Background In the recent time the world economies have grown at an incredible rate with spurt in technological innovations. This growth has lead to rise in manufacturing especially in the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, china) Countries. With the growing industrialization, there has been an increase in energy consumption globally. This growth has lead to increase in green house gases including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride. According to one study, 60-70% of Green House Gases emission is through fuel combustion in industries like cement, steel, textiles and fertilizers. Science has correlated climate over the ages with core samples from ice sheets and found that carbon dioxide levels fluctuate with climatic events. Only recently has science been able to understand how this CO2 actually works to trap the heat in the atmosphere and by calling it the greenhouse effect gives us the basic understanding of what goes on. These gases are released as by-products of certain industrial process, which adversely affect the ozone layer, leading to global warming. These harmful gases have lead to various environmental imbalances. Melting glaciers, freak storms and stranded polar bears which have been witnessed in recent times playing the mascots of climate change affecting our planet. More fuel to fire • According to “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007” assessment report said world temperatures are likely to rise between 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius by 2100,

triggering more frequent floods, droughts, melting of icecaps and threatening species extinction.

An estimated 30 per cent of the world’s total greenhouse emissions in 1997 came from wildfires in Borneo, which destroyed one million hectares of forests.

Worldwide carbon dioxide emissions in 2005 are estimated to be slightly more than 24 billion tonnes. Every litre of gasoline or petrol used in motor vehicles produces 2.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions. For diesel fuel, every liter produces 2.7 kilograms carbon dioxide.

The World Health Organization has estimated that climate change leads to more than 150,000 deaths every year and at least 5 million cases of illness. Global sea levels will increase by 11 to 13 inches by 2100, according to 2006 estimates by Australia's science research agency CSIRO.

Ten countries account for two-thirds of global forest area, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, The Democratic Republic of Congo, India, Indonesia, Peru, Russia and United States.

The Earth’s carbon absorbing capacity is finite and delectable and that growth of GHG emissions, even at their present level poses a threat to humankind.

The per capita GHG emission is strongly correlated with economic prosperity. Further, it is recognized that without increase in GHG emissions or access to appropriate alternative technology options, developing countries would not be able to pursue their socio-economic goals. Kyoto Protocol is a global cooperative attempt to address both these issues.

Thus, fear of increased sea level and lower agricultural yield have made people around the world to want to reduce consumption and lower their personal shares of global emissions. With

growing concerns among nations to curb pollution levels while maintaining the growth in their economic activities, the emission trading (ET) industry has come to life. Thus, the conception of Kyoto Protocol was formed.

The Kyoto Protocol Concept The Kyoto Protocol is a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC), an international environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on to achieve "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." Purpose The Kyoto Protocol is established to legally bind for the reduction of four greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride), and two groups of gases (hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) produced by "Annex I" (industrialized) nations, as well as general commitments for all member countriesThe agreement aims to lower overall emissions from a group of six greenhouse gases by 2008-12, calculated as an average over these five years. Cuts in the three most important gases - carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20) - will be measured against a base year of 1990. Cuts in three long-lived industrial gases - hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), [[perfluorocarbon]s (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) - can be measured against either a 1990 or 1995 baseline." The target agreed upon at the summit was an average reduction of 5.2% from 1990 levels by the year 2012. National limitations range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the United States, 6% for Japan, and 0% for Russia. The treaty permitted GHG emission increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland. Members As of January 2009, 183 parties have approved the protocol, which was initially have been adopted for use on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and which entered into force on 16 February 2005.

Working Kyoto initiated "flexible mechanisms" such as Emissions Trading, the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation to allow Annex I economies to meet their greenhouse gas (GHG) emission limitations through financial exchanges, projects that reduce emissions in nonAnnex I economies, from other Annex I countries, or from Annex I countries with excess allowances. • Under Joint Implementation (JI) a developed country with relatively high costs of domestic greenhouse reduction would set up a project in another developed country. • Under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) a developed country can 'sponsor' a greenhouse gas reduction project in a developing country where the cost of greenhouse gas reduction project activities is usually much lower, but the atmospheric effect is globally equivalent. The developed country would be given credits for meeting its emission reduction targets, while the developing country would receive the capital investment and clean technology or beneficial change in land use. • Under International Emissions Trading (IET) countries can trade in the international carbon credit market to cover their shortfall in allowances. Countries with surplus credits can sell them to countries with capped emission commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

In real this means that Non-Annex I economies have no GHG emission restrictions, but have financial incentives to develop GHG emission reduction projects to receive "carbon credits" that can then be sold to Annex I buyers, encouraging sustainable development. In addition, the flexible mechanisms allow Annex I nations with efficient, low GHG-emitting industries, and high prevailing environmental standards to purchase carbon credits on the world market instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions domestically. Annex I entities typically will want to acquire carbon credits as cheaply as possible, while Non-Annex I entities want to maximize the value of carbon credits generated from their domestic Greenhouse Gas Projects.

What is Carbon credit? The Kyoto Protocol has created a mechanism under which countries that have been emitting more carbon and other gases (greenhouse gases include ozone, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and even water vapour) have voluntarily decided that they will bring down the level of carbon they are emitting to the levels of early 1990s. Thus,Carbon credit can be defined as a permit that allows the holder to emit one ton of carbon dioxide. Credits are awarded to countries or groups that have reduced their green house gases below their emission quota. Carbon credits can be traded in the international market at their current market price.

Developed countries, mostly European will bring down the level in the period from 2008 to 2012. In 2008, these developed countries have decided on different norms to bring down the level of emission fixed for their companies and factories. A company has two ways to reduce emissions. One, it can reduce the GHG (greenhouse gases) by adopting new technology or improving upon the existing technology to attain the new norms for emission of gases. Or it can tie up with developing nations and help them set up new technology that is eco-friendly, thereby helping developing country or its companies 'earn' credits.India, China and some other Asian countries have the advantage because they are developing countries. Any company, factories or farm owner in India can get linked to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and know the 'standard' level of carbon emission allowed for its outfit or activity. They are key component of national and international attempts to mitigate the growth in concentrations' of greenhouse gases (GHGs). There are two distinct types of Carbon Credits: Carbon Offset Credits (COC's) and Carbon Reduction Credits (CRC's). Carbon Offset Credits consist of clean forms of energy production, wind, solar, hydro and biofuels. Carbon Reduction Credits consists of the collection and storage of Carbon from atmosphere through reforestation, forestation, ocean and soil collection and storage efforts. Both approaches are recognized as effective ways to reduce the Global Carbon Emissions crises. How It Works • Emissions limits and trading rules vary country by country, so each emissions-trading market operates differently.

For nations that have signed the Kyoto Protocol, which holds each country to its own C02 limit, greenhouse gas-emissions trading is mandatory.

Another fast-growing voluntary model is carbon offsets. In this global market, a set of middlemen companies, called offset firms, estimate a company’s emissions and then act as brokers by offering opportunities to invest in carbon-reducing projects around the world. Unlike carbon trading, offsetting isn’t yet government regulated in most countries; it’s up to buyers to verify a project’s environmental worth. Offsets are typically achieved through financial support of projects that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases in the short- or long-term. The most common project type is renewable energy, such as wind farms, biomass energy, or hydroelectric dams. Others include energy efficiency projects, the destruction of industrial pollutants or agricultural byproducts, destruction of landfill methane, and forestry projects. Some of the most popular carbon offset projects from a corporate perspective are energy efficiency and wind turbine projects. The Advantages • Companies in different industries face different costs to lower their emissions. A market-based approach allows companies to take carbon-reducing measures that everyone can afford. • Reducing emissions and lowering energy consumption is usually good for the core business.

Buying into the carbon market boom now suggests significant dividends later on. Carbon credits are relatively cheap now, but their value will likely rise, giving companies another reason to participate.

The Disadvantages • As with any financial market, emissions traders are vulnerable to significant risk and volatility.

Carbon offset firms in the United States and abroad has been caught selling offsets for normal operations that do not actually take any additional C02 out of the atmosphere, such as pumping C02 into oil wells to force out the remaining crude.

The lack of offset regulations has also made marketing problematic.

How buying carbon credits can reduce emissions Carbon credits create a market for reducing greenhouse emissions by giving a monetary value to the cost of polluting the air. Emissions become an internal cost of doing business and are visible on the balance sheet alongside raw materials and other liabilities or assets. For example, consider a business that owns a factory putting out 90,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in a year. Its government is an Annex I country that enacts a law to limit the emissions that the business can produce. So the factory is given a quota of say 70,000 tonnes per year. The factory either reduces its emissions to 80,000 tonnes or is required to purchase carbon credits to offset the excess. After costing up alternatives the business may decide that it is uneconomical or infeasible to invest in new machinery for that year. Instead it may choose to buy carbon credits on the open market from organizations that have been approved as being able to sell legitimate carbon credits. We should consider the impact of manufacturing alternative energy sources. For example, the energy consumed and the Carbon emitted in the manufacture and transportation of a large wind turbine would prohibit a credit being issued for a predetermined period of time.

One seller might be a company that will offer to offset emissions through a project in the developing world, such as recovering methane from a swine farm to feed a power station that previously would use fossil fuel. So although the factory continues to emit gases, it would pay another group to reduce the equivalent of 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere for that year.

Another seller may have already invested in new low-emission machinery and have a surplus of allowances as a result. The factory could make up for its emissions by buying 20,000 tonnes of allowances from them. The cost of the seller's new machinery would be subsidized by the sale of allowances. Both the buyer and the seller would submit accounts for their emissions to prove that their allowances were met correctly.

Carbon Tax as a supplement to Emissions Cap & Trade
At present, emissions cap & trade is the principal international policy framework providing incentives to mitigate the impact of global warming. Emissions cap & trade refers to the global system of national caps on greenhouse-gas emissions and tradable permits (e.g. Carbon credits), based on the emissions targets and timetables created by the Kyoto Protocol (1997). Today, one of the hottest and most contested debates is the validity of emissions cap & trade versus the validity of emission tax. It is argued that emission taxes have an important advantage over cap-and-trade systems in that they result in a stable price for emissions (capand-trade policies seek to stabilize the quantity of emissions, but allow prices to fluctuate). Stable prices for emissions are critical for firms making long-term decisions about investment and innovation in low-emission technologies. However, given the practical impediments to the internationalization of emissions or carbon taxes, a more likely scenario seems to be one where national level initiatives on carbon taxes could supplement the international cap and trade system. Carbon credits V/s Carbon taxes

A criticism of tax-raising schemes is that they are frequently not hypothecated, and so some or all of the taxation raised by a government may be applied inefficiently or not used to benefit the environment. By treating emissions as a market commodity it becomes easier for business to understand and manage their activities, while economists and traders can attempt to predict future pricing using well understood market theories. Thus the main advantages of a tradable carbon credit over a carbon tax are: • the price is more likely to be perceived as fair by those paying it. Investors in credits have more control over their own costs. • the flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol ensure that all investment goes into genuine sustainable carbon reduction schemes, through its internationally-agreed validation process. • if correctly implemented a target level of emission reductions is achieved with certainty, while under a tax the actual emissions would vary over time. • it provides a framework for rewarding people or companies who plant trees or otherwise sequester carbon. The advantages of a carbon tax are: • Fewer complexes, expensive, and time-consuming to implement. This advantage is especially great when applied to markets like gasoline or home heating oil.

Perhaps some reduced risk of certain types of cheating, though under both credits and taxes, emissions must be verified.

Reduced incentives for companies to delay efficiency improvements prior to the establishment of the baseline if credits are distributed in proportion to past emissions.

When credits are grandfathered, this puts new or growing companies at a disadvantage relative to more established companies.

It is clear what effect the policy has on the price of energy.

Theory of Supplementarity The principle of Supplementarity within the Kyoto Protocol means that internal reduction of emissions should take precedence before a country buys in carbon credits. However it also established the Clean Development Mechanism as a Flexible Mechanism by which capped entities could develop real, measurable, permanent emissions reductions voluntarily in sectors outside the cap. Many criticisms of carbon credits stem from the fact that establishing that an emission of CO2equivalent greenhouse gas has truly been reduced involves a complex process. This process has evolved as the concept of a carbon project has been refined over the past 10 years. The first step in determining whether or not a carbon project has legitimately led to the reduction of real, measurable, permanent emissions understands the CDM methodology process. Theory of Additionality The concept of additionality studies whether the project would is feasible even in the absence of revenue from carbon credits. Only carbon credits from projects that are "additional to" the business-as-usual scenario represent a net environmental benefit. Carbon projects that yield strong financial returns even in the absence of revenue from carbon credits; or that are compelled by regulations; or that represent common practice in an industry are usually not considered additional, although a full determination of additionality requires specialist review. It is generally agreed that voluntary carbon offset projects must also prove additionality in order to ensure the legitimacy of the environmental stewardship claims resulting from the retirement of the carbon credit (offset). According the World Resources Institute/World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WRI/WBCSD) : "GHG emission trading programs

operate by capping the emissions of a fixed number of individual facilities or sources. Under these programs, tradable 'offset credits' are issued for project-based GHG reductions that occur at sources not covered by the program. Each offset credit allows facilities whose emissions are capped to emit more, in direct proportion to the GHG reductions represented by the credit. The idea is to achieve a zero net increase in GHG emissions, because each tonne of increased emissions is 'offset' by projectbased GHG reductions. The difficulty is that many projects that reduce GHG emissions (relative to historical levels) would happen regardless of the existence of a GHG program and without any concern for climate change mitigation. If a project 'would have happened anyway,' then issuing offset credits for its GHG reductions will actually allow a positive net increase in GHG emissions, undermining the emissions target of the GHG program. Additionality is thus critical to the success and integrity of GHG programs that recognize project-based GHG reductions." Issues in Carbon mitigation: Carbon market is not new to world, there are being several activities prevailing since approx. 25 years but the most efficient mile stone in carbon market was achieved in 2005 when EUETS & Kyoto came into existence. Although carbon trading is the only sector which is growing at robust speed (having potential 60 to 70 billion USD annually) and covering whole world as united for its growth for mitigating climate change, there are lots of issues existing which are left unexplored or if explored than not much attention is being given, here I will be highlighting some issues known to me which need immediate consideration for proper action.

1. Due to excessive non-sustainable consumption of resources and belching of pollutants
in environment, the temperature of world is increasing gradually from several decades, as a result sea level is increasing due to melting of glaciers, depletion of ozone layer but know the most alarming situation has come according to NASA team on climate change, the life on earth will finishes up by 2015 because now the blue ice have also started melting which was as it is from last 10000 years having a terrible increase in

sea level and disturbing the ratio of land and water on earth and by 2015 water will cover the left 30% land portion by it.

2. Continuity of Kyoto after 1st compliance period that is in Second Compliance Period is
not being confirmed in Bali action Plan & if it came into existence than what about transfer of credit among them is not cleared which has created lots of question mark on CDM and affecting its prices.

3. Non Availability of linkage between CITL & ITL (Community transaction log &
international transaction log). Hence no linkage between several schemes and also non availability of spot transfer of Carbon credits among some major schemes.

4. There is lot of Procedure delay in registering Project as CDM projects- It can take
between one and two years for a project to go from validation to registration and technical delays. This does not even include the six months or so that it is taking to book the services of a DOE. Project delays cost project developers valuable financial resources, cost buyers valuable emission reductions and can delay desired

environmental outcomes. Clearing bottlenecks and accelerating the application of necessary procedures has become a priority challenge

5. Standard methodology for Jatropha CDM project is not available, hence project
developer wanting to develop CDM project by using Jatropha as a fuel has to create a new methodology and get it approved by Executive board which is very time consuming.

6. International events e.g., 2005 Gleneagles G8 Summit, 2006 World Cup, football,
Olympic emits carbon like on an average 5500 tons of CO2 is emitted by Olympic Torch Rally, hence contributing to global warming considerably.

7. Soon India’s ICWA will be launching separate accounting standard for Revenue from
Carbon trading as up till now it is recorded under other income. Therefore people are opposing that their income from carbon trading will no more tax free.

8. New South Wales green house gas abetment scheme does not except credits from
other markets. 9. Sellers are unable to sell there CERs in adverse market condition as buyer terminate the contract and all the losses have to be faced by CER project developers. 10. SF6 have highest warming potential which is being leaked from power grids & line hence must be protected Shortcomings in the working of carbon market The Kyoto mechanism is the only internationally-agreed mechanism for regulating carbon credit activities, and, crucially, includes checks for additionality and overall effectiveness. Its supporting organisation, the UNFCCC, is the only organisation with a global mandate on the overall effectiveness of emission control systems, although enforcement of decisions relies on national co-operation. The Kyoto trading period only applies for five years between 2008 and 2012. Several countries responsible for a large proportion of global emissions (notably USA, Australia, and China) have avoided mandatory caps, which means that businesses in capped countries may perceive themselves to be working at a competitive disadvantage against those in uncapped countries as they are now paying for their carbon costs directly. Establishing a meaningful offset project is complex: voluntary offsetting activities outside the CDM mechanism are effectively unregulated and there have been criticisms of offsetting in these unregulated activities.

Suggestions to reduce carbon emission in Oil & Gas industries Emissions in Environment from the oil and gas industry include substances that contribute to global impacts on the climate and others that have local effects, such as acidification of lakes

and forests. The impacts of these emissions also take some time to become apparent, which can make it difficult to identify them and link them directly to oil and gas activities. Estimating and reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is extremely complex for a highly integrated industry such as the oil and natural gas industry with its wide diversity of business structures under a corporate umbrella. The oil and gas industry is the world’s second-biggest air emission producer. Each year it emits over 150 billion cubic meters of environmentallydamaging air emissions through venting, flaring or fugitive leaks and is responsible for 300 millions tones of C02 emissions being released into the atmosphere. Now faced with the realities of consequential environmental damage, stricter governmental emission legislations and reduction incentives, oil and gas companies are looking for proven strategic and technical solutions that will minimize environmental damage and maximize production and profit. There some major issues on which oil and gas industries must take action. Fire flaring in oil and gas industries have very adverse affect on environment they have very high potential in polluting the environment so gas or fire flaring should be prevent by managing proper supply of gas in line, preventing break down in system and utilizing waste heat also this will prevent flaring. The practice of gas flaring adds about 350 million tonnes of CO2e annually to global GHG emissions. The potential for local economic development and for emission reduction is significant, if only there were a way to create viable local markets for the gas, such as for power generation or Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) for domestic cooking use. However, many barriers exist as the example below demonstrates, and carbon finance has the potential to help mitigate some of these risks. Refinery emits huge GHG gases so they must prevent it to fullest extent, avoid leakage from pipeline prevent heat wastage apply Euro 3 & 4 and get it audited for environment safety. Oil recovery: Carbon dioxide is used in enhanced oil recovery where it is injected into or adjacent to producing oil wells, usually under supercritical conditions. It acts as both a pressurizing agent and, when dissolved into the underground crude oil, significantly reduces its

viscosity, enabling the oil to flow more rapidly through the earth to the removal well. In mature oil fields, extensive pipe networks are used to carry the carbon dioxide to the injection points. Hence they must plant trees to remove there CO2 excretion in environment. Some Measures to prevent emission by Oil & Gas industries Reducing Air Emissions in Oil & Gas is the region’s leading industry-focused environmental event that features exclusive expert presentations and case studies that reveal successful stories, procedures, solutions, technologies and strategies that have not only effectively reduced emissions but have benefited production and increased profits. • • Create a long-term emission-reducing framework for future legislative standards Successfully incorporate technology that will reduce emission levels and deliver instant ROI • • • • • Achieve zero routine, flaring and increased cost savings Safely capture and store CO2 for the long-term See increased production and profit through CO2 injection strategies Create an effective business case for technological investment Minimize the risk of fugitive leaks

Carbon market and India The sudden boom in the carbon market has greatly helped Indian industries to cash in on the carbon trading business. India certainly being the preferred location for carbon credit buyers or project investors because of its strategic position in the world today. India is considered as the largest beneficiary, claiming about 31 per cent of the total world carbon trade through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). It is expected to rake in at least Rs 22,500 crore to Rs 45,000 crore over a period of time and Indian companies are expected to corner at least 10 per cent of the global market in the initial year. Carbon Trading has potential of exploring Indian market worth 18000 Cr.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, between 2008 and 2012, developed countries have to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to an average of 5.2 per cent below the 1990 level. They can also buy CERs from developing countries, which do not have any reduction obligations, in case their industries are not in a position to lower the emission levels themselves. One tonne of carbon dioxide reduced through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project, when certified by a designated entity, becomes a tradable CER. Developed countries have to spend nearly $300 to $500 for every tonne reduction in CO2, against $10 to $25 to be spent by developing countries. In developing countries like India, the emission levels are much below the target fixed by the Kyoto Protocol. So, they are excluded from reduction of GHG emission. On the contrary, they are entitled to sell surplus credits to developed countries. The European countries and Japan are the major buyers of carbon credits. The UNFCCC divides countries into two main groups: A total of 41 industrialized countries are currently listed in the Convention‟s Annex-I, including the relatively wealthy industrialized countries that were members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation India comes under the third category of signatories to UNFCCC. India signed and ratified the Protocol in August, 2002 and has emerged as a world leader in reduction of greenhouse gases by adopting Clean Development Mechanisms (CDMs) in the past few years. According to Report on National Action Plan for operationalizing Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) by Planning Commission, Govt. of India, the total CO2-equivalent emissions in 1990 were 10,01,352 Gg (Giga grams), which was approximately 3% of global emissions. If India can capture a 10% share of the global CDM market, annual CER revenues to the country could range from US$ 10 million to 300 million (assuming that CDM is used to meet 10-50% of the global demand for GHG emission reduction of roughly 1 billion tonnes CO2, and prices range from US$ 3.5-5.5 per tonne of CO2). As the deadline for meeting the Kyoto Protocol targets draws nearer, prices can be expected to rise, as countries/companies save carbon credits to meet strict targets in the future. India is well ahead in establishing a full-fledged system in

operationalising CDM, through the Designated National Authority (DNA). Other than Industries and transportation, the major sources of GHG‟s emission in India are as follows: • • • Paddy fields Enteric fermentation from cattle and buffaloes Municipal Solid Waste

Of the above three sources the emissions from the paddy fields can be reduced through special irrigation strategy and appropriate choice of cultivars; whereas enteric fermentation emission can also be reduced through proper feed management. In recent days the third source of emission i.e. Municipal Solid Waste Dumping Grounds are emerging as a potential CDM activity despite being provided least attention till date. Outlook of carbon market The total traded volume in global carbon markets in 2008 was 2.7 Gt, valued at just over €40 bn. We expect this to grow to 4.2 billion tonnes CO2e in 2009, up 56 percent from 2008. The EU ETS maintains its position as the largest market. Traded volume in the EU ETS is expected to be 2.6 Gt in 2009. At current prices, this would be equivalent to €63bn. The expected increasing traded volumes will continue as the global market becomes more mature and sophisticated. An increase in contract types, more players and markets and greater competition between market players (such as exchanges and brokers) will together generate momentum for higher volumes. As a consequence, liquidity providers will be attracted to this market. On the other hand, turbulence in global financial markets may contribute to less vigorous growth in transacted volumes. The expected 2009 carbon market will differ from 2008 in several ways.

The EU ETS Phase 2 is considerably tighter than Phase 1. Moreover, the start of shortterm prompt trading for Phase 2, where only forward trading was seen previously, is expected to contribute to increased traded volumes.

The EU climate and energy package, launched on 23 January 2009, has sent a potentially bearish long-term signal to the project markets by placing uncertainty on the future of the Clean Development Mechanism.

New policies in key countries such as the US and Australia imply that we will see trading in new markets. This will be accelerated by the ongoing negotiations under the Bali action plan.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful