta83 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Where is the market located?

I don't understand from the article where these credits are actually traded; presumably there is some market somewhere or a webpage...or do stockbrokers deal in them? It all seems pretty abstract.... User:markbenjamin

most of the EUAs are traded via exchange (70%), whereas most of the CERs (from CDM project) and ERUs (from JI projects) are traded OTC. of the exchange traded carbon credits more than 95% are traded as futures and more than 90% of the futures are traded at the ICE/ECX exchange (https://www.theice.com/productguide/ProductGroupHierarchy.shtml?groupDetail=&group.groupId=19). almost all exchange spot deal are closed by the BlueNext exchange (http://www.bluenext.eu/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.255.15 (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Caps?

meaningless number --CorvetteZ51 12:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

After reading this article, I get the impression that is was written by an Ecofys employee! Although it's succinct and informative, the number of times the name "Ecofys" appears (especially in the "Environmental Consequenses" section), makes it tend to read as if its an extended advert for the company. Surely the point of links within an article is to avoid the needless repetition of associated authors or companies? I also understand that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a platform for advertising private businesses. Either Ecofys should confine themselves to a single reference (preferably in the footnotes) or they should take the effort to provide a less biased article by:

(i) referring to more than one commercial player in the EUETS (e.g ERM, Enviros, PointCarbon, Capital Carbon Markets, Cantor Fitzgerald etc.);

(ii) referring to major governmental organisations, such as Defra in the UK or VROM in the Netherlands, which are, after all, responsible for establishing the NAPS. --Specul8 13:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who wrote the two references to ECOFYS studies in the article, and I am in no way affiliated with ECOFYS nor any other organization mentioned in this article. It so happens that ECOFYS has written several key ETS reports and reviews on important aspects of ETS functioning, and I try to follow common practise of crediting the author, which also offers the reader some chance of assessing the credibility of the work. You're free to remove any references that may be unnecessary. Other companies you mention have also written on ETS, but to my knowledge generally not on environmental effectiveness issues. Besides, some of those you mention have conflicts of interest that makes them unsuited for such a review. That said, anybody is more than welcome to add references to more important works, if available, including on other issues of general interest than what is now included.Jens Nielsen 17:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

General Readability

Assuming the purpose of the Wiki is to make important matters like this accessbile to the widest possible audience, I think contributors need to consistently write with an explanatory purpose. I'm trying to understand how this trading of emissions credits occurs and what effects change the prices of credits. I'd like to look at an example of how a country creates its National Allocation Plan, resulting in credits to be traded. I fear that the whole system of trading simply becomes a way to make carbon reductions an abstract mystery, allowing a lot of questionable credits and trading practices. But I need to understand more and look to a source like Wikipedia to provide clarity in such a complex topic.

kdraayer

ETS is an abstract and complex issue, and I share your concern, but please try to refer to the text that needs improvement. Jens Nielsen 17:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

There are now some much better and more detailed figures out on ETS emissions - including all 27 countries and the first three years. However I'm not sure I know enough abnout editing to drop em into the table.

They are here

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/787&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Mona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monalisaoverdrive (talk • contribs) 12:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference link requires a login

Just wanted to point out that the link to "Ecofys evaluation of preliminary Phase 2 NAPs" pops up a "please login" page. This link should be fixed/removed, but I'll leave it to people watching this page who'll know better than I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.5.165 (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

references

We need more information about the given sources. Anyone knows how to do that when using the current citation style? --Spitzl 18:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It would give much more clear information about the given sources if we used Wikipedia:Citation_templates. So should we switch? --spitzl 10:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

stop the shit,,,, ETS and Kyoto are not related

stop trying to fool people CorvetteZ51 (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Below is an extract of a message I posted on CorvetteZ51's talk page on 12 December 2007 to explain its inter-related nature:

1. Like any stock market, there are two parts to the trading mechanism - the market process, and the settlement process. The spot, futures & options markets systems operate independent of the ETS & Kyoto settlement systems, other than their contracts, which are compatible. But post-trade, the "settlement" systems are run by government bodies and are what enforce the Kyoto-ness on everything. Most market players don't need to be aware of this unless there is a problem somewhere.
2. Phase II of the EU ETS will operate entirely under the Kyoto umbrella and coincides with the 5 year Kyoto Compliance period [2008-2012]...the EC have added their own extra processes such as requiring a "surrender" of allowances to the commission for checking before the Kyoto retirement phase. ... The UNFCCC systems validate EU allowances etc before they get passed to the EC systems for checking. Of course, this linkage has to be the case for CERs, ERUs, etc. to be fungible with EUAs, otherwise you will be comparing apples with oranges.
3. For Phase I the process was similar, although the ETS EUAs only cover 1 type of GHG (as defined per Kyoto), and the NAP is set wholly within Europe without consulting third parties. Of course, the UN doesn't validate EUA trades during Phase I. However the Kyoto-compatibility issue still stands as the operators in Phase I need to access CERs during this period, and the CDM executive has been busy approving lots of CDM projects for the last year or two for them...

Ephebi (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

I removed this paragraph subject which has remained unsubstantiated by any public announcements by the EC or national governments.

The EUETS have recently stated that the wish to hand over the current business scheme to a large company or investment firm which will effectively run it and they hope to hand over the scheme by the end of 2010. The hand over will mean the company which takes over control all prices and to whom they allocate the caps to and how i.e. they will be able to sell the caps directly to industries and large firms instead of the current scheme which involves distributing the caps to government who then take the costs through taxes.

• Ephebi (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Article name

The current article is titled: European Union Emission Trading Scheme - however the offical term per the EU is actually Emissions Trading Scheme. Unless there is a good reason why, I propose to rename this article soon to match the actual term. Ephebi (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We should use European Union Emissions Trading Scheme instead and change the redirect.--spitzl (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so does anyone know how to move this? I haven't worked on wikipedia for years and forgot. --Che010 (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Climate change in the European Union

It is necessary to create an article about Climate change in the European Union, witha a link to the European Union Emission Trading Scheme --Mac (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms section

The Criticisms section makes reference to a KEMA document to support an implication that EU ETS has contributed to a rise in energy prices to industrial consumers, however the KEMA document only covers prices upto and including 2004, which predates the EU ETS. KEMA explicitly draw attention to this and comment that carbon influence is definately not included in their numbers. The causal link between EU ETS and prices to consumers is therefore unsupported. The whole criticisms section is a bit pants anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.181.66 (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why there even is a Criticism section here but no Defense or Affirmation section. Hardly seems fair and balanced. Aside from the objections raised to this section's content, its existence absent a countervaling opinion seems like bad idea. Dshafer (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate and unbalanced

The criticisms section makes it sound like the ETS is basically a total failure. This is incorrect. The sources sited are hardly authoritative (newspaper staff writers). I am working on a rewrite based on more rigorous sources. Sharp11 (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Now the criticism section sounded like the criticism was there only to be disproven. As a result, no criticism is actually presented. I added a Newsrelease-tag. 4 October 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.33.23 (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur: it may be useful to add a critical review of the EU-ETS, it will certainly be more interesting than EU ETS "bashing" which is against the Wikipedia:Five_pillars, more in particular pillar 2: Wikipedia articles should offer a Neutral_point_of_view. I think the ETS is a fantastic opportunity to bring printing of "Money" - "Carbon Money"- money of the Low Greenhouse Gas Economy hopefully Sustainable Economy into the hands of the citizen and away from those who are in power of the Fossil Based Military-Economic Complex. Somewhere it should be possible for readers to find a link where the challenges of creating a Low Greenhouse Gas Economy are described, the Potential of the Low Greenhouse Gas Economy. --SvenAERTS (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Added another source to the criticisms: CARBON TRADING – HOW IT WORKS AND WHY IT FAILS Carbon Trade Watch Critical Currents no. 7, November 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.205.163.118 (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Numerous problems with article

Allocation

In order to make sure that real trading emerges (and that CO2 emissions are reduced), EU governments must make sure that the total amount of allowances issued to installations is less than the amount that would have been emitted under a business-as-usual scenario

This is wrong. The Ellerman and Buchner (see article) study shows that even under Phase I, emissions were reduced. The idea that no abatement would take place would surely mean a consistent carbon price of zero, would it not? A non-zero carbon price will result in some abatement. I've changed this to:

In an ETS, the total number of permits issued (either auctioned or allocated) determines the price for carbon. The actual carbon price is determined by the market. Too many allowances will result in a low carbon price, and reduced emission abatement efforts (Newbery, 2009). Too few allowances will result in too high a carbon price (Hepburn, 2006, p. 239).

Criticism

During Phase I, most allowances in all countries were given freely (known as grandfathering). This approach has been criticized[by whom?] as giving rise to windfall profits, being less efficient than auctioning, and providing too little incentive for innovative new competition to provide clean, renewable energy.[opinion needs balancing]

This ignores the competitive losses faced by some sectors. As I understand it, this is an argument for allocation, or least some form of subsidy. In any case, the views of industry should be included in the article.

Criticisms

I've renamed the section on "criticism" to views on the EU ETS. This is a dreadful section, and is utterly unencyclopedic in its style.

Tone and style

The names of critics and proponents are not given, and the style of writing is not objective. The section should present information in a detatched and objective fashion. Instead, we have competing arguments made in a personalized style, where editors have taken up particular positions.

There's an inappropriate choice of language, e.g., caps are modest/stringent/too lenient. These are all POV statements, and should be explained and attributed.

Neutrality

The section is clearly not neutral. There is no information on the successes of the EU ETS, e.g., emission abatement at low cost, actually getting an ETS up-and-running at all. Obviously it would help to have the EU's position put forward to counter criticisms. Enescot (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

References

article name

To match the lead sentence of this article, I changed the article name to match it as 'European Union Emission Trading System'. Now which is wrong? The lead sentence (then correct it) or the article name I used. References and links in the article seem to use 'system' Hmains (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that the official title is "System" and not "Scheme" [1] This should be updated throughout. 217.108.28.129 (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is simply wrong. The defining EU directive and its amendments refer to it as "Scheme". Read talk above. The Europeans use British English which properly describes it as: European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (note the plural). "Emission Trading" (singular) is an Americanism which is incorrect in this context. For the actual wording see: Europa , which also calls it in full a "greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme" which is even more of a mouthful! Technically the ETS is not "a system" - in fact, there are many "systems" that support the scheme that operate within the EU and the UNFCCC. I appreciate that the difference is subtle, but the problem came about because the title paragraph was subtly wrong, not the article name. (As its such a mouthful, people always call it "the ETS" and so they don't have to remember what its really called or get their grammar right. Thus you will even see this error creep into EU statements at times.) Ephebi (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have heard officials from the UK Environment Agency specifically correct themselves when they refer to it as a 'scheme'. I think they got fed up of people making jokes about 'schemes' being sinister, and have made an effort to rebrand it as a system. I doubt this is official enough to change, nor is there a specific place to cite - but it explains the confusion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.218.82 (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Article move

Can someone with appropriate abilities please move this article. Some time ago it was incorrectly renamed as: European Union Emission Trading Scheme, from European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. Detailed discussion has ensued (see above) and article text now correctly refers to 'Emissions trading' - note teh correct use of the plural. But the page names need to be swapped back so that the main article is correctly called: 'European Union Emissions Trading Scheme'. The current page European Union Emission Trading Scheme needs to be a redirect. Ephebi (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Causes of price increases

"Proponents argue that while it is true that over the course of EU ETS Phase I, the price of electricity more than tripled, this price increase was caused primarily by world energy prices and structural aspects of the electricity market and not by the ETS."Chartier, Daniel; Holdsworth, Eric (2008). "The windfall profits debate" (PDF). Environmental Finance: 37. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I have moved this statement from the article and its source to discussion page. The statement is not supported by the source. The source is about whether free allocation necessarily causes windfall profits. Mrfebruary (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

January 2011 problems

I haven't time to process this, so I just dumped it here. Sorry. Please remove this material in due course or if inappropriate that it is even here. -- Robbiemorrison (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Double trouble for carbon markets

Published 6:27 AM, 28 Jan 2011

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/double-trouble-carbon-markets

Bloomberg New Energy Finance

Last week was a tumultuous one for Europe’s carbon market. First of all, news of the theft of millions of dollars worth of permits resulted in a halt to some trading. Then a communication error about the eligibility of certain emissions credits forced traders to rush to buy back futures contracts they had sold minutes earlier.

The credibility of the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the world’s largest market for buying and selling greenhouse gases, was called into question last Wednesday following reports that hackers stole pollution permits worth up to €29 million ($US39 million). After the reported theft of permits, known as European Union Allowances or EUAs, from accounts in the Czech Republic and Austria, the European Commission announced it would freeze spot trading in the EU ETS until security was improved at all 30 of the bloc’s emission registries. The suspension had no effect on the futures market.

For many traders, it was about time the Commission got serious about increasing security in the emission market. Last week’s hacking attacks were the most recent entries on a list of mishaps stretching back to 2008 or so. Over time the EU ETS has been hit by cases of tax fraud totalling billions of euros, phishing scams and the illegal sale of carbon credits already submitted for compliance.

Yet the system has been the bloc’s most effective means for fighting climate change. The scheme currently covers around 2 gigatonnes of emissions. The EU ETS, which started as a model for a future global cap-and-trade program, puts a price on carbon by setting limits on the amount of emissions polluters can produce. Those producing more than the limit must buy permits to offset their emissions, allowing those that emit less to sell their balance in the market.

Currently, permits are held in national registries. But that will change in 2013 when emission permits will be held in one central clearing house. Many argue that consolidation should make the entire system safer by reducing the number of places where EUAs need to be checked and verified. This could help avoid scandals like those in the Czech Republic and Austria last week.

Meanwhile, the Commission said it will require countries in the EU ETS to add security procedures for accessing accounts in national registries. These procedures could include additional passwords sent to mobile phones, or the use of ID cards.

Somewhat surprisingly, EUA futures performed well despite the scandals. Benchmark EUAs ended the week 0.07% higher than the previous, closing at €14.50 per tonne of emissions.

Along with EU emissions permits, the ETS also allows participants to trade a limited amount of credits generated by United Nations-sponsored offsets. In the 2008-12 trading period, emitters in the European programme can swap as many as 1.6 billion UN credits with EU permits on a one-for-one basis.

This has generated its own amount of controversy in the EU over the years. The issue has focused on the quality of UN offsets linked to certain industrial gases. While these emissions are harmful to the ozone layer, the destruction of industrial gases like hydrofluorocarbon-23 (HFC-23), a by-product of the manufacture of HCFC-22, a refrigerant, can generate extremely high volumes of offsetting credits and mega-profits.

EU member states voted last week to ban offsets linked to HFC-23 and some nitrous oxide credits in the ETS because their “exorbitant” return rates can create a “perverse incentive” for investors and undermine the market’s integrity.

The decision did not come as much of a surprise to many in the carbon market, but the detail that sent prices fluctuating was the date in which the ban was to be enacted. The European Commission released an initial statement on 21 January, the day of the vote, saying carbon offsets linked to certain industrial gases would be prohibited as of January 2013.

This had immediate impact on December 2012 and March 2013 forward contracts. Indeed, the premiums enjoyed by UN emission credits for March 2013 over those for December 2012 widened to a record 90 euro cents after the announcement. Soon after, the Commission retracted its initial statement and said the ban would instead be enacted as of 30 April 2013. As UN emissions traders hurried to buy back the contracts they sold, the spread reversed €1.10 on London’s ICE Futures Europe.

A Commission spokeswoman later blamed the miscommunication on a “technical hiccup” due to “human error”. The financial consequences of such a mistake, however, are probably not as minor.

ENDS

Add wikilink to general topic of Carbon pricing.

Add wikilink to general topic of Carbon pricing. 99.119.131.5 (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? It should link to carbon exchange or carbon trading; carbon pricing is only relevant through those, so should not be specifically linked in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

A five billion Euro fraud

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00zf34j/Costing_the_Earth_Carbon_Trading I just cut out the section "Ineffectiveness of European Union Emission Trading Scheme". Which had one sentence with this BBC interview as a source. The article actually linked to was not the BBC, but this: http://www.claverton-energy.com/eu-ets-second-phase-has-cut-ghg-emissions-by-0-33-5-billion-euro-fraud.html. Which calls the Emission Trading Scheme a five billion dollar fraud. I think that kind of statement requires a shit-ton more evidence than a passing comment by some random ass in a BBC podcast interview of a dozen random asses.TheThomas (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your edit. Mrfebruary (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The VAT fraud topic needs to get a separate section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.255.15 (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

20MW of heat excess?

FTA -- "The EU ETS currently covers more than 10,000 installations with a net heat excess of 20 MW in the energy and industrial sectors which are collectively responsible for close to half of the EU's emissions of CO2 and 40% of its total greenhouse gas emissions.[2][3]"

Perhaps I'm missing the point of 'net heat excess of 20 MW,' but as a PhD chemical engineer, I should probably understand this sentence and I don't. For any possible meaning I can think of, 20 MW is off by several orders of magnitude... 20 GW maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.104.60 (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I looked into it a bit and now realize the intent is that 20 MW is the threshold for regulation. Suggest edit to '10,000 installations EACH with a net heat excess of 20 MW...' to make that clearer.

Offsetting

I moved out "Offsetting" from "Views on the ETS". Offsetting is one way to use the ETS, not a view on it, thus I think it deserves a whole section. Until now, it described only one way of offsetting (project based), so I added a second one (buying and deleting emissions allowances). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.36.8 (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

global warming policy and emissions trading knowledge in the EU

If you have no formal education nor institutional knowledge of the inner workings of the EU decision making process, please do not edit this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.224.251 (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not the most cooperative suggestion... Others may have knowledge about CO2, treaties, translating knowledge into encyclopaedias, spelling and wikipedia editing guidelines; which all is very helpful... L.tak (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

195.245.224.251, if you have no knowledge, or no understanding of, or no willingness to abide by, Wikipedia's content policies such as WP:OR, please, do not edit this article.--greenrd (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Close to 50%

The lede states that close to 50% is (was) covered by the scheme. Is this 50% of anthropogenic emissions? L.tak (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent reverts

195.245.224.251, I would like to know why you recently reverted 2 of my changes - but first, I want to know a more basic thing - why did you revert revision 640126989 by Rjwilmsi, which essentially just changed CO2 into CO₂?--greenrd (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Union Emission Trading Scheme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060215004933/http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/trading/eu/pdf/including-aviation-icf.pdf to http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/trading/eu/pdf/including-aviation-icf.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Consistent terminology

It would be nice if a consistent terminology covering "allowances", "certificates", and "permits" could be established and a note added to say that other the terms are equivalent. I imagine (but could be wrong) that the official material uses just one definition. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the Commission website, the correct term appears to be emission allowance. I won't make this change until a consensus builds. Alternatively, someone else might like to do the edits. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European Union Emission Trading Scheme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114050347/http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/members/cameron.hepburn/Hepburn%20%282006%2C%20Oxrep%29%20Regulation%20by%20P%20or%20Q.pdf to http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/members/cameron.hepburn/Hepburn%20%282006%2C%20Oxrep%29%20Regulation%20by%20P%20or%20Q.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111128113617/http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/europes-287bn-carbon-waste-ubs-report/story-fn59niix-1226203068972 to http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/europes-287bn-carbon-waste-ubs-report/story-fn59niix-1226203068972

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on European Union Emission Trading Scheme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303201716/http://www.carbon-financeonline.com/index.cfm?section=lead&action=view&id=10948&linkref=cnews to http://www.carbon-financeonline.com/index.cfm?section=lead&action=view&id=10948&linkref=cnews
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411145740/http://www.emissierechten.nl/marktanalyse.htm to http://www.emissierechten.nl/marktanalyse.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411145740/http://www.emissierechten.nl/marktanalyse.htm to http://www.emissierechten.nl/marktanalyse.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312014835/http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/europe/what_we_do/epo/initiatives/climate/publications/index.cfm?uNewsID=50500 to http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/europe/what_we_do/epo/initiatives/climate/publications/index.cfm?uNewsID=50500

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Australian political debates

The article is being used as part of apolitical debate in Australia around whether they have an ETS there. This debate in Australia is neither relevant, neutral or informed for contributing to this article. It comes across as odd that an article on the European ETS makes prominent references political publications in Australia, giving them a high prominence. The following sections should be removed:

"Overall, since its conception, the EU ETS has been characterized by relatively high levels of policy uncertainty.[17] This uncertainty has been both technical, in terms of its detailed rules and procedures, and political, in terms of its public, industry, and governmental support. As a result, the scheme has resulted in a rather informal and tepid response by regulated organizations."

This is an unrelated assertion that doesn't belong in the summary, and the only citation given is a paper about environmental policies in Australia, and does not support the assertion made in the article here.

"According to a 2011 report by UBS Investment Research, the EU ETS cost $287 billion through to 2011 and had an "almost zero impact" on the volume of overall emissions in the European Union and the money could have resulted in more than a 40% reduction in emissions if it had been used in a targeted way, e.g., to upgrade power plants.[82]"

This text should be left to the political press in Australia, where the cited evidence is from. The Australian is a right-wing publication that opposes all policies tackling climate change. The UBS Note is nowhere to be found and its description here is highly problematic in a number of ways that go against economic theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davejf (talk • contribs) 14:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 00:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

---

European Union Emission Trading Scheme → European Union Emissions Trading System – This move was last discussed on the talk page (and part of it performed and reverted) in 2010. Two pertinent developments have occurred since: a) The EU has adopted Directive (EU) 2018/410 amending Directive 2003/87/EC, replacing (pursuant to Article 1 (2)) "scheme" by "system" throughout that directive. Accordingly, official EU pages (e.g. this one) now relatively consistently refer to the EU ETS as the "EU Emissions Trading System"; most remaining references to the "Emissions Trading Scheme" are historical. b) Even before this official change, the prevalence of "EU Emissions Trading System" had caught up with that of "EU Emissions Trading Scheme" (Google Ngram Viewer). Note that in addition to the change from "Scheme" to "System", the move would also replace the singular "Emission" by the plural "Emissions" as used on official EU pages; this is well supported, independent of the "Scheme"/"System" choice, by ngram counts for system and for scheme. Note also that the article already introduces its subject as the "European Union Emissions Trading System" and is thus currently inconsistent. Joriki (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support per reasons cited above --Ita140188 (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per reasons cited above Chidgk1 (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --LukeSurl ^t c 14:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cleaning the article - is it better to shorten information on phases 1-3, or move to individual page?

Dear all,

The current ETS text feels quite outdated, as it is a long article with lots of detailed information on the first phases (including old criticism), but it is hard to find the (currently much more relevant) information on phase 4 and the current challenges and reforms. Also, the general description of the Mechanism at the beginning focuses a lot on the initial allocation via national allocation plans etc - interesting for the history of the EU ETS, but not relevant for the current system.

Given my limited wikipedia experience: Is it better to shorten/delete information on the phases 1-3, or to move them to a separate wikipedia page, eg. "First two phases of the European Union Emissions Trading System" or "Creation and first years of the European Union Emissions Trading System"? --Allavion (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Import tariff

If an EU country imports fossil fuels, for example coal from the US, does that imported fuel count against the cap? Does the exporting country have to pay a tariff to account for this cap? Thanks! Lbeaumont (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)