

Putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions forces us to face at least some of the environmental cost of what we produce and consume.
from, CC BY-ND

Catherine Leining, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research




Would you please explain how the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) works in simple terms? Who pays and where does the money go?

Every tonne of emissions causes damages and a cost to society. In traditional market transactions, these costs are ignored. Putting a price on emissions forces us to face at least some of the cost of the emissions associated with what we produce and consume, and it influences us to choose lower-emission options.

An emissions trading scheme (ETS) is a tool that puts a quantity limit and a price on emissions. Its “currency” is emission units issued by the government. Each unit is like a voucher that allows the holder to emit one tonne of greenhouse gases.

The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS) is the government’s main tool to meet our target under the Paris Agreement. In a typical ETS, the government caps the number of units in line with its emissions target and the trading market sets the corresponding emission price.

In New Zealand, the price for a tonne of greenhouse gases is currently slightly below NZ$25, which is not in line with our target. We are still waiting for the government to set a cap on the NZ ETS, which is (hopefully) coming.

Read more:
Why NZ’s emissions trading scheme should have an auction reserve price

In the past, we had no limit on the number of emission units in the system, which is why emission prices stayed low, our domestic emissions continued to rise, and the system accumulated a substantial number of banked units.

How an ETS works and who pays

The government decides which entities (typically companies) in each sector (e.g. fossil fuel producers and importers, industrial producers, foresters, and landfill operators) will be liable for their emissions. In some cases (e.g. fossil fuel producers and importers), liable entities are not the actual emitters but they are responsible for the emissions generated when others use their products.

There is a trading market where entities can buy units to cover their emissions liability and sell units they don’t need. The trading price depends on market expectations for supply versus demand. Steeper targets mean lower supply and higher emissions mean higher demand; both mean higher emission prices and more behaviour change.

Each liable entity is required to report emissions and surrender to the government enough units to cover the amount of greenhouse gases they release. The companies that have to surrender units pass on the associated cost to their customers, like any other production cost. In this way, the emission price signal flows across the economy embedded in the cost of goods and services, influencing everyone to make more climate-friendly choices.

Supplied by author, CC BY-ND

There are several ways for entities to get units.

First, some get free allocation from the government. Currently, these free allocations are granted to trade-exposed industrial producers (for products such as steel, aluminium, methanol, cement and fertiliser) as a way of preventing the production and associated emissions from shifting to other countries without reducing global emissions. Producers who emit beyond their free allocation need to buy more units, whereas those who improve their processes and emit less can sell or bank their excess units.

Second, entities can earn units by establishing new forests or through industrial activities that remove emissions. By stripping emissions from the atmosphere, such removal activities make it possible to add units to the cap without increasing net emissions. The government publishes information on ETS emissions and removals every year.

Third, entities can buy units from the government through auctioning. In this case, market demand still sets the price. The NZ ETS does not yet have auctioning, but again this is (hopefully) coming. The government currently does allow emitters to buy uncapped fixed-price units at NZ$25.

In the past, entities had a fourth option – buying offshore units – but this stopped in mid-2015. This option is not currently available under the Paris Agreement. If that changes in the future, quantity and quality limits will be needed on offshore units.

Read more:

Where the money goes

The entities that surrender units to the government directly face the price of emissions – either because they had to buy units from other entities or the government, or because they lost the opportunity to sell freely allocated units.

When the government sells units – through auctioning or the fixed-price mechanism – it earns revenue. In 2018, the New Zealand government sold 16.82 million fixed-price units and received NZ$420 million in revenue. When selling fixed-price units that allow the market to emit more, the government has to compensate through more action to reduce domestic emissions (like reducing fossil fuel use or planting more trees) or purchasing emission reductions from other countries – and these actions have a cost.

When ETS auctioning is introduced (potentially in late 2020), the government will receive more significant revenue. It has signalled that any revenue from pricing agricultural emissions (methane and nitrous oxide) will be returned to the sector to help with a transition to lower emissions.

What will happen with NZ ETS auction revenue from other sectors is an open policy question. So are the questions of how large the NZ ETS cap, and how high the emission price, should be. This will be determined under the Zero Carbon Bill and future amendments and regulations to the ETS.

This article was prepared in collaboration with Bronwyn Bruce-Brand and Ceridwyn Roberts at Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.The Conversation

Catherine Leining, Policy Fellow, Climate Change, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research


Why NZ’s emissions trading scheme should have an auction reserve price

File 20180917 158234 iupz1b.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
from, CC BY-ND

Suzi Kerr, Victoria University of Wellington



Emission prices have since recovered but no one knows if this will last. With consultation underway on improving the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS), the government should seriously consider a “price floor” to rebuild confidence in low-emission investment.

Read more:
A new approach to emissions trading in a post-Paris climate

How a price floor works





When low ETS prices are a pitfall





A simple and effective solution







Keeping NZ on track for decarbonisation




The government, ETS participants and investors need to understand that international purchasing is not the only driver of downside price risk in the NZ ETS. A price floor would strengthen the incentives for major long-term investments in low-emission technologies, infrastructure and land uses in the face of uncertainty.

To reach New Zealand’s ambitious emission reduction targets for 2030 (a 30% reduction below 2005 levels) and beyond, bargain-basement emission prices need to stay a thing of the past.

This article was co-authored with Catherine Leining, a policy fellow at Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.The Conversation

Suzi Kerr, Adjunct Professor, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington



Dylan McConnell, University of Melbourne





National summary of retail electricity cost components
2015 Residential Electricity Price Trends



So how exactly will the different climate policies affect electricity prices?

The safeguard mechanism (Coalition)




Electricity Sector Emissions
Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: December 2015


Electricity sector emissions trading (Labor)









The brown coal exit (Labor)








50% renewable energy target (Labor)




A bipartisan approach?






The Conversation



Labor unveils phased emissions trading scheme

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

A Labor government would bring in its emissions trading scheme (ETS) in two stages, together with a separate scheme for the electricity sector, under a climate change action plan released by Opposition leader Bill Shorten and climate spokesman Mark Butler on Wednesday.

The plan confirms an ALP government would commit to 45% emissions reduction on 2005 levels by 2030, and pledge to ensure that 50% of Australia’s electricity was sourced from renewable energy by then. Australia’s pledge for last year’s Paris climate conference was to reduce emissions by 26-28% on 2005 levels by 2030.

With Labor’s proposed ETS set to be a battleground in the July 2 election, Shorten will stress that it would not include a carbon tax – which was so politically damaging for the Gillard government – or a fixed price on pollution.

The ETS details are part of a broad climate policy that would cost $853 million over a decade – with $355.9 million over the forward estimates.

The funding would include $300 million to assist trade exposed industries to move to a cleaner economy; commit more than $200 million for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency to undertake a solar thermal funding round, and provide about $100 million for a community power network to connect community housing and other projects to renewable energy.

The policy would also allow the Clean Energy Finance Corporation more flexibility for investments in renewables.

Phase one of the ETS would operate for two years, from July 2018 until June 30, 2020, to establish the architecture of the permanent scheme, which would aim to drive a long term transition in the economy to clean energy.

The first phase would cover facilities emitting more than 25,000 tonnes of carbon pollution annually. It would put a cap on pollution from these enterprises, that was consistent with meeting the current bipartisan target of ensuring a reduction in emissions levels of 5% on 2000 levels by 2020.

No price would be imposed in this phase, and polluters would not be required to buy permits if they stayed within their limits. But when a polluter breached its cap, it would have to provide the regulator with an equivalent number of “offsets”. Offsets could be sourced internationally as well as locally.

The policy says that given that Australia’s emissions intensive, trade exposed sector competes in global markets, those companies should have full 100% access to international offsets under phase one of the ETS.

In phase two, pollution levels would be capped and reduced over the decade to 2030. The design of the 2020 ETS would be finalised during the 2016-19 parliament.

The separate scheme for energy generation would start from 2018. Labor says this scheme would ensure “that reducing carbon pollution from generation can be internalised and managed in a manner that strengthens energy security and protects consumers”.

Electricity generation would be covered by a cap on carbon pollution reflecting a proportional share of the overall emissions reduction task set for the broader ETS. Each generator would be given a baseline.

Labor argues there would not be a significant impact on the price of power for consumers.

The opposition says that when China’s national emissions trading scheme comes online, one in every three people in the world will live under an ETS. “By 2030, emissions trading will be the biggest market in the world. Rejecting an ETS means isolation from the global marketplace.”

The opposition contrasts its policy with the government’s Emissions Reduction Fund “which sees billions of taxpayer dollars paid to polluters without achieving any additional and enduring emissions reductions”.

The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra


PolicyCheck: Labor’s phased emissions trading scheme

Alan Pears, RMIT University

Welcome to PolicyCheck, a new form of political coverage that aims to make better sense of policies launched by the major parties in the lead up to the 2016 election. Here, The Conversation’s academic experts look at the history of policies, whether they have been tried in Australia before, and how likely they are to succeed.

Labor has announced a six point climate change strategy, aimed at increasing renewable energy use, improving energy efficiency and transitioning away from old and inefficient coal power stations.

The policy includes a plan to reintroduce an emissions trading scheme for large emitters (over 25,000 tonnes annually), introduced over two phases.

How would it work?

Labor’s policy documents says that:





Fairfax reported that

The cost up until 2020 would be about 3 cents per tonne of carbon for those industries exposed to foreign competition. For other firms, that cost will be about 30 cents a tonne.

The scheme design beyond 2020 would be worked out in the future, but would focus on meeting Australia’s international commitments.

A separate scheme for energy generators would start from 2018.

What’s the history behind the proposed scheme?

Climate policy has been a hot topic in Australian politics for over 25 years.

The Hawke government made a conditional commitment in 1992 to cut carbon emissions. In the mid-1990s, industry staved off a carbon pricing scheme under the Keating government by committing to a voluntary Greenhouse Challenge program.

John Howard’s 1997 pre-Kyoto Protocol statement, Safeguarding the Future, mapped out a number of response measures, intended to underpin Australia’s efforts to gain an easy target under the Kyoto Protocol.

Indeed, Australia got a Kyoto target of 8% above its 1990 emissions level, while the overall developed country goal was a 5% cut.

The Australian Greenhouse Office, set up after the Kyoto meeting, produced numerous reports and discussion papers exploring climate policy options, including various options for pricing emissions.

Former Prime Minister John Howard grudgingly proposed a cap and trade plan in 2007 on advice from senior bureaucrat Peter Shergold.

That scheme was meant to be up and running by about 2011, but plans were cut short by election of Labor’s Kevin Rudd as prime minister in 2007.

Rudd promised a strong commitment to climate action, and under his leadership, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was developed (it was basically an ETS). In 2010, today’s prime minister Malcolm Turnbull also preferred an ETS, even crossing the floor to support it.

This scheme was eventually rejected by the parliament because the Greens and many others considered it was too compromised to be effective. This was the beginning of the shambles that has surrounded Australian climate policy in recent years.

Julia Gillard replaced Rudd as Labor leader in the mid-2010 and worked closely with the Greens and other cross-benchers to develop the Clean Energy Future package. Part of that package was a plan to put a price on carbon.

The plan was to transition into a market-based emissions trading scheme in 2015, but the so-called carbon tax was axed by the Abbott government in 2014 (despite evidence it was effective in reducing emissions).

Australia’s present Direct Action policy has as its centrepiece the Emission Reduction Fund, which uses taxpayer funds to support a very limited number of emission reduction actions through an auction process.

The associated “safeguards” mechanism is yet to be finalised, but provides a possible basis for a future emissions trading scheme.

How is Labor’s “phased” ETS different to what they previously proposed?

Separating the electricity industry from the broader ETS allows transition to be managed more delicately, and reduces risk of criticism over the impact on electricity prices.

It will involve much lower carbon prices that will be more closely linked to international carbon prices. This leaves Labor open to criticism from many economists and advocates, who take the view that a much higher carbon price is an essential element of an effective climate response.

The low carbon price expected, and the heavy reliance on international permits will severely limit the amount of revenue from carbon pricing for some years. This denies the government a potential revenue source to fund other climate action.

Why has this issue been so fraught in the past?

Climate policy has been controversial in Australia since the early 1990s. Powerful industry groups have lobbied since then to limit climate action, and the issue has been framed as the economy versus a future, uncertain environmental impact.

This conflict was amplified by the Coalition under Tony Abbott, both in opposition and in government.

The government has warned that Labor’s proposed plan will drastically increase electricity prices. However, such dire warnings rely on old modelling that has not factored in recent reductions in renewable electricity prices and improvements in energy efficiency.

The end of the resources boom has led many to realise that we need to diversify our economy. Conflicts over coal mining and coal seam gas, as well as big increases in electricity prices, have also challenged past acceptance of the benefits of fossil fuel industries.

Meanwhile, more frequent extreme climate events, coral bleaching and unusual weather patterns have reinforced concerns that climate is actually changing faster than expected.

What will happen to Labor’s policy?

The Labor proposal seems to address many of the political vulnerabilities of its previous policy. At the same time, it captures some of the present government’s agenda.

However, it will be seen as weak by many climate response advocates.

After the anti carbon tax campaign that helped bring Tony Abbott to power in 2013, it remains to be seen whether or not voters are ready to rein in emissions by making pollution a costly business.

Is there a policy you want us to check? Contact us at

The Conversation

Alan Pears, Senior Industry Fellow, RMIT University


China announces national emissions trading scheme – experts react

John Mathews; Anita Talberg, University of Melbourne, and Peter Christoff, University of Melbourne


In a joint US-China climate statement, issued as part of President Xi Jinping’s state visit to the United States, China confirmed that its new trading sytem will cover “key industry sectors such as iron and steel, power generation, chemicals, building materials, paper-making, and nonferrous metals”.

Below, our experts react to the development.


Xi Jinping is scoring a propaganda coup by announcing China’s intention to introduce a national cap-and-trade scheme in 2017, while he is a guest of Obama at the White House. It will not be lost on observers that China will be introducing the very kind of scheme that failed to get through the US Congress, passing the House but being defeated in the Senate.

How interesting that China the communist country is introducing the kind of market-based emissions trading scheme that the United States was unable to launch.

There are two further points to make. The first is that China is introducing its national scheme after trying out various options as local and city-level experimental schemes over the past couple of years. In 2012, pilot programs were initiated in seven provinces, and have been closely monitored since. Here China is teaching the world a lesson in how to introduce reform: first try it out at a small scale in a variety of forms, and then scale up the most successful.

Second, China is not relying on these market-led cap-and-trade initiatives alone. It is also reducing coal consumption in its power sector through direct state intervention, and has been actively promoting solar photovoltaic and wind power through state-guided targeted investment, national planning, and local promotion programs. So the new scheme will take its place as an initiative that helps to solidify China’s trajectory towards greening its energy systems – after direct state action has done the heavy lifting.

Anita Talberg, PhD candidate, Australian-German Climate and Energy College, University of Melbourne

China’s greenhouse gas emissions represent a quarter of the global total. For this reason alone, any tangible progress on Chinese climate action is encouraging. However, what is more promising is what a Chinese emissions trading scheme could mean for the world.

To date we have only seen pockets of emissions trading across the globe; most notably the EU has had a scheme since 2004 and a Californian system has been operating since 2013. Despite concerted efforts, there has been very little headway in linking regional emissions trading schemes. This is because carbon credits would become fungible.

So if one market crashes, so do the connected markets. The entire system is only as strong as the safeguards in the weakest market. The environmental effectiveness of the entire system is only as credible as the monitoring and verification in the least stringent scheme.

The EU and the rest of the world will be looking closely at the integrity and robustness of the Chinese market’s design. If China gets it right, and can elicit enough buy-in, it could represent a turning point for climate change.


The announced introduction of China’s national emissions trading scheme in 2017 places irresistible pressure on Malcolm Turnbull to revisit the issue of an Australian ETS.

When China joins the European Union (the world’s third biggest aggregate emitter) and a number of other major emitting countries and states using cap-and-trade schemes to help cut emissions, some 40% of total global emissions will be covered by carbon markets.

Tellingly, Chinese President Xi Jinping made his announcement at a joint White House Press Conference with President Obama. Together they emphasised how the world’s two largest emitters are now collaborating closely to tackle global warming. Pressure is building within the US to create a national integrated scheme on the foundations of its regional efforts, and other major emitters, like Brazil and Russia, are contemplating similar measures.

Australia’s Direct Action Plan cannot easily be linked to this growing global carbon market. Its underfunded “reverse auction” process cannot acquire sufficient emissions to meet even Australia’s 2020 target. Its “safeguard mechanism” is unlikely to require major Australian emitters to reduce their emissions significantly. Australia is now transparently out of step with global trends and, relying only on current measures, incapable of meeting the tougher mitigation targets which will be required of it in the near future.

The Conversation

John Mathews, Professor of Strategic Management, Macquarie Graduate School of Management; Anita Talberg, PhD student in the Australian German Climate and Energy College, University of Melbourne, and Peter Christoff, Associate Professor, School of Geography, University of Melbourne


Malcolm Turnbull and his emissions trading scheme shadow

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra





















The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra


Too big to fail: China pledges to set up landmark emissions trading scheme

Alex Lo, University of Hong Kong

Chinese President Xi Jinping has made a landmark commitment on climate change during his state visit to the United States. A Chinese cap-and-trade carbon pricing program is scheduled to begin in 2017, and will be the world’s largest carbon market.

In a US-China joint climate statement issued yesterday, China pledged to lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 60-65% from the 2005 level by 2030, and introduce a national emission trading system covering key industry sectors such as iron and steel, power generation, chemicals, building materials, paper, and non-ferrous metals.

China is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, producing 25.9% of the world’s total carbon dioxide emissions in 2012.

Carbon pricing creates incentives for cutting greenhouse gases. According to the World Bank, 39 national and 23 subnational jurisdictions are putting a price on carbon through emission trading schemes (ETSs) and carbon taxes. These schemes and taxes cover 12% of the annual global greenhouse gas emissions: 8% from ETSs and 4% from carbon taxes.

China’s pilot schemes

China’s decision to run a domestic ETS was made in a closed-door meeting as early as 2010. Since 2013, pilot ETSs have come into operation in seven major cities and provinces: Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing, Tianjin, Shenzhen, Hubei and Guangdong. Carbon prices vary across these pilot sites, ranging from US$1.9 per tonne in Shanghai to US$7.3 per tonne in Beijing (as of September 14-18, 2015).

The Chinese carbon markets have developed faster than expected. The pilot ETSs were approved in 2011, and China took only two years to get them up and running. Now, another two years later, President Xi has confirmed a crucial move towards a national scheme.

Meanwhile, the pilot schemes continue to tighten their regulations. For example, Guangdong Province plans to include more sectors, such as transport and construction, in its pilot ETS, which is the largest one in China. Chongqing City has reduced its cap at a greater rate than anticipated, lowering the number of freely allocated carbon allowances by 7%. There are plans for linking up ETSs across regions and creating new schemes in other provinces and cities, such as Hangzhou City and Anhui Province.

The blossoming of Chinese carbon markets stands in contrast to Australia’s stepping back from the transitory carbon tax, which would have become an ETS this year if it hadn’t been repealed by the Abbott government. While President Xi declared the climate change commitment on US soil, US President Obama himself failed in 2010 to get the Senate’s support for a similar cap-and-trade program. As a so-called “socialist market economy”, China seems to be more proactive than the neoliberal states such as the United States and Australia.

Hurdles to overcome

But there are still a lot of uncertainties about China’s scheme. The initial plan for a national ETS was scheduled in 2015, later deferred to 2016, and finally now confirmed for 2017.

Officials know all too well that any time sooner is unrealistic. Market regulation and infrastructure are far from complete. Companies are not active in the domestic carbon market. Local government officials and enterprises have limited capacity and expertise to manage trading activities.

Financial institutions are interested but concerned about the small scale of the market and the low trading volume. This is an issue because even small cities and counties have set up their carbon exchanges to reap benefits from carbon trading (and have closed down prematurely). Building a national cap-and-trade system will be a steep learning curve for China.

The falling coal consumption in China has made room for capping emissions. China used to be highly sceptical of emissions trading because it requires an absolute emissions cap to function properly, which would pose limits on the use of coal for power generation.

At the same time, car ownership in China is increasing, meaning that petrol use is likely to increase too. The Beijing government could keep cars off the roads by forcing car owners to drive only on alternate days (depending on their licence plate number), as it did during the APEC Summit held in Beijing in 2014 and the Tiananmen parade in 2015. Some heavy industries were forced to shut down their plants temporarily to meet emissions targets.

It may turn out that 2017 is too soon for China to develop a national ETS without an outdated “command-and-control” approach. A better way forward may be to develop an interim carbon tax scheme before moving to an ETS, as Australia previously attempted to do.

Experts have indicated that carbon taxes are a better option than ETSs. In 2011, UK climate economist Nicholas Stern, the principal author of the influential Stern Review, along with a group of prominent economists and senior academics from Chinese official think tanks, said:

…a carbon tax is probably the more robust instrument than a cap-and-trade system for cutting carbon emissions at this stage of China’s development, and it is also the favoured option of China’s policy-makers.

China needs a lot more time to build up a fully functioning carbon market, but it doesn’t have time to get it wrong. Covering more than a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, the Chinese carbon market will be a game-changer, but it will also be too big to fail.

The Conversation

Alex Lo, Assistant Professor, University of Hong Kong


Article: New Zealand and Carbon Pricing

The link below is to an article that considers New Zealand’s position on carbon pricing and reports that it will link with an Australian emissions trading scheme.

For more visit: