Latest market news

Bonn UN climate talks fail to advance new finance goal

  • Market: Emissions
  • 13/06/24

Talks at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bonn, Germany, are coming to an end today and parties have little to show for their two weeks of negotiations on climate finance for developing countries.

Progress on agreeing a new climate finance target — to replace a pledge that was missed by developed countries to give $100bn/yr to developing countries by 2020 — was limited and there are still significant divisions among parties, think-tank E3G said today.

Details of the updated target must be finalised during the UN Cop 29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan later this year. But so far negotiators have remained entrenched in their positions on key issues such as how much finance should be provided, who should contribute, who should benefit or qualify as "particularly vulnerable" and the quality of the finance — loans over grants — along with the role of private finance.

Developed countries have not come forward with a number during the negotiations, despite being pressed repeatedly by developing nations to do so. The latter, including Saudi Arabia, India and African nations, are calling for at least $1 trillion-1.3 trillion/yr.

The US said that it supports a goal that is "fit for purpose" and "from a floor of $100bn/yr". The EU and other developed nations argue that certain high-emitting developing countries, such as China or Saudi Arabia, should shoulder some of the finance, thereby broadening the donor base. But China made clear that it has no intention of doing that. "Developing countries voluntarily support each other beyond our capacity and we have no intention to make your numbers look good," the Chinese negotiator said.

Pakistan's delegate rejected developed countries' proposals, which he said were not in line with the Paris Agreement, such as the obligation on developing countries to implement certain domestic measures in exchange for funding.

Australia called parties out on a "game of word-count to measure balance" and said the new target amount should be "the star at the top of the Christmas tree" because "it is dependent on the structure, types of sources, the timeframe and breadth of contributor base".

Meanwhile, Barbados pleaded for parties "to move forward" on the text as otherwise "more Small Island Developing States and Least Developed Countries will simply disappear from this gathering because we disappear from this planet".

Although UNFCCC executive secretary Simon Stiell called for "serious progress" to be made on finance and for parties to move from "zero-draft to real options", these key issues will be left for top negotiators and ministers to tackle in Baku. The US election — which will take place a week before Cop 29 starts — is one of the biggest factors in moving the finance discussions forward, E3G policy adviser Tom Evans said.

Convergence

Consensus does seems to be forming on some issues, such as the need to make access to finance easier to least developed and vulnerable countries, discussing unsustainable debt and the cost of capital, and the need for more transparency — possibly in the context of the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF). The framework obliges parties to draw up biennial transparency reports, with the first due at the end of the year.

The "very fundamental divide" between the two blocs on their perceptions around climate finance is underpinned by a lack of trust in the system, senior attorney Erika Lennon from the Center for International Environmental Law said. This is understandable given the time it took developed countries to fulfil their $100bn/yr pledge and the underwhelming performance so far of the different funding programmes, she added.

With neither camp ready to compromise in Bonn, it remains to be seen who will "give", Evans of E3G said.


Sharelinkedin-sharetwitter-sharefacebook-shareemail-share

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

News
26/12/24

Viewpoint: Unified CO2 market remains in distance

Viewpoint: Unified CO2 market remains in distance

Houston, 26 December (Argus) — Washington state's carbon market enters 2025 on steadier ground than it stood on for much of the past year, but still faces hurdles before it is part of a larger North American market. Washington's cap-and-invest program has weathered a year of highs and lows between advancing its ambitions to link with the Western Climate Initiative and operating through much of the year under threat of repeal in the November state elections. The state Department of Ecology director Laura Watson began the state's quest to link with the WCI last year , as regulators looked to the larger, more liquid market to potentially temper the higher-than-expected prices over the first year of the market in 2023. Washington Carbon Allowances (WCAs) for December 2023 delivery surged as high as $70/t last year, according to Argus assessments. But the state has clinched several wins for its program this year. State lawmakers were able to pass a bill to smooth out several areas of potential incompatibility with the WCI earlier this year, along with California and Quebec agreeing to move forward into formal linkage talks in March . But a repeal effort, initiative 2117, seeking to remove the state's cap-and-invest program dampened prices and forward movement on linkage since January. WCAs for December 2024 delivery fell to the lowest price to date for the program at $30.25/t on 4 March, according to Argus assessments, as uncertainty over the future of the program quieted market participation. State voters backed the cap-and-invest program in November with 62pc against the repeal effort, but months of uncertainty has cost the state time and linkage progress as the WCI awaited the November results. Additionally, while Washington started its own linkage rulemaking in April to align the program with changes planned for the WCI, finishing it requires the joint market first finalize its own changes. The linkage logjam has left market participants feeling that the state's momentum is stalled for the moment, even as perception of the state's eventual joining remains a question of "when" not "if." Ecology says it remains in communication with the WCI members and is evaluating the impact of California's new rulemaking timeline. California has indicated over this year that it does not intend to focus fully on linkage until its current rulemaking is complete. Ecology estimates it will adopt its new rules in fall 2025, with the earliest the state could expect a linkage agreement in late 2025. Washington must still complete further steps required by state law before any linkage agreement can proceed, including an environmental justice assessment and a final evaluation of a potential joint market under criteria set by its Climate Commitment Act, along with public comment. California and Quebec must also conduct their own evaluations to comply with respective state and provincial laws. If this timing works out, Ecology would be part of joint auctions starting in 2026. Compounding the process is the potential threat posed by incoming president-elect Donald Trump, who is likely to try to reverse major environmental regulations and commitments. Trump sought ultimately unsuccessful litigation in his first administration to sever the link between Quebec and California in 2019. The administration pursued the case on the grounds that California's participation violated federal authority to establish trade and other agreements with foreign entities under Article I of the US Constitution, which sets out the role of the federal and state powers in commerce and agreements with foreign powers. Both California and Washington have undergone preparations in recent months to gird themselves for a legal fight with the incoming administration, and that may add further scrutiny to linkage for both states going forward, said Justin Johnson, a market expert with the International Emissions Trading Association. "I think that it will require them to be more vigilant about the process they use and making sure they dot their i's and cross their t's because I think that there will be some folks in the federal administration who would like to see that not happen," Johnson said. By Denise Cathey Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Find out more
News

Viewpoint: California dairy fight spills into 2025


24/12/24
News
24/12/24

Viewpoint: California dairy fight spills into 2025

Houston, 24 December (Argus) — California must begin crafting dairy methane limits next year as pressure grows for regulators to change course. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has committed to begin crafting regulations that could mandate the reduction of dairy methane as it locked in incentives for harvesting gas to fuel vehicles in the state. The combination has frustrated environmental groups and other opponents of a methane capture strategy they accuse of collateral damage. Now, tough new targets pitched to help balance the program's incentives could become the fall-out in a new lawsuit. State regulators have repeatedly said that the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is ill-suited to consider mostly off-road emissions from a sector that could pack up and move to another state to escape regulation. California's LCFS requires yearly reductions of transportation fuel carbon intensity. Higher-carbon fuels that exceed the annual limits incur deficits that suppliers must offset with credits generated from the distribution to the state of approved, lower-carbon alternatives. Regulators extended participation in the program to dairy methane in 2017. Dairies may register to use manure digesters to capture methane that suppliers may process into pipeline-quality natural gas. This gas may then be attributed to compressed natural gas vehicles in California, so long as participants can show a path for approved supplies between the dairy and the customer. California only issues credits for methane cuts beyond other existing requirements. Regulators began mandating methane reductions from landfills more than a decade ago and in 2016 set similar requirements for wastewater treatment plants. But while lawmakers set a goal for in-state dairies to reduce methane emissions by 40pc from 2030 levels, regulators could not even consider rulemakings mandating such reductions until 2024. CARB made no move to directly regulate those emissions at their first opportunity, as staff grappled with amendments to the agency's LCFS and cap-and-trade programs. That has meant that dairies continue to receive credit for all of the methane they capture, generating deep, carbon-reducing scores under the LCFS and outsized credit production relative to the fuel they replace. Dairy methane harvesting generated 16pc of all new credits generated in 2023, compared with biodiesel's 6pc. Dairy methane replaced just 38pc of the diesel equivalent gallons that biodiesel did over the same period. The incentive has exasperated environmental and community groups, who see LCFS credits as encouraging larger operations with more consequences for local air and water quality. Dairies warn that costly methane capture systems could not be affordable otherwise. Adding to the expense of operating in California would cause more operations to leave the state. California dairies make up about two thirds of suppliers registered under the program. Dairy supporters successfully delayed proposed legislative requirements in 2023. CARB staff in May 2024 declined a petition seeking a faster approach to dairy regulation . Staff committed to take up a rulemaking considering the best way to address dairy methane reduction in 2025. Before that, final revisions to the LCFS approved in November included guarantees for dairy methane crediting. Projects that break ground by the end of this decade would remain eligible for up to 30 years of LCFS credit generation, compared with just 10 years for projects after 2029. Limits on the scope of book-and-claim participation for out-of-state projects would wait until well into the next decade. Staff said it was necessary to ensure continued investment in methane reduction. The inclusion immediately frustrated critics of the renewable natural gas policy, including board member Diane Tarkvarian, who sought to have the changes struck and was one of two votes ultimately against the LCFS revisions. Environmental groups have now sued , invoking violations that effectively froze the LCFS for years of court review. Regulators and lawmakers working to transition the state to cleaner air and lower-emissions vehicles will have to tread carefully in 2025. By Elliott Blackburn Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

South Korea to invest $309bn in green finance by 2030


24/12/24
News
24/12/24

South Korea to invest $309bn in green finance by 2030

Singapore, 24 December (Argus) — South Korea plans to invest 450 trillion won ($309bn) in green finance by 2030, acting president and prime minister Han Duck-soo said on 23 December. The country is also "actively encouraging private investment by upgrading the Korean Green Taxonomy system", Han added. The taxonomy is technical legislation that classifies the industrial carbon and environmental footprint for investors. It aims to promote green finance and prevent ‘greenwashing', with the aim of achieving a sustainable circular economy. The most important issue for the industrial sector, which accounts for about 36pc of domestic emissions, is to transition to carbon neutrality, Han said. South Korea has an "export-driven economic structure with high external dependence", he said, which means international carbon barriers will significantly affect South Korea. This makes decarbonisation key to maintaining competitiveness, he added. South Korea is also responding to the climate crisis through technological innovation. The country's science ministry last week unveiled plans to invest almost W2.75 trillion to develop technology to respond to climate change in 2025. By Tng Yong Li Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Viewpoint: Low-carbon fuel battles tumble into 2025


23/12/24
News
23/12/24

Viewpoint: Low-carbon fuel battles tumble into 2025

Houston, 23 December (Argus) — Fights over North America's largest low-carbon fuel mandates will tumble into 2025, long after a contentious year spent updating the program. California's minority Republican lawmakers have seized upon fears that new, tougher targets approved in November to the state's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) could hike today's pump prices by 15pc. Environmental opponents have sued the California Air Resource's Board (CARB) alleging regulators ignored shortcomings to push through those amendments. And fuel suppliers, meanwhile, continue to grapple with new demands on feedstock selection, certification and other decisions that will begin to tighten by the end of this decade. LCFS programs require yearly reductions in transportation fuel carbon intensity. Higher-carbon fuels including petroleum diesel and gasoline incur deficits for exceeding annual targets. Suppliers must offset these deficits with credits generated from distributing approved, lower-carbon alternatives to the state. California operates the oldest and largest among five operating programs on the continent. The program helped drive a surge in US renewable diesel production capacity that earlier this year cut petroleum's share to less than a quarter of the liquid diesel used in the state. Credit trade representing each metric tonne (t) of carbon reduction drives the incentives for renewable diesel, captured dairy methane or electric vehicle charging capacity used in California transportation. Credits peaked at $219/t in February 2020, equivalent to roughly $267.10/t in today's dollars. But spot credits have languished below $100/t since late 2022. Prices buckled under the growing weight of more than 30mn t of extra credits available for future compliance — enough to satisfy all the deficits generated in 2023 a second time, with another 30pc leftover. CARB staff estimated that the targets board members approved in November would reduce that reserve by more than 8mn t, or less than a third. Fuel producers warned that carbon reduction could stagnate under the smothering imbalance of new credits. Staff dismissed outside estimates of 65¢/USG increases to gasoline prices attributed to the tough new program targets, but declined to offer a competing cost estimate. Spot credit prices would need to more than triple to $250/t next year to hit gasoline prices that hard at the pump, based on Argus analysis. Pump prices make good politics Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has for two years sought and received state tools to scrutinize oil company profits on California fuel sales. Now a California state senate Republican bill would repeal the new targets and other newly adopted changes intended to restore incentives under the program. A state assembly bill would require any CARB new rulemaking or standard to undergo a cost analysis by the state's Legislative Analyst Office, a nonpartisan office that performs such reviews of legislative proposals. These Republican measures face a likely impossible climb through Democratic supermajorities in both chambers. But lawmakers noted the potency of fuel price complaints. A legislative session — framed in defiance of a new federal administration hostile to their climate efforts — opened with leaders acknowledging the need to balance costs. "California has always led the way on climate change and we will continue to lead on climate," speaker Robert Rivas (D) said on 2 December. "But not on the backs of poor and working people. Not with taxes or fees for programs that don't work." Similar battles have already spilled out of the state. British Columbia voters in October narrowly denied conservatives a majority on a platform that included ending the province's aggressive LCFS. National conservatives targeted Canada's carbon taxes in a campaign against Premier Justin Trudeau's wobbling government ahead of elections next year. As regulators update programs to drive ambitious transportation changes, voters will become more aware of where the changes are heading. By Elliott Blackburn Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Viewpoint: US tax fight next year crucial for 45Z


23/12/24
News
23/12/24

Viewpoint: US tax fight next year crucial for 45Z

New York, 23 December (Argus) — A Republican-controlled Congress will decide the fate next year of a federal incentive for low-carbon fuels, setting the stage for a lobbying battle that could make or break existing investment plans. The 45Z tax credit, which offers greater subsidies to fuels that produce fewer emissions, is poised to kick off in January. Biofuel output has boomed during President Joe Biden's term, driven in large part by west coast refiners retrofitting facilities to process lower-carbon fats and oils into renewable diesel. The 45Z tax credit, created by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), was designed to extend that growth. But Republicans will soon control Washington. President-elect Donald Trump has dismissed the IRA as the "Green New Scam", and Republicans on Capitol Hill, who had no role in passing Biden's signature climate legislation, are keen to cut climate spending to offset the steep cost of extending tax cuts from Trump's first term. Biofuels support is a less likely target for repeal than other climate policies, energy lobbyists say. But Republicans have already requested input on 45Z, signaling openness to changes. Republicans plan to use the reconciliation process, which enables them to avoid a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, to extend tax breaks that are scheduled to expire in 2025. "I want to place our industry in a place to make sure that the biofuels tax credit is part of reconciliation," said Kailee Tkacz Buller, president of the National Oilseed Processors Association. But lawmakers "could punt the biofuels discussion if stakeholders aren't aligned." A decade ago, biofuel policy was a simple tug-of-war between the oil and agriculture industries. Now many refiners formerly critical of the Renewable Fuel Standard produce ethanol and advanced biofuels themselves. And the increasingly diverse biofuels industry could complicate efforts to present a united front to Congress. Farm groups worry about carbon intensity scoring hurting crop demand and have lobbied to curtail record-high feedstock imports, to the chagrin of some biorefineries. Those producers are no monolith either: Biodiesel plants often rely more on local vegetable oils, while ethanol producers insist on keeping incentives that do not discriminate by fuel type and some oil majors would back subsidizing fuels co-processed with petroleum. Add airlines into the picture, which want greater incentives for aviation fuels, and marketers frustrated by 45Z shifting subsidies away from blenders — and the threat of fractious negotiations next year becomes clear. There are options for potential compromise, according to an Argus analysis of comments submitted privately to Republicans in the House of Representatives, as well as interviews with energy lobbyists and tax experts. The industry, frustrated by the Biden administration's delays in clarifying 45Z's rules, might welcome legislative changes that limit regulatory discretion regardless of what agency guidance eventually says. And lobbyists have floated various ways to appease agriculture groups without kneecapping biorefineries reliant on imports, including adding domestic content bonuses, imposing stricter requirements for Chinese-origin used cooking oil, and giving preference to close trading partners. Granted, unanimity among lobbyists is hardly a priority for Republican tax-writers. Reaching any consensus in the restive caucus, with just a handful of votes to spare in the House, will be difficult enough. "These types of bills always come to down to what's the most you can do before you start losing enough votes to pass it," said Jeff Navin, cofounder of the clean energy advocacy firm Boundary Stone Partners and a former House and Senate staffer. "Because they can only lose a couple of votes, there's not much more beyond that." And the caucus's goal of cutting spending makes an industry-wide goal — extending the 45Z credit into the 2030s — even more challenging. "It is a hard sell to get the extension right away," said Paul Winters, director of public affairs at Clean Fuels Alliance America. Climate costs Cost concerns also make less likely a simple return to the long-running blenders credit, which offered $1/USG across the board to biomass-based diesel. The US Joint Committee on Taxation in 2022 scored the two-year blenders extension at $5.5bn, while pegging three years of 45Z at less than $3bn. An inconvenient reality for Republicans skeptical of climate change is that 45Z's throttling of subsidies based on carbon intensity makes it more budget-friendly. Lawmakers have other reasons to not ignore emissions. Policies elsewhere, including California's low-carbon fuel standard and Europe's alternative jet fuel mandates, increasingly prioritize sustainability. The US deviating from that focus federally could leave producers with contradictory incentives, making it harder to turn a profit. And companies that have already sunk funds into reducing emissions — such as ethanol producers with heavy investments in carbon capture — want their reward. Incentives with bipartisan buy-in are likely more durable over the long run too. Next time Democrats control Washington, liberals may be more willing to scrap a credit they see as padding the profits of agribusiness — but less so if they see it as helping the US decarbonize. By Cole Martin Tax credit changes 40A Blenders Tax Credit 45Z Producers Tax Credit $1/USG Up to $1/USG for road fuels and up to $1.75/USG for aviation fuels depending on carbon intensity For domestic fuel blenders For domestic fuel producers Imported fuel eligible Imported fuel not eligible Exclusively for biomass-based diesel Fuels that produce no more than 50kg CO2e/mmBTU are eligible Feedstock-agnostic Carbon intensity scoring incentivizes waste over crop feedstocks Co-processed fuels ineligible Co-processed fuels ineligible Administratively simple Requires federal guidance on how to calculate carbon intensities for different feedstocks and fuel pathways Expiring after 2024 Lasts from 2025 through 2027 Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Generic Hero Banner

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more