Posts Tagged ‘EU emissions trading scheme (ETS)’

The major problem with any ETS is whether it is helping reduce emmissions or simply providing another avenue for corruption and greed

Monday, February 18th, 2013
Comment by Sandy Gauntlett
The major problem with any ETS is whether it is helping reduce emmissions or simply providing another avenue for corruption and greed. We have already had reports of countries trying to double dip and for me the most worry part of all that is that no-one noticed (or did notice but were making money out of it themselves).
The other big debate is who gets the money. Unscrupulous countries will nationalise the forests so that they can make money from Redd and if they are really unscrupulous they will first of all strip the most valuable forests. Mosre subtle countries may well allow the money to go direc to communities (then they can blame the community directly if there are inaccuracies) The question with this is of course what does the direct ot indirect (VAT, GST) return to the Govt who at best has only been the negotiating (or capitulating) party.
Next major problem is the issue of land ownership and what this will do to indigenous communities in less subtle countries or in countries where the land rights (or indeed in some cases the existance of indigenous peoples) has often been ignored or under attack from the Govts helping negotiating these commitments.
Far from being headlines alone, these are genione concerns about the ethics and behaviour of countries who in some cases have already been caught in breach of more than one international agreement that they signed often as a PR measure.
Of course the big concern is whether it helps reduce emmissions or just simply provides a mechanism for the market to make profit out of fear and innuendo. And then ther eis the concern about whrether this doe sanything to stop unsustainable behaviour on the part of those who can simply throw money at the problem while claiming they were trying to help. (and in some cases they may be genuinely concerned enough and desperate enough to try measures that even they have doubts about.
What I want to know is how is the market suddenly going to ensure that everyone has an attack of conscience and ethics. I remember hearing the EU parliamentry members talking about being able to ensure an ethical and problem free market which given that they cannot always control the ethics of members in the parliament, raises the question of how they intend to control the behaviour of people over who they have even less direct control. Do we really need to list the scandals that have beset our parliaments over the last few yerars for us to remember that these people cant even control themselves in many cases.

It is time the EU scraps its carbon Emissions Trading System

Sunday, February 17th, 2013

The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is in trouble – big time. That much most analysts, policy makers, politicians, carbon traders, industrial polluters and NGOs agree. When it comes to diagnosis of the causes behind the symptom, prescriptions, or what to do with the ailing patient, opinions diverge. As outlined in the statement “Time to scrap the ETS”, our investigation of the EU ETS concludes that far from being ‘the most effective climate change policy instrument in Europe’ the EU ETS has shown to be a major obstacle to effective climate action – and should therefore be abolished.

Judging from responses to the “Time to scrap the ETS” statement, many agree with the analysis yet hesitate to join the call for an end to the EU ETS. Below we take up the three concerns most commonly raised.

1. Calling for an end to the EU ETS means joining hands with the fossil fuel industry and climate deniers who are also calling to reject the proposal to withhold ETS permits.

It is instructive to look at who is lobbying for the ETS to be rescued. Companies including Shell, Statoil, the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, E.On and Électricité de France have lined up to support the EU’s efforts to rescue the ETS in hand with financial actors such as carbon traders, brokers and verifier firms. These are companies that profit from selling or using fossil fuels and trading carbon and hence wish to restore confidence in the collapsing market. Obviously they are not lobbying for meaningful emissions cuts, or structural changes that would bring industrial use of fossil fuels to an end.

The statement “Time to scrap the ETS” by contrast also calls for policies and action to transform the EU’s energy infrastructure and an end to the industrial use of fossil fuels. If we are serious about tackling ‘the biggest threat to humanity in the 21st century’, as climate change is often described, judgement will need to move beyond headlines and focus on bringing about action that actually reduces emissions in a socially just transition.

The EU has a clear objective to limit global rise of temperature to 2°C. To achieve this means achieving a rapid phase-out of fossil fuel use, and an end to new coal fired power generation in the EU. This also means implementing strong policies for polluters to reduce emissions at source without any ‘flexibility’ that allows them to get off the hook. The past seven years have shown that the EU ETS is incapable of helping to bring about this kind of transformation. Calling for an end to the EU ETS is acknowledging that coal must be left in the hole, and oil in the soil – as much as 70% of known fossil fuel reserves according to the IEA’s 2013 World Energy Outlook must stay where they are if 2°C is to be even a remote option. Instead, the EU ETS has prevented rather than aided a transition to a post-carbon economy, subsidised polluters with windfall profits that are likely to produce even more pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

2. The ETS is the only feasible option available to address climate change.

For seven years we have heard that trading carbon is the ‘only option’. Yet, on closer inspection, the ETS has turned out to be a major obstacle to transformative action on climate change in the EU. The existence of the EU ETS has fed the illusion that a market-based instrument focused on pricing can trigger the changes needed to transform our energy infrastructure and the way our economies produce and consume goods. No such change has ever been brought about by a trading instrument.

The neoliberal market mantra within the EU has blindly backed the ETS and blocked any discussion on policies that work for the climate for the past seven years. Worse still, the ETS has actively weakened policies such as the Energy Efficiency Directive, the Large Combustion Plant Directive and held back expanding implementation of e.g. feed-in tariff initiatives.

It has also provided staggering windfall profits to Europe’s largest polluters – profits that likely will have financed further fossil fuel capacity, not a transition to a post-carbon economy. In order to seriously deal with climate change, we need to tackle the root cause – excessive fossil fuel burning – not look on as the EU maintains a scheme which allows polluters and financial ‘market makers’ and speculators to move around pollution permits, cash in on windfall profits without making any significant contribution to halting runaway climate change. Time has come to start moving towards a fair transformation of our energy production and consumption away from fossil fuel dependence, especially in industrialised countries, regulating polluters in a way that ensures that emissions are reduced at source.

The ETS is an example of how regulation that works for the climate has been pushed away in favour of regulation that favours unproven market-based mechanisms. Industries have lobbied for many years to avoid real action by heavily opposing any policy that would bind them to reduce emissions at source. Abolishing the ETS is therefore not only badly needed so space is created for starting a real transition, but also to counter the dangerous reliance on ‘free market’ mechanisms for areas other than carbon, such as biodiversity or water.

3. Scrapping the EU ETS will be seen as a failure of EU climate policy. This would damage the international climate negotiations that are facing enough difficulties already as it is, and thus making future international action to tackle climate change even harder.

Keeping a failing policy will be – and in due course, will also be seen as – a failure of EU climate policy and will damage EU credibility. Scrapping the EU ETS now, acknowledging that the experiment didn’t work as intended and replacing it with action that does bring about a just transition away from fossil fuel dependence and leaves future generations with a fair chance to avoid uncontrollable climate change, will be seen as a success.

Maintaining an ‘experiment’ when the failure is so obvious really is inexcusable. ‘Scaling up’ the failure and financing its export to other countries like Viet Nam and Mexico, and into other areas of Nature like forests, biodiversity and water, knowing the many dangers that it entails, is reckless.

The proposed backloading has already been acknowledged by many proponents to the scheme as irrelevant in regard to its effect on price . More and more financial actors that were supposed to be ‘market makers’ – Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Credit Agricole, Barclays – are scaling back or closing down altogether their carbon trading activity. It is ludicrous to assume that postponing the auctioning of some 900million permits could turn around a market that has been described as being in a state of ‘regulatory omnishambles’. Withholding these permits will not push the price of carbon permits from below 5 euros to above the at least 30-50 euros widely considered as the minimum to serve as a signal against fossil fuel based large scale energy infrastructure investment. Furthermore, there is no historical evidence to suggest that price can drive the kind of change required for the transition beyond fossil fuel economies which our societies face. In short, “Time to scrap the ETS”!

Earth Peoples joins civil society organizations to demand that the EU scrap its emissions trading scheme

Sunday, February 17th, 2013

Civil society organizations such as Carbon Trade Watch, Fern, Corporate Europe Observatory and many others took the lead to launch the Time to Scrap the ETS declaration! particularly targeting Brussels media, where dissenting voices to the ETS other than industry are wrongly presented or downright ignored.

After seven years of failure, the EU’s claims that it can ‘fix’ its collapsing Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) no longer have any credibility. We believe that the ETS must be abolished no later than 2020 to make room for climate measures that work.

The EU ETS, the EU’s flagship policy to address climate change, was introduced in 2005 and gave rise to the currently largest carbon market worldwide.[i] The ETS includes ‘cap and trade’ and ‘offsets’ systems which allow participants to buy and sell emissions permits and offset credits in order to comply with their reduction targets or simply to make a profit on the market. The idea is to reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions cost-effectively by creating incentives for climate-friendly innovations and so move industry onto a low-carbon path.

But the scheme has failed to do so. The EU’s fixation on ‘price’ as a driver for change not only has locked in an economic system dependent on polluting extractive industries – with fossil fuel emissions increasing sharply in 2010 and 2011.[ii] The failure is also set to spread more widely insofar as the ETS is used as a template for other carbon markets proposed for countries such as Brazil and Australia and as a model for other ‘ecosystem service’ markets in biodiversity, water and soils.

EU governments and the European Commission are determined to maintain the ETS as the central pillar of the EU’s climate change policies, with Phase III getting under way in 2013. However, it is evident that the structural failures of the ETS cannot be fixed:

The ETS has not reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Benefiting from an excess of free emissions permits as well as cheap credits from offset projects in Southern countries, the worst polluters have had little to no obligation to cut emissions at source. Indeed, offset projects have resulted in an increase of emissions worldwide: even conservative sources estimate that between 1/3 and 2/3 of carbon credits bought into the ETS “do not represent real carbon reductions”.[iii] The reductions reported after 2008 in the EU can be attributed mainly to the economic crisis – with the majority of studies agreeing on the little evidence for a causal link between reductions and the ETS.[iv] Export of industrial production to Southern countries is another source of ‘reductions’. A study published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences estimates that in some European countries, ‘imported’ emissions – not counted as European emissions – add up to more than 30% of the total.[v]

The ETS has worked as a subsidy system for polluters. The first two phases of the ETS (2005-2007, 2008-2012) allocated free permits according to historical emissions, acting as a de facto subsidy for the biggest polluters. The over-allocation of permits enabled the continued use of existing technologies and rubbed out any incentive for a transition towards low-carbon production processes. Research by CE Delft estimates that almost all of the cost of compliance with the ETS was passed through to consumers. The study suggests that windfall profits from passing through these ‘costs’ reached €14 billion between 2005 and 2008.[vi] Electricity producers, too, are free to pass on to consumers the full ‘opportunity cost’ of compliance by increasing electricity prices, resulting in windfall profits of anywhere between €23 and €71 billion in the second phase.[vii] Industry lobbying has guaranteed that over 75% of manufacturing industry will continue to receive permits for free at least until 2020 (meaning extra revenue to polluters instead of state coffers of around €7 billion per year). Every attempt to end this handout has met strong lobbying from energy-intensive industries. In Phase III, only the energy sector will be required to buy permits at auction, and even then, exceptions have been made for utilities in Central and Eastern Europe, including those with a high dependence on coal for electricity generation. None of this should be surprising, as the ETS was designed to appeal to industry. Oil giant BP, with the support of the UK government, was among the firms who lobbied the EU in its favour.[viii]

The ETS is characterized by volatile and declining carbon prices. Carbon prices have been continuously unstable, and declining overall since 2008. The historical minimum was reached in December 2012 with permits selling at €5.89 and offset credits at €0.31.[ix] According to market analysts, there is no prospect of prices reaching levels that would incentive any changes in energy-generating capacity. Even if very predictable high prices could somehow be engineered – which is the opposite of what the ETS is designed to deliver – they would be insufficient to incentivise the structural changes needed to address climate change in the absence of other measures.

The ETS increases social and environmental conflicts in Southern countries. The ETS allows companies to use offset credits generated from ‘emissions saving’ projects implemented largely in Southern countries. The idea is that each tonne of additionally ‘saved’ carbon generates a credit that allows another tonne to be released somewhere else. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the biggest offset scheme, has been demonstrated to bring severe social and environmental consequences to communities where the projects are implemented, including land and human rights violations, displacements, conflicts and increased local environmental destruction.[x] Yet in spite of growing evidence of negative impacts, offset use in the ETS grew by 85% in 2011.[xi] Many of the companies using offsets have also been selling their (freely awarded) permits, buying CDM credits at a significantly lower price and pocketing the difference.

Carbon markets are particularly susceptible to fraud. To create tradable carbon units, measurement of pollution that has or has not occurred has to be carried out using proxy measures and other unreliable and often unverifiable calculation procedures open to abuse. In addition, in 2010 a vast ‘carousel fraud’ in the EU ETS was revealed to have cost the public more than €5 billion in lost Value-Added Tax (VAT) revenues.[xii] A German court jailed six people involved in a €300 million fraud selling carbon permits through Deutsche Bank, and courts in London jailed eleven.[xiii]Big companies like steel producers ThyssenKrupp and Salzgitter have been outed as fraudulent carbon profiteers when, in December 2010, even pro-trading World Wild Fund for Nature demanded (unsuccessfully) that ‘the EU put a halt to the use of fake offsets’.[xiv] A few weeks later, credits from the Austrian and Czech governments were stolen, leading to a suspension of ETS market trading.[xv] The UN also had to disqualify its main CDM verification agency in 2009, and in 2011, had to suspend Ukraine due to emissions under-reporting fraud.[xvi]

Public money is being squandered on setting up carbon markets that are unable to achieve a public purpose. Taxpayersare being forced to cover the cost of the legislation, regulation and much of the quantification that carbon markets require, as well as the cost of enforcement against fraud, theft, corruption, and tax evasion. Industries covered by the ETS gain subsidies for continuing to pollute, while governments allocate tax monies to compensate for excess emissions or to make up for the generous hand-out to ETS companies. It is estimated that Spain, for example, will need to buy more than 159 million offset credits abroad to achieve its Kyoto commitments.[xvii] At a time when citizens are shouldering severe impacts from the economic crisis and ‘austerity’ packages, scarce public money is being frivolously diverted toward corporate and banking sectors that created many of the problems in the first place.

The ETS locks-in a fossil-fuel economy. The ETS reinforces the logic of over-production and consumption based on fossil fuels. It allows more pollution while implementing ‘clean development’ projects which in practice mainly harm local populations and environments. Coal fire plants, shale-gas, hydraulic fracturing and destructive infrastructure projects are being expanded in Europe.[xviii] The ETS is not only increasing the environmental and climate debt that the industrialised North owes the Global South, it is also exacerbating the climate crisis worldwide – to the particular detriment of vulnerable groups. Even the International Energy Agency has now admitted that at least two-thirds of remaining known fossil-fuel deposits have to be kept underground if the world is to achieve the goal of having a reasonable chance of limiting global temperature rise to 2°C[xix] (in itself an insufficient target). The ETS, if it is allowed to continue, will render this impossible.

The ETS closes the door to other, genuinely effective climate policies at the same time it reinforces false solutions such as nuclear energy, large-scale dams, agrofuels and industrial tree plantations. For example, it discourages regulation that is seen to interfere with the carbon price. And instead of promoting a ‘zero-waste’ philosophy, it encourages automated methane-capture schemes which require more rotting rubbish and which drive out informal waste-pickers and recyclers. In addition, the logic of pollution trading is now being applied to other arenas, such as biodiversity and water crises[xx], resulting in the commodification and financialization of more and more of nature’s capacities, functions and cycles. The dangers are severe; avoiding them requires that the ETS be acknowledged openly as the disastrous precedent that it is. Failure to stop the ETS will result in yet more corporations profiteering at the expense of local populations, including Indigenous and forest-dependent peoples, small-scale farmers and women hosting ecosystem offset projects, together with communities living next to the facilities that buy the credits.

Insisting on trying to ‘fix’ a system that is broken from the start diverts attention and resources away from just and effective policies. Exporting the ETS failure to other countries in the name of ‘leadership’ amounts to another wave of intervention in Southern countries, increasing the social and environmental debt of the North. Although European decision makers preparing to review the ETS appear inclined to try to ‘fix’ the scheme for a post-2020 phase, the undersigned organisations affirm that there is only one option possible with a clear climate benefit: to end the scheme once and for all.

The struggle against the ETS is the struggle for social, environmental and climate justice. It is a struggle for transforming our energy, transport, agricultural, production, consumption, distribution, disposal and financing systems. We call on civil society organisations and movements to endorse this call and join the fight to abolish the ETS.

Earth Peoples demands that the EU scrap its emissions trading scheme

Saturday, February 2nd, 2013

After seven years of failure, the EU’s claims that it can ‘fix’ its collapsing Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) no longer have any credibility. We believe that the ETS must be abolished no later than 2020 to make room for climate measures that work.

The EU ETS, the EU’s flagship policy to address climate change, was introduced in 2005 and gave rise to the currently largest carbon market worldwide. The ETS includes ‘cap and trade’ and ‘offsets’ systems which allow participants to buy and sell emissions permits and offset credits in order to comply with their reduction targets or simply to make a profit on the market. The idea is to reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions cost-effectively by creating incentives for climate-friendly innovations and so move industry onto a low-carbon path.

But the scheme has failed to do so. The EU’s fixation on ‘price’ as a driver for change not only has locked in an economic system dependent on polluting extractive industries – with fossil fuel emissions increasing sharply in 2010 and 2011. The failure is also set to spread more widely insofar as the ETS is used as a template for other carbon markets proposed for countries such as Brazil and Australia and as a model for other ‘ecosystem service’ markets in biodiversity, water and soils.

EU governments and the European Commission are determined to maintain the ETS as the central pillar of the EU’s climate change policies, with Phase III getting under way in 2013. However, it is evident that the structural failures of the ETS cannot be fixed:

  • The ETS has not reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Benefiting from an excess of free emissions permits as well as cheap credits from offset projects in Southern countries, the worst polluters have had little to no obligation to cut emissions at source. Indeed, offset projects have resulted in an increase of emissions worldwide: even conservative sources estimate that between 1/3 and 2/3 of carbon credits bought into the ETS “do not represent real carbon reductions”. The reductions reported after 2008 in the EU can be attributed mainly to the economic crisis – with the majority of studies agreeing on the little evidence for a causal link between reductions and the ETS. Export of industrial production to Southern countries is another source of ‘reductions’. A study published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences estimates that in some European countries, ‘imported’ emissions – not counted as European emissions – add up to more than 30% of the total.
  • The ETS has worked as a subsidy system for polluters. The first two phases of the ETS (2005-2007, 2008-2012) allocated free permits according to historical emissions, acting as a de facto subsidy for the biggest polluters. The over-allocation of permits enabled the continued use of existing technologies and rubbed out any incentive for a transition towards low-carbon production processes. Research by CE Delft estimates that almost all of the cost of compliance with the ETS was passed through to consumers. The study suggests that windfall profits from passing through these ‘costs’ reached €14 billion between 2005 and 2008. Electricity producers, too, are free to pass on to consumers the full ‘opportunity cost’ of compliance by increasing electricity prices, resulting in windfall profits of anywhere between €23 and €71 billion in the second phase. Industry lobbying has guaranteed that over 75% of manufacturing industry will continue to receive permits for free at least until 2020 (meaning extra revenue to polluters instead of state coffers of around €7 billion per year). Every attempt to end this handout has met strong lobbying from energy-intensive industries. In Phase III, only the energy sector will be required to buy permits at auction, and even then, exceptions have been made for utilities in Central and Eastern Europe, including those with a high dependence on coal for electricity generation. None of this should be surprising, as the ETS was designed to appeal to industry. Oil giant BP, with the support of the UK government, was among the firms who lobbied the EU in its favour.

  • The ETS is characterized by volatile and declining carbon prices. Carbon prices have been continuously unstable, and declining overall since 2008. The historical minimum was reached in December 2012 with permits selling at €5.89 and offset credits at €0.31.According to market analysts, there is no prospect of prices reaching levels that would incentive any changes in energy-generating capacity. Even if very predictable high prices could somehow be engineered – which is the opposite of what the ETS is designed to deliver – they would be insufficient to incentivise the structural changes needed to address climate change in the absence of other measures.
  • The ETS increases social and environmental conflicts in Southern countries. The ETS allows companies to use offset credits generated from ‘emissions saving’ projects implemented largely in Southern countries. The idea is that each tonne of additionally ‘saved’ carbon generates a credit that allows another tonne to be released somewhere else. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the biggest offset scheme, has been demonstrated to bring severe social and environmental consequences to communities where the projects are implemented, including land and human rights violations, displacements, conflicts and increased local environmental destruction. Yet in spite of growing evidence of negative impacts, offset use in the ETS grew by 85% in 2011. Many of the companies using offsets have also been selling their (freely awarded) permits, buying CDM credits at a significantly lower price and pocketing the difference.
  • Carbon markets are particularly susceptible to fraud. To create tradable carbon units, measurement of pollution that has or has not occurred has to be carried out using proxy measures and other unreliable and often unverifiable calculation procedures open to abuse. In addition, in 2010 a vast ‘carousel fraud’ in the EU ETS was revealed to have cost the public more than €5 billion in lost Value-Added Tax (VAT) revenues. A German court jailed six people involved in a €300 million fraud selling carbon permits through Deutsche Bank, and courts in London jailed eleven.Big companies like steel producers ThyssenKrupp and Salzgitter have been outed as fraudulent carbon profiteers when, in December 2010, even pro-trading World Wild Fund for Nature demanded (unsuccessfully) that ‘the EU put a halt to the use of fake offsets’. A few weeks later, credits from the Austrian and Czech governments were stolen, leading to a suspension of ETS market trading. The UN also had to disqualify its main CDM verification agency in 2009, and in 2011, had to suspend Ukraine due to emissions under-reporting fraud.
  • Public money is being squandered on setting up carbon markets that are unable to achieve a public purpose. Taxpayersare being forced to cover the cost of the legislation, regulation and much of the quantification that carbon markets require, as well as the cost of enforcement against fraud, theft, corruption, and tax evasion. Industries covered by the ETS gain subsidies for continuing to pollute, while governments allocate tax monies to compensate for excess emissions or to make up for the generous hand-out to ETS companies. It is estimated that Spain, for example, will need to buy more than 159 million offset credits abroad to achieve its Kyoto commitments. At a time when citizens are shouldering severe impacts from the economic crisis and ‘austerity’ packages, scarce public money is being frivolously diverted toward corporate and banking sectors that created many of the problems in the first place.
  • The ETS locks-in a fossil-fuel economy. The ETS reinforces the logic of over-production and consumption based on fossil fuels. It allows more pollution while implementing ‘clean development’ projects which in practice mainly harm local populations and environments. Coal fire plants, shale-gas, hydraulic fracturing and destructive infrastructure projects are being expanded in Europe. The ETS is not only increasing the environmental and climate debt that the industrialised North owes the Global South, it is also exacerbating the climate crisis worldwide – to the particular detriment of vulnerable groups. Even the International Energy Agency has now admitted that at least two-thirds of remaining known fossil-fuel deposits have to be kept underground if the world is to achieve the goal of having a reasonable chance of limiting global temperature rise to 2°C (in itself an insufficient target). The ETS, if it is allowed to continue, will render this impossible.
  • The ETS closes the door to other, genuinely effective climate policies at the same time it reinforces false solutions such as nuclear energy, large-scale dams, agrofuels and industrial tree plantations. For example, it discourages regulation that is seen to interfere with the carbon price. And instead of promoting a ‘zero-waste’ philosophy, it encourages automated methane-capture schemes which require more rotting rubbish and which drive out informal waste-pickers and recyclers. In addition, the logic of pollution trading is now being applied to other arenas, such as biodiversity and water crises, resulting in the commodification and financialization of more and more of nature’s capacities, functions and cycles. The dangers are severe; avoiding them requires that the ETS be acknowledged openly as the disastrous precedent that it is. Failure to stop the ETS will result in yet more corporations profiteering at the expense of local populations, including Indigenous and forest-dependent peoples, small-scale farmers and women hosting ecosystem offset projects, together with communities living next to the facilities that buy the credits.

Insisting on trying to ‘fix’ a system that is broken from the start diverts attention and resources away from just and effective policies. Exporting the ETS failure to other countries in the name of ‘leadership’ amounts to another wave of intervention in Southern countries, increasing the social and environmental debt of the North. Although European decision makers preparing to review the ETS appear inclined to try to ‘fix’ the scheme for a post-2020 phase, the undersigned organisations affirm that there is only one option possible with a clear climate benefit: to end the scheme once and for all.

The struggle against the ETS is the struggle for social, environmental and climate justice. It is a struggle for transforming our energy, transport, agricultural, production, consumption, distribution, disposal and financing systems. We call on civil society organisations and movements to endorse this call and join the fight to abolish the ETS.