一10年为例的目录
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. 1
2 EU ETS. 5
2.1 At a glance. 5
2.2 Successes of the EU ETS. 6
2.3 EUAs: growing volumes, changing patterns. 8
2.3.1 EUA resiliency faces its greatest test since the inception of the ETS . 8
2.3.1.1 Carbon prices vis-à-vis other energy commodities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.1.2 The many curves of the EUA market. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.1.3 Déjà-vu in the EUA pricing pattern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4 Spot and secondary CERs. 14
2.4.1 Secondary market volume increases, prices fall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4.2 Rising liquidity causes offset price segregation to widen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4.3 A shortage of CERs forces market players to adjust. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.5 The options market: rising volume and sophistication. 15
2.5.1 Sellers turn to call options to manage risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.5.2 A broader perspective on the options market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.5.3 Structures proliferate as players look to manage risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.6 What lies ahead for the EU ETS?. 17
2.6.1 Rules governing the use of CERs and ERUs in Phase III: still uncertain. . . . . . . . . . 18
2.6.2 Auctions and benchmarking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3 EMISSIONS TRADING IN OTHER ANNEX B REGIONS AND BEYOND. 23
3.1 New Zealand: at last!. 23
3.1.1 Progressive extension of ETS scope to cover the entire economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1.2 No emissions cap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.1.3 Allocation rules and transition assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.1.4 Cost control: full supplementarity for Kyoto-compliant offsets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.5 Interest in the forestry market takes root. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2 Australia: on hold. 26
3.3 Japan: considering market mechanisms. 27
3.4 North America: waiting for K-G-L and getting K-L. 29
3.4.1 The Waxman-Markey Bill raised hopes…. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.4.2 …but momentum is at risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.5 Emerging alternative market instruments and exchanges
beyond Annex B countries. 31
4 KYOTO FLEXIBILITY MECHANISMS. 37
4.1 At a glance. 37
4.2 pCERs: another tough year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
4.2.1 Pre-2013 ERPAs: layering, syndicating, and much more. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.2.2 Who, how, and what in 2009? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2.3 Projects wanted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.2.4 A close-up on issuance time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.3 The relevance of carbon finance in the transition to a low-carbon economy. 42
4.3.1 Investment barriers can be disproportionately large. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
4.3.2 CDM cannot overcome all investment barriers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.3.3 Frontloading future carbon revenues remains a challenge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.3.4 Leveraging carbon finance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
4.4 Post-2012 market: “EU ETS CERs” surge as a new asset . 45
4.4.1 A silver lining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.5 Scaling up with Programmes of Activities. 46
4.5.1 Evolution of PoAs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.5.2 Status and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.5.3 And finally. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.6 Moving ahead with CDM. 47
4.7 JI: A market moved by one auction and one tender. 50
4.8 AAUs: some gains as offsets sour . 51
5 OUTLOOK. 55
5.1 Demand and supply balance . 55
5.1.1 Government demand for Kyoto assets falls …. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.1.2 …and so does private sector compliance demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.1.3 Supply through the three Kyoto mechanisms: CDM & JI down, AAU up. . . . . . . . 59
5.1.4 A residual demand of 230 million tons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.2 Markets and a post-2012 international regime. 60
ANNEX I: SUPPLEMENTARITY UNDER THE EU CLIMATE AND ENERGY
PACKAGE . 63
ANNEX II: AUSTRALIA’S DIVISIVE CPRS. 65
METHODOLOGY. 69
GLOSSARY . 71

这个完全不靠谱的市场

目前的碳市场受到国际和国内政策的影响很大

近一年来 国内CDM市场清淡
VER市场慢慢开始活跃


4# yy88611

多谢！！！