On April 30, 2010, more than 70 people gathered for an all-day workshop on emissions trading at Purdue University’s Discovery Park. The Purdue Climate Change Research Center (PCCRC) organized the event to provide public stakeholders from academia, government, environmental groups, and industry with the opportunity to interact in a non-partisan manner with academic and private-sector experts regarding the strengths and weaknesses of different emission trading proposals.
Below is the Emissions Trading Workshop Summary Report, which synthesizes some of the main lessons derived from the in-depth workshop discussions. You can download a PDF of the full report or of its separate sections. Following the report, you’ll find videos of the Emissions Trading Workshop presentations and downloadable PDFs of the presentation slides.
Emissions Trading Workshop - Introduction and Overview
Alan Rebar, Senior Associate Vice President for Research, Executive Director of Discovery Park at Purdue |
|
EU and US cap and trade programsDenny Ellerman, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyEllerman speaks to the application of emissions trading in its cap-and-trade form to the regulation of air emissions. He focuses on the essential components of these systems and what has been learned from various public policy experiments in designing these components. ITQ’s and “catch-share” fisheriesSeth Macinko, University of Rhode IslandMacinko looks outside the carbon trading realm for possible lessons from recent trends regarding "rights based" fishing. In particular, he discusses equity concerns, community impacts, resource rent, and "privileges" versus "rights" in fisheries trading systems. CCX experience with US mandatory and voluntary markets.Michael Walsh, Chicago Climate ExchangeWalsh discusses lessons learned from implementation of U.S. and international carbon markets, and touch on key issues and challenges. He discusses the outlook for participation by agriculture and forestry sectors. Water quality tradingRichard Woodward, Texas A&MWoodward discusses the state of efforts to develop water quality trading, mostly in the US and the challenges that these markets face when compared to markets for air pollutants. Since many of these programs seek to incorporate nonpoint sources, he highlights the challenges that result and what has been done to address these challenges. Panel 1 Discussion |
|
The initial allocation: choices and implicationsDon Fullerton, University of IllinoisFullerton discusses the pros and cons of alternative uses for valuable carbon dioxide emissions permits. Whether those permits are handed out, or sold at auction, the value of those permits can to be given to existing polluters or allocated to research on renewable fuels, to spend on abatement technology, to retrain workers laid off by cutbacks in carbon-intensive industries, to reduce corporate or individual income taxes, to reduce the deficit, or to compensate low-income families who spend a higher than average fraction of their income on carbon- intensive products like electricity or heating fuel. Allowance Allocation and Effects on the Electricity SectorKaren Palmer, Resource for the Future Different methods of allocating CO2 emission allowances will have different effects on the price of electricity paid by consumers and the cost of a cap-and-trade program. The traditional approach of allocating emissions allowances to electricity generators will result in regional disparities in the electricity price effects of a climate policy, in part because of different regulatory frameworks across the states. Allocating allowances to regulated local distribution companies addresses this issue, but in a way that increases cost for the economy as a whole. Greater reliance on a cap-and-dividend approach, under which a portion of the value of emission allowances is distributed to households on a per capita basis, will achieve the goal of compensating consumers and do so at a lower cost. Design lessons from California and other regional programsBarry Rabe, University of MichiganThe last decade has witnessed an unanticipated proliferation of state and regional policies that attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Twenty-three states, in collaboration with five Canadian provinces, have established three regional entities that establish common goals for emissions reduction via some version of emissions trading. Rabe’s discussion will examine early performance to date, placing particular emphasis on issues of sustaining cooperation across state, provincial, and government agency boundaries and lessons for possible development of a federal system. Project based offsetsMark Trexler, Der Norske Veritas (USA)Project based offsets have been a key part of climate change policy discussions for the last 20 years. Yet they have become a particularly contentious aspect of climate change policy discussions, and face an uncertain future. Should we care, and what role should offsets aspire to in future policy? Trexler’s presentation explores the key economic and implementation issues underlying the design and performance of carbon offset programs. Panel 2 Discussion |
|
Scientific perspectives on MRV: approaches, techniques, and requirements of quantifying GHG emissions and sequestrationKevin Gurney, Purdue UniversityGurney shows what the carbon cycle science community has been doing over the last few years that has begun to focus more and more on MRV specifically and as a spinoff of what the community has done in attempting to better understand the carbon cycle. This combines atmospheric measurements from satellites, in situ, aircraft and the construction of emission inventories at the surface in space/time resolution. Agricultural mitigation and offsetsDebbie Reed, DRD AssociatesWhile much remains to be decided about the specific role for the agricultural sector in US domestic climate change policies, it is clear that US agriculture can potentially play a significant role in providing high quality, low cost emissions reductions offsets with multiple ancillary benefits to society (including cost-containment and multiple environmental impacts). Policy constructs that encourage agricultural sector participation in offset activities are imperative to tap the vast benefits of agricultural climate mitigation opportunities, but are highly dependent on the development of offset protocols that are rigorous yet not onerous, and that involve agricultural stakeholder participation. Panel 3 Discussion |
|
|
Leading representatives from industries affected by pollution trading offer their perspective on the issue and comment on the day’s discussions. Moderated by Tom Sparrow, Purdue Energy Center. (PDF Chart presented by Tom Sparrow)
|
|
Download Presentation SlidesContact Information
Purdue University
PCCRC
203 S. Martin Jischke Drive
MANN 266
West Lafayette, IN 47907
- Phone: 765-494-5146
- Fax: 765-496-9322