Talk:Carbon leakage

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Leakage versus embedded emissions[edit]

I've extensively revised this article. It was originally rather confused and misleading. The issue of attribution of emissions, i.e., consumption versus production, was inappropriately mixed up with the idea of carbon leakage. I've separated the two ideas because they are not the same thing.

I deleted the reference to the US study which was part of the BBC News article. It is biased only to refer to one study. I've replaced this with information taken from a book chapter by Barker et al. This is a broader assessment of the literature on carbon leakage, and is a better source of information than just one study.

Frankly, I have to ask the question as to why this article has any reference to attribution of emissions. It is nothing to do with carbon leakage. If it is, it should be explained exactly how it is related to carbon leakage. This is why I've added the clarification needed tag to a sentence on the measurement of carbon leakage.

If you are to have a discussion on attribution of emissions, I don't see why it should be contained in this article. Attribution of emissions fits in wider equity issues to do with climate change. And I don't see what any of this has to do with carbon leakage. To have attribution described by itself in the article, is in my view, biased and misleading.

This inappropriate mixing up of leakage and equity issues is demonstrated in this part of the article:

It has also been argued that developed countries have a responsibility for the historical legacy of pollution which obliges them to act first, whilst allowing other developing countries with a low intensity of emissions per person to find methods of raising their economies and standard of living in a sustainable way. Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism was designed as a way of funding the technology transfer needed for such sustainable development.

This has nothing at all to do with leakage. I've deleted it. The Wang and Watson note has nothing on leakage, either. I've left it in the article for the moment, but I've put in tags that question the relevance and neutrality of the issue in regards to this article. Enescot (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon leakage is a term that makes no sense. It should be “emission shifting”?? Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Energy Modeling Forum study[edit]

In late-2012 the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF), based at Stanford University, released its EMF 29 report titled "The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy".^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] I image this material could be usefully added to the article. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "EMF 29: The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy". Energy Modeling Forum (EMF). Standford, CA, USA. Retrieved 2016-10-22. The EMF 29 study investigates the economic impacts of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy. Effective and efficient climate protection ultimately requires cooperative action across all major greenhouse gas emitting countries. Yet, stringent emission constraints may not be assumed by important emerging economies such as China or India unless industrialized countries which have largely caused the climate problem so far and range high both in per-capita income as well as in per-capita emissions take a lead with substantial reductions of their own emissions.
^ Böhringer, Christoph; Rutherford, Thomas F; Balistreri, Edward J (October 2012). The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: Insights from a model-comparison study — Discussion Paper 2012-54 (PDF). Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard Project on Climate Agreements. Retrieved 2016-10-22.
^ Böhringer, Christoph; Balistreri, Edward J; Rutherford, Thomas F (December 2012). "The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: overview of an Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF 29)". Energy Economics. 34, Supplement 2: S97–S110. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2012.10.003. ISSN 0140-9883.
^ Böhringer, Christoph; Rutherford, Thomas F; Balistreri, Edward J; Weyant, John (December 2012). "Introduction to the EMF 29 special issue on the role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy". Energy Economics. 34, Supplement 2: S95–S96. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2012.10.002. ISSN 0140-9883. Special issue: The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: results from EMF 29.

An example of a Carbon leakage %??[edit]

Is this % actually calculated, or is it just academic blah blah? Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[emf-29-website-1] "EMF 29: The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy". Energy Modeling Forum (EMF). Standford, CA, USA. Retrieved 2016-10-22. The EMF 29 study investigates the economic impacts of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy. Effective and efficient climate protection ultimately requires cooperative action across all major greenhouse gas emitting countries. Yet, stringent emission constraints may not be assumed by important emerging economies such as China or India unless industrialized countries which have largely caused the climate problem so far and range high both in per-capita income as well as in per-capita emissions take a lead with substantial reductions of their own emissions.

[boehringer-etal-2012a-2] Böhringer, Christoph; Rutherford, Thomas F; Balistreri, Edward J (October 2012). The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: Insights from a model-comparison study — Discussion Paper 2012-54 (PDF). Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard Project on Climate Agreements. Retrieved 2016-10-22.

[boehringer-etal-2012b-3] Böhringer, Christoph; Balistreri, Edward J; Rutherford, Thomas F (December 2012). "The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: overview of an Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF 29)". Energy Economics. 34, Supplement 2: S97–S110. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2012.10.003. ISSN 0140-9883.

[boehringer-etal-2012c-4] Böhringer, Christoph; Rutherford, Thomas F; Balistreri, Edward J; Weyant, John (December 2012). "Introduction to the EMF 29 special issue on the role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy". Energy Economics. 34, Supplement 2: S95–S96. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2012.10.002. ISSN 0140-9883. Special issue: The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: results from EMF 29.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]