Gyanendra Kashyap of 4Ps B&M gives the final F-word-primer on facts, figures, foibles and farces in carbon trading... and investigates the paradox of why the bigger polluters will gain more in carbon trading in future!
They could have called it carbon dating instead of carbon trading,
for all we care, given the completely controversial and practically outdated methodology on which this concept thrives! But we’ll cross the damned Kwai bridge when we reach it. First, the ides of March. There is no question that global warming has been the most talked about phenomenon in the last century and in this one too. Environmentalists have more often than not been sidelined as the trouble creators. Surprisingly, the most impactful of all the environmentalists has perhaps been the one who has been least known – the man who is credited with inventing carbon trading (pundits call him the father of carbon trading) – Richard Sandor! The man gave an economic value to efforts dealing with reduction in pollution, the most crucial aspect of environment. Sadly, what he envisioned is perhaps miles off what is becoming of this ‘business’.
Carbon trading is a part of international emission trading norm, which incentivises companies and/or countries that emit less carbon. If a company is registered with the appropriate council (mentioned later in the article), and it manages to ‘emit’ carbon dioxide ‘less’ than the quota allocated to it, then the company ‘earns’ a certain number of carbon credits, which, later on, the company can sell in carbon trading bourses to other firms that have exceeded their allocated limits of carbon dioxide production. That’s as simple as it should have been... Well, it somehow didn’t work out that way.
The emission reduction scheme is based on ‘cap and trade’ wherein the total annual emissions are capped and the market allocates a monetary value to any shortfall through trading. Businesses can exchange, buy or sell carbon credits in international markets at the prevailing market price. Over the years, it has become a source of earning revenue in developing countries. And how? Companies in this part of the world are typically less polluting (as they’re less ‘producing’) and the extra credits are sold to firms in developed countries. But strangely, in the future, it would surely be the more polluting companies that would stand to gain from this system of carbon trading.
But first, some more facts. This market is continuously growing and has been attracting huge investments. Investment banks (like Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch et al) have been active players and many carbon funds have been set up, with investors in those funds either planning to use the carbon credits that result from those investments for compliance purposes directly (e.g. with the EU-ETS), or simply as investments to sell. The ICECAP fund run by Natsource is an example of this. China (thanks to its large size, economies of scale in originations, favourable investment climate), which has quadrupled its number of projects in the pipeline from January 2007 to March 2008, dominates the global carbon market with 73% share in terms of transacted volume followed by India.
It is also a fact that India has gained a considerable share in the carbon trading market and companies have reaped in huge profits. Torrent Power, which recently switched over from a coal-fired power plant to natural gas (in a bid to reduce GHGs) earned 3.2 million carbon credits (this translates to whopping earnings of €54.14 million). In 2007, two projects of JSW Steel were awarded 5.4 million carbon credits (out of which one project was issued 4 million carbon credits). Examples like these will make it easy to understand why companies try hard to grab a part of the carbon credit market. It’s easy million dollar earning. As a matter of fact, India Inc. can exploit numerous business opportunities in developing low carbon technologies, an area which is expected to grow to $3 trillion per year by 2050.
As mentioned earlier, India (with a 6% market share and 930 projects in pipeline) is next only to China and contributes to about one third of the total CDM (Clean Development Mechanism, which accounts for 16.5% of the market) project base registered with UNFCCC (United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change). In 2007, Indian companies reportedly earned $300 million by selling CERs (equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide) and this earning is all set to touch $3.6 billion by 2012. The carbon trading market has grown phenomenally. The global carbon market was just $11 billion in 2005; went up to $31 billion in 2006; touched $64 billion in 2007; and is thundering upwards at $96 billion as per current figures. It is in reality expected to be a trillion dollar institution by 2020.
Corporate players across the globe foresee a huge demand in the future and hence are developing environmentally conservative technologies. This will not only help them cash in on millions of dollars of future demand but will also portray them as responsible corporates. Speaking exclusively to 4Ps B&M, Tom Johnstone, President & CEO of the $8 billion behemoth SKF (the world’s largest ball bearing manufacturer), said, “Carbon credits enhance both the company’s image as well as profits,” and further added that it’s a win-win situation for both the company and the consumer.
They could have called it carbon dating instead of carbon trading,
for all we care, given the completely controversial and practically outdated methodology on which this concept thrives! But we’ll cross the damned Kwai bridge when we reach it. First, the ides of March. There is no question that global warming has been the most talked about phenomenon in the last century and in this one too. Environmentalists have more often than not been sidelined as the trouble creators. Surprisingly, the most impactful of all the environmentalists has perhaps been the one who has been least known – the man who is credited with inventing carbon trading (pundits call him the father of carbon trading) – Richard Sandor! The man gave an economic value to efforts dealing with reduction in pollution, the most crucial aspect of environment. Sadly, what he envisioned is perhaps miles off what is becoming of this ‘business’.Carbon trading is a part of international emission trading norm, which incentivises companies and/or countries that emit less carbon. If a company is registered with the appropriate council (mentioned later in the article), and it manages to ‘emit’ carbon dioxide ‘less’ than the quota allocated to it, then the company ‘earns’ a certain number of carbon credits, which, later on, the company can sell in carbon trading bourses to other firms that have exceeded their allocated limits of carbon dioxide production. That’s as simple as it should have been... Well, it somehow didn’t work out that way.
The emission reduction scheme is based on ‘cap and trade’ wherein the total annual emissions are capped and the market allocates a monetary value to any shortfall through trading. Businesses can exchange, buy or sell carbon credits in international markets at the prevailing market price. Over the years, it has become a source of earning revenue in developing countries. And how? Companies in this part of the world are typically less polluting (as they’re less ‘producing’) and the extra credits are sold to firms in developed countries. But strangely, in the future, it would surely be the more polluting companies that would stand to gain from this system of carbon trading.
But first, some more facts. This market is continuously growing and has been attracting huge investments. Investment banks (like Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch et al) have been active players and many carbon funds have been set up, with investors in those funds either planning to use the carbon credits that result from those investments for compliance purposes directly (e.g. with the EU-ETS), or simply as investments to sell. The ICECAP fund run by Natsource is an example of this. China (thanks to its large size, economies of scale in originations, favourable investment climate), which has quadrupled its number of projects in the pipeline from January 2007 to March 2008, dominates the global carbon market with 73% share in terms of transacted volume followed by India.
It is also a fact that India has gained a considerable share in the carbon trading market and companies have reaped in huge profits. Torrent Power, which recently switched over from a coal-fired power plant to natural gas (in a bid to reduce GHGs) earned 3.2 million carbon credits (this translates to whopping earnings of €54.14 million). In 2007, two projects of JSW Steel were awarded 5.4 million carbon credits (out of which one project was issued 4 million carbon credits). Examples like these will make it easy to understand why companies try hard to grab a part of the carbon credit market. It’s easy million dollar earning. As a matter of fact, India Inc. can exploit numerous business opportunities in developing low carbon technologies, an area which is expected to grow to $3 trillion per year by 2050.
As mentioned earlier, India (with a 6% market share and 930 projects in pipeline) is next only to China and contributes to about one third of the total CDM (Clean Development Mechanism, which accounts for 16.5% of the market) project base registered with UNFCCC (United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change). In 2007, Indian companies reportedly earned $300 million by selling CERs (equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide) and this earning is all set to touch $3.6 billion by 2012. The carbon trading market has grown phenomenally. The global carbon market was just $11 billion in 2005; went up to $31 billion in 2006; touched $64 billion in 2007; and is thundering upwards at $96 billion as per current figures. It is in reality expected to be a trillion dollar institution by 2020.
Corporate players across the globe foresee a huge demand in the future and hence are developing environmentally conservative technologies. This will not only help them cash in on millions of dollars of future demand but will also portray them as responsible corporates. Speaking exclusively to 4Ps B&M, Tom Johnstone, President & CEO of the $8 billion behemoth SKF (the world’s largest ball bearing manufacturer), said, “Carbon credits enhance both the company’s image as well as profits,” and further added that it’s a win-win situation for both the company and the consumer.
Read these article :-
ZEE BUSINESS BEST B SCHOOL SURVEY
B-schooled in India, Placed Abroad (Print Version)
IIPM in Financial times (Print Version)
IIPM makes business education truly global (Print Version)
The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM)
IIPM Campus
Top Articles on IIPM:-
'This is one of Big B's best performances'
IIPM to come up at Rajarhat
IIPM awards four Bengali novelists
IIPM makes business education truly global-Education-The Times of ...
The Hindu : Education Plus : Honour for IIPM
IIPM ranked No.1 B-School in India, Management News - By ...
IIPM Ranked No1 B-School in India
Moneycontrol >> News >> Press- News >> IIPM ranked No1 B-School in ...
IIPM ranked No. 1 B-school in India- Zee Business Survey ...
IIPM ranked No1 B-School in India :: Education, Careers ...
The Hindu Business Line : IIPM placements hit a high of over 2000 jobs
Deccan Herald - IIPM ranked as top B-School in India
India eNews - IIPM Ranked No1 B-School in India
IIPM Delhi - Indian Institute of Planning and Management New Delhi ...
IIPM ranked ahead of IIMs
No comments:
Post a Comment