I - BusinessCarbonPricingAdvocacy

I - CapandTrade

I - CarbonOffsetPrices

I - CarbonOffsetsandCarbonPricing

I - CarbonPriceCorridor

I - CarbonPriceForecasting

I - CarbonPricingandEmissionsReductions

I - CarbonPricingandTechnologyInnovation

I - CarbonPricingHistoryandTrends

I - CarbonPricingImpacts

I - CarbonPricinginScenarioPlanning

I - CarbonPricingPoliticalFeasibility

I - CarbonPricingviaCarbonMarkets

I - CarbonPricingwithComplementaryPolicies

I - CarbonTaxation

I - ClimateExactions

I - ConsumptionBasedCarbonPricing

I - CurrentDamagesasCarbonPrice

I - EvaluatingBCsCarbonTax

I - EvaluatingCarbonPricing

I - ImplicitCarbonPricing

I - InternalCarbonPricing

I - PolicyasCarbonPricing

I - RCCRiskCostofCarbonasCarbonPrice

I - SCCasCarbonPrice

I - SVMASocialValueofMitigationAction

I - TargetBasedCarbonPricing

I - UseofCarbonRevenues

S - Carbon Markets

S - Carbon Price Forecasts

S - Carbon Pricing Futures

S - Carbon Pricing History and Trends

S - Carbon Pricing in the Electricity Sector

S - Carbon Pricing Policy as Business Risk

S - Carbon Pricing Sources

S - Carbon Pricing System Design

S - Evaluating Carbon Pricing

S - Impacts of Pricing Carbon

S - Internal Corporate Carbon Pricing

S - National and Global Carbon Pricing

S - SCC Social Cost of Carbon

S - State and Local Carbon Pricing

S - Taxing Carbon

S - Why and How of Pricing Carbon

N - Carbon Price Forecasting

N - Carbon Pricing Advocacy

N - Carbon Pricing Impacts

N - Carbon Pricing News - Topical

N - Carbon Pricing Trends

N - Evaluating Carbon Pricing

N - Internal Carbon Pricing - Business and Other

N - SCC Social Cost of Carbon News

N - State Carbon Pricing

N - Taxing Carbon

T - Carbon Pricing Individuals

T - Carbon Pricing Networks

V - Carbon Pricing

E - Business Carbon Pricing Advocacy

E - Cap and Trade Performance

E - Carbon Price Design

E - Carbon pricing politics

E - Carbon Pricing Coverage

E - Carbon Pricing History and Trends

E - Carbon Pricing Impacts

E - Carbon Pricing Required for Emissions Targets

E - Carbon Pricing Scenarios and Forecasts

E - Carbon Taxation

E - Case for Carbon Pricing

E - Company-Specific Carbon Pricing

E - Evaluating Carbon Pricing

E - Implicit Carbon Price of Policies and Measures

E - Internal Business Carbon Pricing

S - Adaptation Frame

S - Adapting to Climate Change Under Uncertainty

S - Atmospheric Trust Litigation

S - Bounding Global SLR

S - Business Adaptation/Resilience

S - Business Decision-Making with Climate Uncertainty

S - Carbon Pricing Sources

S - CCS CCUS

S - CCS Critiques

S - CCS Risks

S - CCS Technologies

S - Climate Change Fingerprint to Date

S - Climate Change Tipping Points

S - Climate Emergency Sources

S - Climate Ethics Morals Religion

S - Climate Modeling

S - Climate Risk (Societal)

S - Climate Uncertainties Unknowns

S - CO2 Utilization

S - Collective Action

S - Economics Forecasting

S - Ecosystem Restoration

S - Environmental and Climate Storytelling

S - Environmental Migrants

S - Evaluating Business Responses

S - Evaluating Voluntary Measures

S - Fire Impacts

S - Forestry Emissions and Mitigation

S - Green Growth

S - Green Growth Investment Barriers

S - IAMs Integrated Assessment Models

S - Impact Attribution

S - Impact Modeling

S - Modeling Extreme Events

S - Natural Capital

S - Negative Emissions

S - Observed vs. Modeled Impacts

S - Politics and Policy

S - Public Perceptions of CCS

S - SCC Social Cost of Carbon

S - Science Top Level

S - Wicked Problems

N - Business and Deforestation

N - Carbon Dioxide Removal - CDR

N - Carbon Negative

N - Carbon Pricing News - Topical

N - CCS Carbon Capture and Storage

N - CCS Critiques

N - CCS Law and Policy

N - CCS Technologies

N - CCUS CO2 Utilization

N - Climate Change Fingerprint

N - Climate Models

N - Ecosystem Restoration

N - Evaluating Business Action

N - Evaluating Risk Disclosure

N - Forestry Mitigation

N - Gaming and Climate Communication

N - Politics and Policy

N - SCC Social Cost of Carbon News

N - Science Top Level

N - Sector Responses

N - Soil Carbon Sequestration

N - Systems Thinking

T - CCS and CCUS

T - Climate Impact Tracking

T - Communication Tools

T - Nature-Based Solutions

T - Visualizing Future Impacts

V - Climate Solutions

E - Catastrophe Modeling

E - CCS and CCUS

E - Climate Change Fingerprint

E - Climate Opportunities

E - CO2 Air Capture

E - Communicating shifting extremes

E - Green Growth Policies

E - IAM Uncertainties and Forecasts

E - Integrated Assessment Modeling

E - Negative Emissions Technologies

E - Public Policy

E - Science-based targets

E - Shifting Extremes

E - Visualizing Climate Change

Infographic - Carbon Pricing in Canada

E - Business Carbon Pricing Advocacy

E - Cap and Dividend

E - Cap and Trade Performance

E - Carbon Markets Performance

E - Carbon Price Design

E - Carbon pricing politics

E - Carbon Pricing Coverage

E - Carbon Pricing History and Trends

E - Carbon Pricing Impacts

E - Carbon Pricing in Practice

E - Carbon Pricing Required for Emissions Targets

E - Carbon Pricing Revenues and Use

E - Carbon Pricing Scenarios and Forecasts

E - Carbon Taxation

E - Case for Carbon Pricing

E - Company-Specific Carbon Pricing

E - Efficient Optimal Carbon Pricing

E - Evaluating Carbon Pricing

E - Implicit Carbon Price of Policies and Measures

E - Internal Business Carbon Pricing

E - Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax

E - SCC as Carbon Price

E - Sectoral Carbon Pricing and Pathways

E - Shadow Pricing

2012 The study concluded that policy and technology change in risk, but impacts almost irrelevant

2015 Other ways to get to same objective, e.g. $30/ton carbon tax

2015 Other ways to get to same objective, e.g. $30/ton carbon tax

2015 The 2oC Framework

2015 The 2oC portfolio approach

2015 Translating a 2oC scenario into a 2oC benchmark - 12

2016 Carbon price impact stress-testing approach

2016 Comparison of relevant signposts within physical climate scenarios

2016 Horizontal vs. vertical perspective on carbon pricing

2016 Horizontal vs. vertical perspective on carbon pricing

2016 Impact of policy distortions on apparent abatement cost

2016 Impact of policy distortions on apparent abatement cost

2016 Impact of WAIS collapse by 2200 modest in terms of suggested SCC

2016 Impact of WAIS collapse by 2200 modest in terms of suggested SCC

2016 Linking real assets to financial portfolios (9)

2016 Low carbon impact smart beta portfolio

2016 Mapping GHG productivity along value chains

2016 Mapping GHG productivity along value chains

2016 Objectives of the report

2016 Oil production costs vary widely

2016 Oil production costs vary widely

2016 Overview of carbon pricing by the numbers

2016 Overview of carbon pricing by the numbers

2016 Position of companies on introducing carbon pricing

2016 Position of companies on introducing carbon pricing

2016 Potential price impact of global carbon price after revenue recycling

2016 Prices in existing carbon pricing initiatives

2016 Relative sector impact on PBT by 2020

2016 Risks are long-term, investment focus short-term

2016 Testing 2D alignment for real assets

2016 Testing the alignment of real assets with a 2D target (4)

2016 There is no demand for long-term analysis (19)

2016 Transition scenarios - IEA outlook to 2040

2016 Voluntary vs. mandatory ways to respond to scenario challenges

2017 10 year and 35 year results

2017 35 year sensitivity

2017 Carbon price corridor for the power sector

2017 Carbon pricing could cover costs of universal access to basic services

2017 Carbon revenue recycling can benefit poor

2017 Carbon revenues could significantly expand social assistance

2017 Equity holds of financial actors, top 15 funds, and top 15 banks

2017 First and second round bank equity losses

2017 Heat maps - sensitivity of asset classes to climate risk factors

2017 OPTrust TRIP Expsoures

2017 Portfolio impacts at 10 years

2017 Portfolio impacts at 10 years

2017 Portfolio impacts at 10 years

2017 Reclassified NACE sectors to climate-policy-relevant sectors

2017 Risk factors illustrated relatively by scenario

2017 Sensitivity to TRIP risk factors by OPTrust greatest over short term

2018 Recent trends in carbon pricing

2018 The carbon pricing gap for OECD and G20 Countries

2021 Calculated components of the price of carbon facing Norwegian motorists as of 2019

2021 IPR carbon price policy forecast

2021 Voluntary carbon credit prices and demand 2019 by project type

2021 Voluntary carbon credit prices and demand 2019 by vintage

Australian Carbon Prices and Food Prices

Calculated "marginal" benefit cost ratio for 2011

Carbon Pricing by Country

Carbon Pricing Coverage by Country

Cheap energy is important for less poverty and better health

Coal keeps electricity prices down

Forward looking benefit cost ratios

GDP will continue to rise rapidly

Impact of Carbon Pricing

One can project the "CO2 Yield for Crops in the Future

Revised 2013 Social Cost of CO2, 2010-2050 ($2007)

Subtracting out benefits of energy from non-fossil fuel sources

The benefit cost ratio for CO2 is huge

The social cost of carbon emissions

As governments take real action, carbon prices could rise

Average voluntary market prices should rise to $20-50/tCO2e by 2030

Talk of carbon pricing evokes the bitter memory of shock therapy in eastern Europe and the developing world. BlackRock’s backstop idea is the logic of the 2008 bank bailouts expanded to the global level – socialise the risks, privatise the profits.

Taylor: 90% of people advocate a modest tax with a strict escalator

Taylor: If liberals are right that mitigation is cheap, then emissions reductions from a carbon tax should be huge

Taylor: Ironically, conservatives have the best answer to climate change - the power of markets and the invisible hand

Taylor: There is NOTHING that will get the job done besides a real price on carbon - regulation can't get there

The US and the EU seem less preoccupied with grand schemes of carbon pricing and blended finance, than with pushing a case-by-case approach

Works out ~$300/ton in 2050

Works out to ~$80/ton in 2030

Carbon Pricing for Paris Agreement

Carbon Pricing in Brief

Carbon Pricing Intro

Carbon Pricing Rules of Thumb

Implicit Carbon Pricing

Scoping Out the Topic of Carbon Pricing

Summing Up the Options for Carbon Pricing

E - Achieving the 2 Degree target

E - COP26 Glasgow

E - COP21 and Business

E - COP21 as Failure

E - COP21 as Initial Step

E - COP21 as Success

E - COP21 Explaining the Agreement

E - COP21 Forestry

E - COP21 Markets

E - COP21 What's Next

E - Evaluating COP21 Outcomes

E - Finance Sector Alignment w/ Paris Agreement

2018 The Paris Challenge

2018 What the Paris Agreement calls for

Interpreting the Paris Agreement

E - Achieving the 2 Degree target

“I think we would have been better off to focus on an emissions reduction target from the beginning, ” said Geden, a climate policy expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. “Net zero somehow gives a clearer message, and I think that’s a strength of the concept.”

But many models assume higher levels of negative emissions than experts believe is actually plausible (Climatewire, Dec. 22, 2020). And that’s the trouble. They can make even aggressive targets like 1.5 C appear easily within reach. A rapidly dwindling carbon budget is suddenly less pressing. There’s always a little more time left to act.

If there’s any lesson to be learned from the last two decades, it’s that there are no shortcuts to cutting carbon. Limiting global temperatures, reaching net zero, halting climate change — they’re all goals that require immediate reductions in global emissions, without relying on the promise of hypothetical future technological outs.

In 2013, Oliver Geden argued that a 2 C target was “primarily symbolic” and “has contributed little to the implementation of ambitious policy measures worldwide.” “Climate neutrality, ” he added — or net zero — would be a more actionable target.

In a 2014 Nature commentary, researchers David Victor and Charles Kennel argued that a 2 C target could be counterproductive. It’s a goal that has “allowed politicians to pretend that they are organizing for action when, in fact, most have done little, ” they wrote.

In a recent essay published in The Conversation, climate scientists James Dyke, Robert Watson and Wolfgang Knorr argue that net-zero targets are a “dangerous trap.” They’ve come to rely too much on carbon removal and negative emissions technologies, the scientists say. This trend “helps perpetuate a belief in technological salvation and diminishes the sense of urgency surrounding the need to curb emissions now, ” they wrote.

In the real world, negative emissions technologies are still being researched, developed and scaled up. But in models, they’re a cheap and convenient way to meet a climate target. If a technology is “novel, unknown and to be deployed in the future, the model will eat it up, ” McLaren said in an interview with E&E News. “It will pretty much take as much of it as it can get.”

Net zero is the latest concept in a long line of global climate targets, each attempting to improve on the one before. Over the last few decades, policymakers have focused their attention on temperature targets, carbon budgets, atmospheric carbon dioxide limits and other concepts, all aimed at halting global warming before its consequences become too dire.

Net Zero targets must clearly define their scope, including which greenhouse gases they cover and which ones they don’t. They must be both adequate and fair, articulating whether any reliance on negative emissions or offsets is reasonable and justified. And they must contain a detailed road map to zero.

Relatively few countries have made their net-zero targets legally binding, let alone implemented policies sufficient to reach them.

Some experts are beginning to argue that an entirely different approach to global climate targets may be more effective, one that’s less focused on a lofty, top-down approach. In a recent Nature Energy paper, researcher Ryan Hanna and Victor argue that policymakers should focus their attention more closely on smaller, niche markets where rapid technological innovation is possible — areas like electric vehicles or offshore wind.

Still, many experts believe net zero is a valuable policy tool — perhaps the best the world has at the moment. It just needs to be honed.

Technological promise — even when it’s uncertain and undeveloped — has been a driving force behind the evolution of these targets over the last few decades.

The lure of uncertain technological innovations, experts say, may be part of the problem. Like net zero, the carbon budget also allows for the possibility of negative emissions. Sucking carbon out of the atmosphere could add some value back to the budget, allowing extra time to burn more fossil fuels. Even if these technologies aren’t fully realized yet, their potential may be enough to give policymakers an excuse to keep on delaying climate action.

What began as a direct way to address climate change — eliminating human-made greenhouse gas emissions — has morphed into something more complex and more deceptive, critics say. Many carbon-neutral targets around the world, from countries and corporations alike, have built-in assumptions about what the “net” in “net zero” actually allows. Some of them allow for the continued burning of fossil fuels.

While carbon budgets were supposed to be more actionable than temperature targets, in 2018 Oliver Geden argued that “carbon budgets have only been able to influence climate policy talk, not decisions, let alone actions. In other words, the concept is not particularly ‘actionable, ’ similar to global temperature targets.”