Search

This paper examines the multi-level governance of climate change with a particular focus on the European Union (EU). It examines the relationship between the EU and its Member States (the federalism dimension), particularly in relation to emissions trading, and the relationship between the EU and the rest of the world (the global dimension). The paper argues that we are witnessing a shift in the EU's climate leadership style; a shift that is characterized by an increasing willingness of the EU to use its economic power in a bid to promote effective climate governance elsewhere. We see this in relation to different sectors including aviation, biofuels, energy-intensive products and as a result of increasing EU regulation of carbon offsets in its emissions trading scheme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The amendment of the EU ETS agreed on in December 2008 will see covered entities face new challenges. Due to a more stringent overall reduction target, the emissions trading regime will have a larger influence on the business sector. The basic question "who can get, under what conditions, tradable allowances" will thus be even more relevant than in the initial regime. This paper sheds light on possible uncertainties that industries might face following the new allocation provisions. Both regulatory uncertainty and "business uncertainty" regarding the price to be paid for allowances serve as starting points. By nature, business uncertainty is much more prevalent in the event of auctioning compared to free allocation, which seems to encompass larger regulatory uncertainty, especially for the possible exposed sectors. Moreover, the article highlights the difficulty of designing allocation mechanisms, and some of the complexities that might arise in the course of a trading period. Of particular note is that it cannot be excluded that the executive regulations for auctioning and free allocation need to be amended in order to ensure the intended outcome of the scheme. In this sense, the learning by doing period has not ended at all. The article concludes that, from a governance perspective, any legislator should incorporate the question of regulatory and business uncertainty when introducing emissions trading schemes or major amendments to such schemes. In fact, environmental effectiveness could have also been achieved with the current emissions trading scheme of the Commission had conducted a sufficiently strict inspection of the national allocation plans. For protecting the climate and for ensuring an emission reduction of 20 percent in 2020, the fundamental review was not, in fact, a strict necessity. The trade-off of developing a suitable framework for a level playing field and avoiding windfalls in the context of emissions trading is that industries need to face new regulatory approaches, for which it is not yet completely clear how they will affect their business activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses developments in greenhouse gas emissions in European Union (EU) countries. Topics addressed include the report "Trends and projections in Europe 2015" about the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the EU between 1990 and 2014, information on the aggregated exchange and use of international credits in the EU emissions trading system (ETS) released by the European Commission, and highlights of the Climate Action Progress report.

The article offers information on the developments of the emissions trading systems of the European Union. It explains that the concept of carbon leakage relates to the risk that activities in sectors subject to strong international competition might relocate from the EU to the third countries. It also mentions that the Court of First Instance (CFI) condemned the European Commission in two cases for failure to exercise its power correctly.