Carbon prices: the winds of change

After several years of strong growth, the revenue generated by carbon pricing mechanisms (carbon taxes or markets) worldwide, as reported in our 2023 edition of the Global Carbon Accounts, stabilized at nearly USD 100 billion. This stabilization could not be more deceptive.  The future has rarely been so uncertain for carbon prices, caught between very strong opposing trends, and the next two years could mark a major turning point, for good or bad, for the use of these climate policy instruments worldwide. 

 

Generalization or rejection? The internationalization gamble

By introducing its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) in October 2023, the European Union (EU) is forcing its trading partners to take a stand on their own carbon pricing. This is a high-stakes gamble: while this new mechanism could encourage the adoption of mirror mechanisms around the world, its rejection could seriously undermine the European market, which depends on it to reduce its free allocations and increase its own environmental ambition. It also sends out a clear, new message: from now on, carbon prices are no longer a matter for independent national or community initiatives. They must interact on a global scale.

 

But this new dialogue is getting off to a difficult start. Many developing countries are denouncing the CBAM as a unilateral decision that jeopardizes their exports, without offering any assistance to decarbonize their economies. India and South Africa are even threatening to challenge in front of the World Trade Organization a measure that they consider as unfair trade barrier. Against a backdrop of increasingly tense global diplomacy, these protests are all the more legitimate given the recent failure of developed countries to meet their financing commitments to their developing counterparts. The OECD has just reported that the famous USD 100 billion in climate aid from developed to developing countries has still not been reached in 2021, according to the latest consolidated data; and the pre-COP agreement on the financing of loss and damage is at this stage, by all accounts, unsatisfactory for anyone.

 

National mechanisms in turmoil

Moreover, national climate ambitions are themselves being undermined by the successive crises triggered by Covid, then Russia’s war on Ukraine, and now the Israel-Hamas conflict. These crises brought energy prices up, purchasing power down, eyes away from long-term concerns; and may jeopardizing traditional leaders in the field of carbon pricing. First among them is Canada: the mechanism put in place by the federal government, often commended internationally for its ambition, is now being strongly contested by several provinces. Following the introduction of a temporary exemption for oil-fired heating, historically more widely used in the Atlantic provinces, the provinces that heat mainly with gas are crying foul, and are in turn calling for an exemption, or for the tax to be scrapped altogether. This heated debate illustrates the difficulty, on a federal scale, of bringing together jurisdictions with very different climate constraints and ambitions under a single mechanism. And yet, Canada has a federal government which can act as a referee and impose a common decision on all its provinces; this referee does not exist in the current scheme of global climate governance, making convergence on carbon prices even more difficult.

 

The pitfall of diversity

In spite of this, carbon prices may be on their way towards achieving significant advances, at least in part due to the European mechanism. Brazil, Indonesia, Vietnam and Cambodia, among others, have recently announced or implemented new pricing mechanisms that will enable them to align their exports with the EU’s CBAM requirements. Even India, in parallel with its WTO challenge, has just floated the first elements of an export tax aligned with the same specifications. The United States, which currently has no carbon pricing mechanism at federal level, is considering several solutions in response to the European CBAM, including a similar adjustment mechanism based on the carbon intensity of products, rather than absolute emissions caps. The G7 also supports the creation of a “climate club” of members with similar pricing policies, who would extend a common CBAM across their borders.
The diversity of these responses illustrates a point that is both a strength and a limitation of carbon pricing mechanisms: their flexibility and diversity. This diversity has been the strength of carbon prices, at the time of adapting to very different national issues; today, it represents a major hurdle in changing the scale, going global and bringing these mechanisms into interact with each other. The 2023 Global Carbon Accounts proposes some insights into this strong diversity; answering the question of how to deal with it, is another challenge.

 

More informations: Global carbon accounts in 2023

 

Read the newsletter

I4CE Contacts
Sébastien POSTIC, Phd
Sébastien POSTIC, Phd
Research Fellow – Public finance, Development Email
Marion FETET
Marion FETET
Research Fellow – Local authorities, Public Finance, Green Budgeting Email
To learn more
  • 11/07/2025 Foreword of the week
    COP30: On Financing, the Time for Negotiation Is Over

    “What agreement will the negotiators reach?” is the question that is usually on climate practitioners’ minds at this time of the year. However, this time, it is a new impetus that is needed, not another agreement. 10 years after the Paris Agreement, the Brazilian COP30 presidency has rightly shifted the focus to execution, making this edition “the implementation COP.” On financing, the objectives set at COP29 are clear: developing countries should receive $300 billion per year by 2035 from developed countries (NCQG), and mobilise $1.3 trillion per year from all actors. The newly published “Baku to Belém” roadmap proposes solutions to meet the targets. We now have objectives and a list of (theoretical) means to achieve them. How do we move to implementation? 

  • 11/05/2025 Blog post
    From Pledges to Progress: Climate Finance a Decade After Paris

    Nearly a decade has passed since the Paris Agreement elevated finance to the heart of the climate agenda, embedding in Article 2.1(c) the ambitious goal of aligning global financial flows with low-emission, climate-resilient development. But for all the talk of “shifting the trillions,” we remain far from course. 

  • 10/28/2025
    From targets to action: the climate finance agenda needs a new impetus in Belèm

    Ten years after the adoption of the Paris Agreement, what progress has been made to make financial flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development (the ambition set out in Article 2.1(c) of the Agreement)? And what is needed going forward? Although we still lack a comprehensive assessment of progress, this article draws on existing analysis of what can help align financial flows and examines the efforts made by governments and the financial sector to this end. It highlights a development in the debate towards a country-driven approach and a focus on real investment needs. It explores ways to overcome existing barriers to action despite a challenging global context. The article advocates that Article 2.1(c) should be viewed not as a stand-alone provision, but as something that requires full implementation of all the provisions of the Paris Agreement. It also calls for a shift from a target-focused to an action-focused finance agenda and discusses how the COP30 in Belém can contribute to this.

See all publications
Press contact Amélie FRITZ Head of Communication and press relations Email
Subscribe to our mailing list :
I register !
Subscribe to our newsletter
Once a week, receive all the information on climate economics
I register !
Fermer