CEU eTD Collection

MAKING A MARKET: THE PROBLEM OF POLISH CARBON CARBON EUOFMARKET: IN A POLISH PROBLEM THE MAKING Ph.D Dissertationin Sociology and Social Anthropol Central European University in BudapestUniversity European in Central Dissertation Submission date: date: Submission Dissertation Alexandra Kowalski, CEU Alexandra Balazs Vedres, Vedres, CEU Balazs Aleksandra Lis Aleksandra 31 May 2012 May 31 Supervisors: Supervisors: POLICIES By By

ogy CLIMATE CLIMATE 1 CEU eTD Collection Chapter 6. Trade Unions: Confused in Climate Action Climate Confused in ChapterTrade Unions: 6. Market Market ...... Negotiating Allocation: Chapterof Methods EUAs’ 5. Chapter 4. Poland in the New ETS: Mobilizing Networ the New Mobilizing in ChapterPoland 4. ETS: Economic Frame EconomicFrame ...... Accouand Metaphors: ChapterBetween 3. Calculation Chapter 2. Between Markets and States: A Fuzzy Hist A Fuzzy and States: ChapterBetween 2. Markets Chapter 1. Embedding or Performing Emission Trade? Performing Emission Chapteror Embedding 1. Introduction ...... The European Trade Union Confederation Responds to to Confederation Responds The Trade European Union Introduction ...... vs. State State the Re-Distribution TheCompetition IFIEC-MethodRevis Russian vs. Coal Gas: the Polish Justifying FullAuctions: IFIECThrough vs. Method IndustrialProject of IFIEC-method:the ETS The ... and internationaliza methods Alternativeallocation Conclusion Conclusion ...... the October Political Negotiations: to FromExpert Introduction ...... Conclusion Conclusion ...... Dynamics and Structure of the Polish Lobbying Netwo ofDynamicsthe and Polish Structure Lobbying OrganizingPolish ...... Introduction ...... Conclusion Conclusion ...... C FramingDioxide: of ChallengesCarbon Economic to t FramingDioxide: of ChallengesCarbon Economic to The PRIMES Model for an Average EU Economy anTheAverage for Model PRIMES EU Economy ...... Introduction ...... Conclusions Conclusions ...... the EU as in EU – an ETS Poland ‘Imposed Solution’ EU ...... Instal Trade Europeanizing to theEmission on Way – Lobbies EDF – Opportunities CatchingMissed with up and the f CarbonSearch Tax Failurethe European of Itself Reductions GHG Emission Europeto Commits .. Failed Experiments of a Too Early Action EarlyToo Failedof Action a Experiments ...... Trade Transition EconomyEmission in for an ...... From the Bush Administration to the Kyoto Protocol the Kyoto to BushFromProtocol Administration the HowEconomics Environmentalism Met ...... Introduction ...... Data collection Datacollection ...... Embedding Me - of Organization Some the ETS Complex Trade Through Actor-Networks TranslatingEmission . Embedding Emission Trade in Organizational Fields Fields Organizational Trade in EmbeddingEmission . Defining Markets and Definingtheir Embeddedness...... Markets Introduction ...... Roadmapof the Dissertation ...... Trade the EU in Unions Polish ...... Poland Powerin Electricity Sector Market and the . Tr EuropeanEmission theFacts Union on Figures and ...... tion of the Polish network of the Polish tion ...... 189 to the December 2008 EU Summits EUSummits the December to 2008 . 218 ...... ory Trade...... of Emission 87 ...... the Project of the European Carbon of the Carbon European the Project ks Across Fields Fields Across ks ...... 160 ...... nting for Carbon and Challenges to anChallenges and for to Carbon nting or a New Policy Tool NewTool ora Policy ...... 110 ...... Boundary Making BoundaryMaking ...... 198 ling Emission Trading lingthe in Emission Scheme ...... ed ...... ading Scheme adingScheme ...... 14 ...... he East-West Divide heDivide East-West ...... 143 rk rk ...... BP ...... 1 ...... the Commission’s Proposal...... theCommission’s 230 arbon as a Historical Thing Thing arbonHistorical as a ...... 151 thodological Considerations Considerations thodological .... 77 ...... 186 ...... 117 ...... 4 ...... 227 ...... 225 ...... 186 ...... 184 ...... 160 ...... 154 ...... 131 ...... 87 ...... 43 ...... 128 ...... 82 ...... 131 ...... 40 ...... 161 ...... 36 ...... 103 ...... 50 ...... 101 ...... 92 ...... 227 ...... 193 ...... 211 ...... 23 ...... 43 ...... 97 ...... 56 ...... 122 .. .. 107 ...... 69 . . 205 169 133 12 12 2 CEU eTD Collection Conclusion Conclusion ...... Literature: Conclusion Conclusion ...... Eu of Fragmentation the Failure Negotiation andthe ...... a Interests: LabourGoals and Between Environmental the European within Contention Movement Union ...... ropean Labour Movement LabourropeanMovement ...... 252 ...... n International n Katowice Meeting in ...... 244 ...... 264 ...... 260 ...... 276 ...... 235 3 CEU eTD Collection comply to able was Community European the that sure EU the in emissions GHG regulate to was goal prime became and Sche 2003 in Directive Trading ETS the Emission by established Union European The de emissions. is it that world the to show to trying is Europe a to hesitate still Asia and America while However, fadin are towarming global hopes stop development, their defending India and China like countries with re to commit to willing U.S. the Without of uncertain. future The weak. is will political the But far. emissio GHG more much reduce to need countries that However, levels. historical certain to up emissions of countrie Individual establishment emissions. GHG reduce to system the in resulted Kyoto in (UNFCCC) mom Con crisis Framework Nations United the under negotiations numerous After South. poor the and North neg economic and political of outcome an and action i major the was Protocol Kyoto The emissions. (GHG) o fall and started world rise the around governments a and companies with decades, three last the Over symbolo the remains and lost helpless, and lonely, across ice of piece a on floating bear polar a was ca image another 2000s, the In climate. global the emiss of quest to began regime opposition growing a international simultaneously, an install to efforts pla our of condition the for responsibility humans’ and public European wi and German the image galvanized which alarming an was It disaster). climate (the rea title The Spiegel. Der of cover the on appeared h Cathedral Cologne the of image an 1986, August In Introduction today scientists clearly show usshow scientistsclearly today f climatic changes even today.changeseven climatic f h Erhs odto i again is condition Earth’s the d: DIE KLIMA-KATASTROPHE DIE d: the Arctic See. The bear was was bear The See. Arctic the duce its GHG emissions, and and emissions, GHG its duce e. h 19s a political saw 1990s The net. ptured public imagination. It imagination. public ptured gaway. termined to reduce its GHG GHG its reduce to termined Member States and to make to and States Member s committed to reduce their their reduce to committed s rights to carbon intensive intensive carbon to rights nternational step in climate in step nternational t gis goa warming, global against ct o te uas ipc on impact humans’ the ion vention on Climate Change Climate on vention with the Kyoto target. The target. Kyoto the with alf-submerged in seawater in alf-submerged th an alarming diagnosis, diagnosis, alarming an th ion reductions; however, however, reductions; ion ns than they have done so done have they than ns urgency, of feeling the f tain ewe te rich the between otiation to reduce greenhouse gas gas greenhouse reduce to provoked debates on the on debates provoked operational in 2005. Its Its 2005. in operational ns tit ad turns, and twists ents, goa cap-and-trade global a e te T) was ETS) (the me 4 CEU eTD Collection p industrial, are there names, 168 Among Directive. i her approached who lobbyists, of list a published in Directive ETS the of Rapporteur E main institutio the the in Doyle, EU and Parliament the European the in in an Commission, lobbying without massive accepted in be manifested to companies proved and 2008 January governments in proposed ETS the to Changes theUnion. European in action e and socio-political of analysis the to contribute i reorganized was it how and EU, the in established of analysis historical a an providing as By Union organization. European the of aspirations and nature i an also was it but not Europe, moment in reductions important emission an was This ETS. the of shape lon year un trade and a experts NGOs, businesses, During governments, proposal. this against objectives ‘Pand a opened proposal new The cars. and aircrafts EU the in operating industries and companies sector emissions dioxide carbon make to changed system The ETS.someon buy EUA some receive would Industries emissions. carbon EU the buy to have would companies sector power The t for accounted which Directive, th ETS new 2008, a January proposed In levels. 1990 the on 2020 by 20% woul they that declared politically States of Heads global a envisioning 2007, of beginning the At ETS. had they accordingly, emissions their lowering with companie if and year, each down cut was issued EUAs t In companies. to free for granted were they 2012, EUA (the Allowances European the called are permits t them allow to companies to granted and issued are i installations industrial 11,000 around covers ETS n 2008 with regard to the ETS the to regard with 2008 n n the EU. On the ETS, permits permits ETS, the On EU. the n post-Kyoto deal, the European European the deal, post-Kyoto conomic processes of climate climate of processes conomic d reduce carbon emissions by by emissions carbon reduce d o ad h te T was ETS the why and how hat period, the amount of the the of amount the period, hat o emit carbon dioxide. These dioxide. carbon emit o ower sector, environmental, environmental, sector, ower o u adtoa EA on EUAs additional buy to nteresting lesson about the the about lesson nteresting 20, hs hss ek to seeks thesis this 2008, n s for free and would have to have would and free for s . It would also incorporate incorporate also would It . s were not able to keep up keep to able not were s s) and, between 2005 and 2005 between and, s) h Erpa Parliament, European the os icse te future the discussed ions, ora box’ of concerns and and concerns of box’ ora i nw euto target. reduction new his ngtain i 2008, in negotiation, g Erpa Commission European e cnmc n political and economic more costly for power power for costly more As to cover all of their their of all cover to As rpa Cucl Avril Council. uropean ns: in the European European the in ns: only for the future of of future the for only o e o rdcl for radical too be to ojcin. This objections. y 5 CEU eTD Collection market: free radically a And with 1). equated is (p. liberalism al.” et Friedman, Hayek, von – economy C the re of “the ascendance the as and economics to state welfare referred frequently term a become has (2003 Brown As agenda. neoliberal economic the with governanc environmental century, twentieth late the liberalizat market global of context wider a within go environmental for tool market-based a is ETS The w can We how studying economicn theactors by and political 542). (p. all” for and once for stabilized consider be can (…) politics nor economics “neither States. and markets economics, and politics between re involves This action. of spheres various of 542) o process this studying “for opportunity remarkable mark carbon of stage experimental an (2009), Callon 2009 Callon (see action of fields other and ETS the means also me ETS the of this space calculative a how organize examine I ETS. the of features defining t allocate allowan emission to allocate to method method A participants. the over controversy a consume examine to mark offered that goods out of point “classification concern (2002) al. et Callon While ETS. pol vario the of designs how alternative proposing in examines engaged thesis This organization. market ex also be therefore should ETS the of Organization organizatio uniontheexperts on European national and and lobbyists trade associations, business from comprised E the Commission, European whichthe Parliament, European organized, was trade emission which deepl as perceived h examines thesis This EU. the in usual as business was which Directive, ETS new the shows This organizations. union trade and financial configuration of the boundaries boundaries the of configuration ion. To put it more radically, in radically, more it put To ion. eterogeneous networks, within networks, eterogeneous egotiated the ETS. egotiated ETS. ETS. ed as realities that have been been have that realities as ed the extent of fear evoked by by evoked fear of extent the amined as a case of strategic strategic of case a as amined maximized competition and and competition maximized to make boundaries between boundaries make to , Gieryn 1983). According to to According 1983). Gieryn , ces (the EUAs) is one of the the of one is EUAs) (the ces As Callon (2008) points out, out, points (2008) Callon As vernance, and should be put be should and vernance, itical-economic space of the the of space itical-economic ets’ development provides a provides development ets’ e seems to have caught up up caught have to seems e itness redistribution of the the of redistribution itness jit eofgrto” (p. reconfiguration” joint f ) points out, neoliberalism neoliberalism out, points ) s (.9) I rps to propose I (p.196), rs” uropean Council, lobbyists Council, uropean ns, environmental NGOs NGOs environmental ns, iao col f political of School hicago hd a ngtae. To negotiated. was thod n oua uae “neo- usage, popular in et controversies mainly mainly controversies et uito o Keynesian of pudiation s cos strategically actors us hese goods to market market to goods hese itreig n doing in interfering y f fiil fo the from officials of 6 CEU eTD Collection values to various institutions and socialaction (B institutionsvariousand to values the of core the constitute markets free though And glo to answer main the becomes ETS, the i.e. trade, ob be can fro paradox This environment. our into Nature inseparable facts making non-humans, mor about and brought humans they contrary, the On values. and and Society between separation more caused not have moder and Modernity time. of arrow modern the about (2008) Latour what epitomize, to seems also ETS The solutionspolicycl to with come together questions pra and realistic relations In South? exploited the and North power structured which past, colonial and pr a it is emissions?Or GHGexcessive of problem a it. perform also they but change climate of problem no do solutions Policy 545). (p. accounting” firms’ compro tools; pricing modali and auctioning; and allowances of allocation of development the programme; c the in participate to countries developing enable these of t trading; emission and some taxes carbon of combination mentions (2009) Callon well-defined. ph a as change climate to solutions with up come to We it. resolving before is exactly problem the what saturated being as defined (1998) Dewey John which ‘troubling’ those of one be to seems change Climate extend therefore It deploy 2). (p. empire” when of practices which, to analysis citiz the of soul social the from reaches governmentality, “a calls, Neoliberali 2). (2002) p. 2002, (Brown markets” the organiz beyond both “that rationality political particular be should (2002),neoliberalism Brown to according to favorable policies social and monetary of range deregulation, economic through achieved trade free rown 2002). 2002). rown imate change. imate gmatic terms, answers to these these to answers terms, gmatic t only address and resolve the resolve and address only t oblem of unequal development unequal of oblem en-subject to education policy education to en-subject business” (Brown 2002, p. 1). 1). p. 2002, (Brown business” s … plce ad reaches and policies (…) es can observe today a struggle a today observe can What is climate change? Is it Is change? climate is What understood more broadly as a as morebroadly understood bal warming defined in terms terms in defined warming bal he invention of certificates to to certificates of invention he ties of treating allowances in allowances treating of ties letv emission-abatement ollective neoliberal era of capitalism, capitalism, of era neoliberal s and disseminates market market disseminates and s served today when emission emission when today served elimination of tariffs, and a a and tariffs, of elimination enomenon that is yet to be be to yet is that enomenon with a difficulty of knowing knowing of difficulty a with r prlxn situations’, ‘perplexing or between the exploitative exploitative the between Nature, or between facts facts between or Nature, emd a misconception a termed, n development of science science of development n m are, ht Brown what carries, sm e attachments between between attachments e vle ad turning and values m ouin: a possible “a solutions: ed as a form of of form a as ed mise between free free between mise 7 CEU eTD Collection t h sm tm, h ie t etn te T t oth to ETS the extend to idea the time, same the At warmi global defining out, points (2011) Lohmann As gradual of account historical The shift. policy the shapi econo in decisive were conditions while instutional local shown, has t (2002)fostering in role critical a played globalization Fourcade fun As governance for contexts. tool neoliberal this how examine tradeablenew asset a becoming credits emissionof They liquidity. their increase to order in markets Kitc and allo to us urge traders (Harvey professional and economists trade world in elements important markets emission about excitement expressed Carbon ma carbon U.S. the for Hoping Times. Financial like c widely is markets, dioxide carbon and gas o energy, supplier one number the Carbon, Point economists. t and humans i change Climate behavior. of somerules prescribes between relations organizes It change. som of diagnosis a than rather principle organizing Econom action. climate economized ETS the way, This impactscarbonoftrade real obscures contextsand mod d This molecules calculable as fact practices. GHGs of vision in economized and are cultures they their argues, assemblages, 2011) 2009, (2006, em transferable Lohmann and calculable into transformed are gl the On calculated. and defined be can boundaries and s as perceived are action GHGs reductions. emission toward climate structure to means emissions GHG in entangled becomes unexpected thetake in ETS may dir which interests, ETS the b fact as in reductions while emission objects, manage better to us allows atmospher the in gasses greenhouse of quantities of he transition to neoliberal policies, neoliberal to transition he get excited about the prospects prospects the about excited get g h ntr ad enn of meaning and nature the ng w for speculations on emission on speculations for w e essential qualities of climate climate of qualities essential e onthese localities. s performed by economics and economics and by performed s class. ited in the mainstream media, mainstream the in ited ections. mlmnain f emission of implementation obal emission market, GHGs market, emission obal rket to be established, Point established, be to rket ingularized molecules whose whose molecules ingularized ng in terms of quantities of quantities of terms in ng isembeds them from local local from them isembeds . t em ta te ETS the that seems It e. becoming one of the most most the of one becoming er regions prompts us to to us prompts regions er ic rationality becomes an an becomes rationality ic sin rdt, hl, as while, credits, ission mre itliec on intelligence market f local histories, values, values, histories, local tos ihn particular within ctions hgaessner 2008). Some Some 2008). hgaessner hne or attention our channel ounded and calculable calculable and ounded er niomn and environment heir ern, scienticized and and scienticized ern, lmns n local in elements i ad financial and mic 8 CEU eTD Collection nbe ciig e euvlne, ie “CO like: equivalences, new coining enables co comparable, calculable, singular, a into dioxide ehooy = CO = A technology equivalence an CO in reductions with operate which b theories was economic This (EUA). allowance emission an – commodity in it ETS the construct To GHGs. and environment of p also governance environmental of logic market The toPolishin thefailed economembed trade emission a places some in solution working and real a become it Moreover, processes. policy-making EU the in and c in transformed also was it but control, pollution ot among itself for place legitimate a find to have theory The matter. do networks policy and cultures Institut thesis. (2002) Fourcade’s to evidence more prov the ETS, and Protocol Kyotothe through trade, “CO what has been practiced with the mortgage-backed se mortgage-backed the with practiced been has what H 88). (p. speculators” to sale for up them slicing s different in projects credit-manufacturing carbon million $200 US a together put Suisse Credit 2008, val carbon’s how of example an gives (2011) Lohmann ofcultures2004 onLee and (seeLiPuma circulation processes global into environment inscribing of way no examined c of logic market the critically within environment colonizing be may pollution for markets prod is value its which registri through circulation further electronic across electro also bidders, various to open auctions allowances’ an circulates as it and registry allowances emission disp an is into It places. chimney other in produced dioxide carbon mobil becomes places one in produced dioxide Carbon 2 reduction in place A = CO = A place in reduction 2 emissions” (Lohmann 2011, p. 91). These theories t theories These 91). p. 2011, (Lohmann emissions” 2 eutos hog tcnlg B (omn 21, p. 2011, (Lohmann B” technology through reductions 2 reductions in place B”, “CO B”, place in reductions 2 euto A CO = A reduction ontexts of UNFCCC negotiations UNFCCC of ontexts to financial actors, results in its in results actors,financial to e compares such strategies to strategies such compares e uced. From this point of view, of point this From uced. mmensurable entity, and thus and entity, mmensurable ions, policy and market fields, market and policy ions, y of the early 1990s. 1990s. early theof y circulation). ided in this dissertation, gives dissertation, this in ided of emission trade did not only not did trade emission of her policy instruments of air air of instruments policy her ommoditization, but also as a a as also but ommoditization, has not always succeeded to to succeeded always not has of commodities’ and money and commodities’ of oses a challenge to valuation to challenge a oses tages of completion before before completion of tages ue is produced: “As early as as early produced:“As is ue curities: “such financialized financialized “such curities: volved production of a new a of production volved el ht ude together bundled that deal e and interchangeable with interchangeable and e nd periods. For example, example, For periods. nd laced from a company’s company’s a from laced s olwd. Making worldwide. es t only as a process of of process a as only t : “a better climate = = climate better “a : sd n cetfc and scientific on ased i ui o emission of unit nic 2 reductions through through reductions 2 euto B”, reduction urn carbon urn 93). 9 CEU eTD Collection valuing emissions is not a straightforward one. straightforward not is a emissions valuing coal in electricity production makes Poland an exce an Poland makes production electricity in coal Commissi the were to object to economyindustries and government Polish the for sector power coal-based i and (93%) production electricity in coal of share f one become has It dissertation. this in case main of negotiation the in engagement Polish the study I str economic States. existing the in embedded was rules ETS how shows This allocation. benchmark favored plants ind auctions, full favored sectors energy renewable allocation. emission benchmark-based and companies choice a of line the along ran governments between 200 In interests. their to conducive way a in trade to fight to governments national their from support become economies service’ ‘new the and industrial’ rules, ETS negotiating of moment the in time, same ‘o the between relations re-organize markets carbon sph common the into actors financial and industries S Goldman and Bank Sumitomo Kommunalkredit, Fortis, D Capital, Barclays as such actors financial-sector pro who carbo UN those of buyers largest and the names (2011) Lohmann emit who those industri – ‘old’ actors financial the between relations thus new and structures price, allowances’ emission of Production complexity the of because and divided, circulated, tra displaced, are emissions technologies; advanced moder theof infrastructure complex the 88). In (p. in and China in mines coal from projects methane off burning cookstove India, in projects hydroelectric condi and impacts social and climatic heterogeneous v longer even their with packages, carbon-commodity 8, the main line of disagreement disagreement of line main the 8, or numerous reasons. The large The reasons. numerous or n capitalist world, connectedby world, capitalist n ptional economy in the EU. No No EU. the in economy ptional mportance of coal mining and mining coal of mportance the new ETS Directive as the the as Directive ETS new the ustries and coal-based power coal-based and ustries ld’ and ‘new’ economy. At the At economy. ‘new’ and ld’ gether for organizing carbon organizing for gether dustrial pig farms in Mexico” in farms pig dustrial ush Bn, N Paribas BNP Bank, eutsche tions of assemblages of, say, of, assemblages of tions the divides between the ‘old the between divides the n odrs o schemes or Honduras, in f hs ytm te ak of task the system, this of While financial, nuclear and nuclear financial, While on’s proposal. The share of of share The proposal. on’s somd commensurated, nsformed, r o ecag practices, exchange of ere more visible. Sectors seek seek Sectors visible. more uh eoito o new of negotiation much l cos n te ‘new’ the and actors al ewe fl acin for auctions full between n credits today. They are They today. credits n le his cnel the conceal chains, alue achs (p. 88). By bringing bringing By 88). (p. achs lo f abns value, carbon’s of also cue i E Member EU in uctures crucial for the Polish Polish the for crucial duce emissions’ value. value. emissions’ duce 10 CEU eTD Collection sustained. been have not could groups interest and prac interests’ ‘national of discourse a that clear negotiation The ‘Europeanization.’ calls literature proce on debates enter to us allows It has. ETS the en Polish examine to rationale another yet is There society. development Poland’s f organizational of various from actors by future articulated the and present the nego 2008 the During th away. fading started standards with up catching of vision The Poland. for bleak anot yet of prospects the But economy. carbon low a w transition another and enough not were reductions signa clear a were future the in organized be would t in changes and targets reduction pace Proposed same States. the at emissions their reduce to continue thes that clear became future it 2008 to in However, regard targets. with tariff’ ‘reduced a for hoped in past similar a with countries and Poland, fact, carbon reduced significantly collap turn in which Poland, the in resulted w economy States market Member to EU Transition new the among is and 1990s early political-ec underwent it because Directive ETS the re with study to case interesting an also is Poland in P interest most influential theto groups belong seem they State-own, only not are Poland in sectors privil employment extraordinary enjoy which unions, sectorsmining andThe power have companies. owned lignite the of Half State. Polish the by owned also in producer coal hard biggest the Węglowa, Kompania Poland in companies generation power Most sectors. o share sig politically high and strong similarly comparably and generation a has State Member EU other olish economy and olishpolitics. economyand ticed by the Polish government Polish the by ticed gard to the 2008 negotiation of of negotiation 2008 the to gard of the ETS Directive made it it made Directive ETS the of gagement in the negotiation of of negotiation the in gagement iiat iig n electricity and mining nificant ields: political, economic, civil economic, political, ields: dioxide emissions. Due to this this to Due emissions. dioxide ie ae at f h State- the of part are mines l to Poland that past emission past that Poland to l National justifications did not did justifications National Central and Eastern Europe, Europe, Eastern and Central onomic transformation in the in transformation onomic to be part of the State. They State. the of part be to sses, which political science political which sses, as imminent – a transition to transition a – imminent as her costly transition seemed transition costly her tiation of the ETS, the past, past, the ETS, the of tiation Wsen uoen living European Western e e as n hc te ETS the which in ways he cutis ol hv to have would countries e strong and numerous tradenumerous and strong GHG emissions reduction reduction emissions GHG se of many industries in in industries many of se gs Pwr n mining and Power eges. r i te tt’ hands. State’s the in are s h od U Member EU old the as h Erpa Uin is Union, European the e ad eae re- became and met ca i electricity in coal f t a oils past. socialist a ith 11 CEU eTD Collection According to Michel Callon (2009), the idea that ma that idea the (2009), Callon Michel to According com calculate that devices organized collective, as an Callon 2002). al. et (Callon return in realities als They actors. by constructed actively spaces are may spheres’ ‘quasi-natural of they kind some not which therefore to according ways and characte rules multiple constructed their illuminates performed on ex is it such as and allowances emission for market o is governance environmental for tool market-based t us helps also ETS the of negotiation of study The authorities. political and actors reorganization for opportunities opens It practice. creating for potential great a with actors provides ac ‘troubli a being actors while that shows also negotiation, dissertation ETS 2008 with innovate to together got fields organizational the In innovations. i result and ne intertwined local are their deliberation to political it adapt to tried they time, same dec companies and government Polish the f industries, costly less be would ETS the of project IFIEC the co ETS new Europ the which to according rules Consum alternative The Energy Intensive industries. of Federation European International with relations their governme Polish led ETS the on expertise sufficient on based fra largely is nationalistic EU the in a policy-making because sustain to difficult also is It i it But morefundamental policies EUin way. a change rules. general from countries their exempt propos only efficient is terms mutually nationalistic in interests about other each persuading thereby to actors domestic various for possible it makes EU European the in deliberation political for suffice in so far as governments want to to want governments as far so in d Muniesa (2005) define markets markets define (2005) Muniesa d arena. Political institutions in the in institutions Political arena. the ETS design. Therefore, this this Therefore, design. ETS the of relations between economic between relations of ig f neet ad causes and interests of ming (Callon 2009, p.538), but they but p.538), 2009, (Callon g iuto’ ciae change climate situation’, ng vros rms n policy and frames various n o better understand how this how understand better o o construct actors and social social and actors construct o confront their positions and positions their confront nt and companies to tighten to companies and nt rkets are designed and later and designed are rkets e fae ad pcs of spaces and frames new uld be organized. And since And organized. be uld rganized. The ETS is a new a is ETS The rganized. amined in this dissertation. dissertation. this in amined r oih oe pat and plants power Polish or d. hrfr, xet and expert Therefore, eds. xets. n 08 lc of lack 2008, In expertise. rmss n h vle of values the on promises crany o eog to enough not certainly s dd o upr i. t the At it. support to ided ad h eitne of existence the and r r (FE) okd out worked (IFIEC) ers function. Markets are are Markets function. d ouin. Framing solutions. ed a bac o the of branch ean os ainl and national ross 12 CEU eTD Collection e aohr xue o psig sd te long-thwar the aside pushing for excuse another yet joined the EU in 2004 and later, are concerned with concerned are later, and 2004 in EU the joined Union European the arena, global a on players Among ( before” “ be can for crises climate the how ask compete elites Southern to had never they good global po defend to “going are they how with concerned are So poor the and North rich the between inequalities at His structure. power global emerging an as trade Lohm Larry change, climate on conversation critical politic more a for asks also ETS the of Negotiation products. valuationof their ofresults capaciti cognitive different in result and vary may a c An a up makes distributed is calculation which among 1236). p. th 2005 to Muniesa and linked to (Callon distributed are attributed agencies solely of be capacities it Calculative can nor activity, human Calcu 1236). (p. agencies’ calculative ‘distributed calculates; actually what) (or who ask: They goods. respective standings” (p. 31). (p. standings” respective new the how uncertain cautiously, other each eyeing involv actors him, to According relations. economic globa accumulating of patterns on effects different action political of weal kinds different world’s that convinced the and industrialization to countries h goa SuhNrh oiis Poe Mme Stat Member Poorer politics. South-North global the b outlined those to undertones similar have ETS the a economic political, internal its with deal to has 2007) 27 of club regional a as time, same the At change. (Tiberghien entrepreneur political and 2002) a Lightfoot 2001, Opp and (Hechter norm a of role a B the After change. the2001, in climate negotiations Kyotothe from withdrawn against act to need the nd social inequalities. Debates on Debates inequalities. social nd ain s ete a exclusively an neither is lation Member States, it had and still and had it States, Member prevented from being used as used being from prevented uth. While the Northern elites Northern the While uth. l wealth and on interregional interregional on and wealth l n lmt cag wl have will change climate on European Community took up took Community European s f cos n i different in and actors of es alculative space. Such spaces spaces Such space. alculative ly estv aayi.I his In analysis. sensitive ally y Lohmann in his analysis of analysis his in Lohmann y tention is drawn to potential to drawn is tention ann (2006) examines carbon carbon examines (2006) ann their standing in the future the in standing their n dvlp cnet of concept a develop and nd Burchell 2005, Manners Manners 2005, Burchell nd ed in climate politics “are “are politics climate in ed conditions will affect their their affect will conditions es, usually the ones which which ones the usually es, has been most vocal about vocal most been has h (. 1. omn is Lohmann 31). (p. th” i eupet wih is which equipment, eir e ad rvlg oe a over privilege and wer rrangement of elements elements of rrangement ih ead o climate to regard with ted claims of Southern Southern of claims ted Lohmann 2006:31), the the 2006:31), Lohmann s amnsrto had administration ush oes n machines. and models 13 CEU eTD Collection EmissiononTr Figures Union European the Factsand goals.succeedwill its in EU the whether St Member developed less the and new the particular St Member various from coming voices diverse the of lea political and economic global a become to Union integrat an also is but emissions dioxide carbon of E the that understood be should It actor. political of future the concerning asked were questions Many Sta Member all to clear are neither development and tha showed It States. Member different in fears and global and Europe in regime change climate strong a pre moment important an Directive was 2008 January in Commission ETS new the of negotiation The 2009). Gr the generating during for Speech (Barrosso’s tool globally potential advantage a and growth as ETS economic the perceives itself Commission European The factor a development. as potential policies’ climate gauging are K the when ETS theof indesigning participated who Me developed more Economically Europe’. carbon ‘low msin. opne cn hrfr aot h mr c more the allow emissionof a purchase or reductions emission adopt therefore can Companies emissions. sys emissi buying or reductions emission between choose the of aspect trade The the less. emit lowering to for companies t responsible fines also and is monitors It allowances. authority An 5). (p. corresponding the emitters” giving or selling agg and allowable – maximum emission a – ‘cap’ a setting authority involv as type first the describes (2008) MacKenzie ‘cap-and-tra forms: main two in come markets Carbon TS is not only about reductions about only not is TS ances on theon ances emission-market. ion strategy of the European European the of strategy ion yoto Protocol was negotiated, was Protocol yoto tes nor shared by all of them. ofall by shared nortes t certain visions of progress progress of visions certain t n “ gvrmn o other or government “a ing der. A better understanding understanding better A der. ly. It revealed diverse hopes hopes diverse revealed It ly. on allowances to cover their their cover to allowances on for their faster economic economic faster their for ading Scheme ading the EU as an economic and economic an as EU the ates in the 2008 debate, in in debate, 2008 the in ates cap and thus prompting prompting thus and cap e eals opne to companies enables tem number of allowances to to allowances of number ts my ep o predict to help may ates, in Brussels in Week een in the way of establishing establishing of way the in etd y h European the by sented hose who emit without without emit who hose eae oa qatt of quantity total regate e ad poet based’. ‘project and de’ br tts ad those and States, mber tigr f Europe’s of trigger a uoes competitive Europe’s ost-efficient strategy: strategy: ost-efficient

14 CEU eTD Collection rdt and n fr xml Cia r ni cn th can India 7)(p. in emitEurope. to permit or China example for in, earned Parlia credit (European CERs of surrender Tradi the Emission for Union exchange European the market, trade and allowances issue to states member its permits Union v monetary have also CERs crucially and caps, Kyoto CERs purchasing are governments some However, emit. do it allowance: or permit not a credit, a is CER a c units of form the MacKenzi2008).As (see(CERs)MaKenzie Reductions’ in project the without and with the earn then can country developing a from entity project” the without at been have would they level reduce “will project the that and - scheme CDM the h not could project the through achieved reductions ‘additionality its prove to has project a approved, 1 CDMof Board Executive the by project approved from units Kyoto of creation the allows CDM (200 MacKenzie Mechanism. Development Clean the and mark emission based project two currently are There onsurplusthe can sell they ma theemission, their p many too have they if market; the in permits more to want they If dioxide. carbon of quantity certain a – industries heavy and generators power typically creat that companies to permits allocating by cap-and works biggest world’s the is ETS EU The ETS). (EU E EU the establishing Directive Union European 2003 by up set were systems cap-and-trade gas greenhouse Lohma 2008, MacKenzie (see emissions sulfur-dioxide th in introduced was system cap-and-trade first The A body established under the United Nations Framew Nations United the under established A body

ork Convention on Climate Change. Change. Climate on Convention ork 1 (MacKenzie 2008, p. 8). In order to be to order In 8). p. 2008, (MacKenzie esn’t directly convey any right to right any convey directly esn’t rket (Harvey and Crooks2009).and (Harvey rket – hc mas ht emission that means which – ’ quota of permits to produce a a produce to permits of quota emit more, they have to buy buy to have they more, emit emissions below the ‘baseline’ the below emissions difference between emissions emissions between difference e greenhouse gas emissions – emissions gas greenhouse e ermits because they have cut have they because ermits ave been achieved outside of outside achieved been ave ets: the Joint Implementation Joint the ets: (MacKenzie 2008, p. 8). An An 8). p. 2008, (MacKenzie n h ms iprat cap important most the in nn 2006, Pooley 2011). The The 2011). Pooley 2006, nn alue because the European European the because alue the Kyoto Protocol and the and Protocol Kyoto the e (2008) explains: (2008)e explains: e USA in 1995 to reduce reduce to 1995 in USA e us be transformed into a a into transformed be us i dvlpn countries developing in s as a way of meeting their their meeting ofway a as alled ‘Certified Emission Emission ‘Certified alled iso Taig Scheme Trading mission -trade carbon market. It It market. carbon -trade ment, Council 2004). A A 2004). Council ment, g cee ES, in (ETS), Scheme ng ) xlis ht “the that explains 8) 15 CEU eTD Collection sources in an installation. And a ‘tonne of carbon carbon of ‘tonne a And aninstallation. in sources the means ‘Emissions’ Directive. this of provisions thi of requirements the meeting of thepurposes for eq dioxide carbon of tonne one emit to anallowance 2 Directive ETS chem sector, coke sector, ceramic and glass cov sector, has wit (installations ETS sector EU power sectors: The industrial 2003. October 13 in established (2003/87/EC) was ETS EU The (2003 (2004/101/EC). Protocol Directive Kyoto the to regard with obligations EC the Agreement, Marakesh the Protocol, Kyoto The Cl on Convention Framework Nations United the acts: legal is Scheme Trading Emission Union European The ntlain. ah ntlain eevs emt t cov permits world receives the installation in Each market installations. emission largest the is ETS Protocol. developing the in projects CDM out carrying through European earn could EU the in Direc companies this Directive, to incl Thanks (C (JI). to Mechanism mechanism Implementation Development ETS Clean EU the like the Mechanisms, extended (2004/101/EC) Directive a development economic of diminution possible least to States Member its and Community European the of For each trading period each Member State had to de to had State Member each period trading each For with gas greenhouse other any of anamount or (CO2) on objective and transparent criteria. The plan had plan The criteria. transparent and objective on how and period that for allocate to thatintends it 2005. June allowances of fiscaltreatment the on and Directive guideli reporting and monitoring theof application th for arrangements the to attention payparticular aspect thereof. Member States shall ensure thatall shall ensure States Member thereof. aspect Mem a by plan allocation national a of notification theb monthsbefore 18 least at States Member other the Member States shall submit to the Commission a a theCommission to submit shall States theMember from that installation during the preceding calenda preceding the during installation that from year at the latest, the operator of each installati each of theoperator thelatest, at year recognised. According to the 2003 ETS Directive, Me Directive, ETS 2003 the to According recognised. persons and Community withinthe persons Community, The 2003 ETS Directive also defined what is to be t be iswhatto defined also Directive ETS 2003 The 2 (2003/87/EC) aimed at contributing to fulfilling t fulfilling to contributing at aimed (2003/87/EC)

on surrenders a number of allowances equal to thet to equal allowances of number a surrenders on it proposes to allocate them. The plan should have should plan them. The allocate to proposes it e allocation of allowances, the operation of registof theoperation allowances, of allocation e dioxide equivalent’ means one metric tonne of carbo tonneof metric one means equivalent’ dioxide owances can be transferred between persons within t within betweenpersons transferred be can owances to be published and notified to the Commission and theCommission to notified and be published to r year, and that these are subsequently cancelled. cancelled. subsequently are thatthese year,and r ber State, the Commission may have rejected thatpl haverejected may theCommission State, ber s Directive and shall be transferable in accordance in transferable shall be and sDirective nes, verification and issues relating to compliance to relating issues and nes,verification , if any. The first report shall be sent to theCom sent to shall be first report The any. if , release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere fr theatmosphere into gases greenhouse of release eginning of the relevant period. Within three month three Within period. therelevant of eginning uivalent during a specified period, which shall be be which shall period, specified during a uivalent raded within ETS. A European emission ‘allowance’ m ‘allowance’ emission A European within ETS. raded velop a national plan stating the total quantity of quantity thetotal stating plan national a velop report on the application of this Directive. This r This Directive. this of theapplication on report an equivalent global-warming potential. potential. global-warming anequivalent mber States should have ensured that, by 30 April e April by 30 that, have ensured mbershould States in third countries, where such allowances are are whereallowances such countries, in third cpct oe 2 W) oil WM), 20 over capacity h plue wih r called are which pollute, o cl n ppr etr. The sectors. paper and ical countries under the Kyoto Kyoto the under countries nd employment. The 2004 2004 The employment. nd the Kyoto targets with the with targets Kyoto the imate Change (UNFCCC), Change imate Union Allowances (EUAs) (EUAs) Allowances Union 8/C ad h Linking the and /87/EC) Directive regulating EU’s regulating Directive ie cle te Linking the called tive, y h ES Directive ETS the by ly grounded in several several in grounded ly rn aon 1, 000 11, around ering M ad h Joint the and DM) rd h following the ered d ohr Kyoto other ude he commitments commitments he otal emissions emissions otal ries, the ries, mission by 30 30 by mission been based based been Each year Each with the withthe withthe allowances allowances eport shall eport om valid only only valid n dioxide ndioxide to the to an, or any or an, he sof ach ach eans eans 16 CEU eTD Collection cul eutos hog eiso tae ee suppo were trade emission through reductions Actual aiu cnrvris se .. abn rd Watch Trade Carbon e.g. (see controversies various 2005/2006. This was an initial, experimental phase experimental initial, an was This 2005/2006. 3 MtCO2e 267 of surplus overall over-allocat an for blamed largely were industries, wer allowances many how determine to authority wide nati period, trading firsttheIn ETS. on emissions allowances buy also could Companies ETS. the within were rest The allocations. emission of respectively and (2005-2007) first the emi in and 90%of free and for allocated 95% allocations, emission for As ETS. i installation for domestic to responsible (EUAs) allowances were emission States Member ETS, of phases establishing of procedures and cap the of size The the Directive. of one was databases electronic and registries Sta transferred. or issued are allowances whom from by held allowances the record to accounts separate natu – t accessible person be shall Any registries the and EU. allowances the within actors of kind all ne would Carbon levels. gases 1990 to compared % 70 approximately greenhouse of emissions global term, reducti % 8 l 1990 to an compared 2012 to 2008 by gases greenhouse achieving to committed was Community the of and Parliament European the of 1600/2002/EC establ Programme Action Environment Community Sixth emission different periods these of each For 2020. 20 periods: three p in come have it within to activities expensive laun was ETS more less. pollute to it companies encouraging making price, o their scarcity a increase theory, In (EUAs). Allowances European Megatonnes Carbon Dioxide Equivalent, the internat the Equivalent, Dioxide Carbon Megatonnes

3 A a eut h EA’ rc clasd in collapsed price EUAs’ the result a As . ionally recognised measure of greenhouse gas emissi gas greenhouse of measure recognised ionally onal governments, endowed with onalendowed governments, it differed each time and raised and time each differed it 05-2007, 2008-2012 and 2013- and 2008-2012 05-2007, o the public and shall contain shall and public the o of emission trading in the EU. the in trading emission of o e ogt y companies by bought be to second phases (2008-2012) (2008-2012) phases second o o alwne – ih an with – allowances of ion ndardization and security of security and ndardization as ee salse. The established. were caps s of companies covered by by covered companies of s 01. uig h frt two first the During 2011). Council recognized that the that recognized Council trade within ETS is open to open is ETS within trade ah esn o hm and whom to person each evels, and that, in the long long the in that, and evels, priorities set by the ETS ETS the by set priorities ched in 2005 and trading trading and 2005 in ched o oe ter excessive their cover to e t tk pae n the in place take to sed a o lgl my hold may – legal or ral gvn u t polluting to out given e f these permits should should permits these f so alwne were allowances ssion d o e eue by reduced be to ed sig n allocating and ssuing ished by Decision No No Decision by ished also thus and ollute n n msin of emissions in on ons. ons. 17 CEU eTD Collection diitao t miti a idpnet transactio independent an maintain to Administrator European – Cats Fat Carbon the of an names the reveal emissions companies' about data compiles Pearson Sandbag 2010 A 2010). Pearson (see needed they than manag companies many poor, rather was provided they Comm the and governments national with quotas EUAs’ perio trading two these in Since ones. actual their repo to tended companies them, cover to EUAs buy or the reduce them making thus and emissions, their of with companies grant to decided Commission European (2005- periods trading second and first the in When tr further the irregularitiesconcernedhave until allowances any or question in transactions register M the inform shall Administrator Central the check, irregula any of case In allowances. of cancellation irregulariti no are there t ensure to registries log in transaction transaction each on check automated Centra desig The allowances. of cancellation which and transfer Commission, European the to granted was control overall An allowances. emission of purchase excessiv for penalties of system a establish to had a up set were limits emission with an compliance their transfering holding, emissio of allocation monitoring issueing, Bodies allowances. the of accounting emissi carbon (i.e. gasses greenhouse St of Member registries level. national the at organized been has and market regional a as established was ETS EU The use to able gained creditsexchange JI) and and mechanisms(CDM been have States Member from companies budgets.Thanks national to went transactions Kyoto c Kyoto other with and themselves among units Kyoto time, same the At 2008-2012. period trading second been resolved. been ds companies negotiated their negotiated companies ds rities, through the automated automated the through rities, n allocation to companies and companies to allocation n eisos o cvrd y a by covered not emissions e s n h ise tase and transfer issue, the in es Directive2004 the to Linking of emission trade in the EU EU the in trade emission of ons) to ensure the accurate accurate the ensure to ons) uncovered rest of emissions emissions of rest uncovered l Administrator conducts an an conducts Administrator l s well. Member States also also States Member well. s Member States could trade trade could States Member natos eaig o the to relating ansactions me Sae n sal not shall and State ember lg eodn te issue, the recording log n companies, which received which companies, most of the administrative administrative the of most 07 n 20-02, the 2008-2012), and 2007 there for EU ETS credits.ETSforthere EU ed to get more allowances allowances more get to ed report authored by Anna by authored report ts salse national established ates hrough the independent independent the hrough ission’s control over data data over control ission’s rt higher emissions than than emissions higher rt part cover to EUAs free ountries. Revenues from from Revenues ountries. EA’ loain to allocations EUAs’ d cneln emission cancelling d the Kyoto flexibility flexibility Kyoto the ae a Central a nated 18 CEU eTD Collection electric the where markets electricity de-regulated memb many in scandals huge caused This electricity. opportuni the passed companies Therefore, way. this dio mark the on carbon allowances emission sell to emitting opportunity thus and electricity, be could producing This price. electricity the to allowances passe producers power free, for allowances emission Despite generat companies. sector has power by 2012 profits windfall and 2005 between operating ETS The frominstallatio measured emissionsactual the than per 3.2 compar was scheme 2010, the under in permits of cent allocation per 3.5 over by rose “Fig emissions results: 2010 the on commented also has (2011) (201 policy” successful a of results the as claimed emissi fewer in results production Less cent recession”. per 13.85 of goods industrial and electricity set be to needs “this that notes (2011) Watch Trade p 5 around by fallen having MtCO2e), 246 of drop (a scheme the by covered installations from Emissions Centra from elekrárne) and Slovakia). countries(CzechRepublic Slovenské and (CEZ st two companies are there companies, cement and steel global most among Interestingly, EUAs. surplus million 1.4 Slovens and (USS) Steel U.S. CEZ, HeidelbergCement, million 2 and 4.2 between had Salzgitter and Cemex Co Lafarge, 2008. in EUAs surplus million 14.4 with fattes The 2012. after also reductions emission any companies these use, future the for EUAs of banking s Moreover, 2010. of beginning the at EUA per Euros th at Euro million 500 estimated an worth were EUAs su million 35 shared report, the to according Cats, 2008-2012 period trading the for allowances surplus ns covered by it” (p. 2).(p.covered ns it” by t Carbon Cat is ArcelorMittal is Cat Carbon t , .) Cro Tae Watch Trade Carbon p.2). 1, against falls in production of production in falls against t pie s o rgltd by regulated not is price ity d the market cost of emission emission of cost market the d fell by 11.6 per cent in 2009 in cent per 11.6 by fell h fc ta te received they that fact the er cent in 2008. But Carbon Carbon But 2008. in cent er t n t an oe money some earn to and et be hardly can which – ons n 09 s rsl o the of result a as 2009 in ince the EU ETS rules allow rules ETS EU the ince pu EA i 20. These 2008. in EUAs rplus may not have to undertake undertake to have not may explained by the fact that that fact the by explained e carbon prices of about 14 about of prices carbon e et 5. MC2) higher MtCO2e) (57.4 cent er states, especially on the on especially states, er surplus EUAs in 2008 and and 2008 in EUAs surplus y etr Erpa and European Western ly Fat Carbon ten top The . u, SB Sest Stal, Svenskt – SSAB rus, ty cost into the price of of price the into cost ty ures for 2010 show that that show 2010 for ures t ond oe sector power owned ate ké elekrárne from 1.7 to to 1.7 from elekrárne ké ie mat osn an loosing meant xide, d o 09 ees The levels. 2009 to ed d te fas like flaws, other ed l-Eastern European European l-Eastern 19 CEU eTD Collection allowed to companies be would Besides, 2017. until hav not would polluters that mean might This 2012). pha second the from coming ETS post-2012 the within 9 around of surplus a foresee already some However, clear costs(p.7). reduction emission further a giving 1,74% of factor yearly a by linearly (2008: abatement efficient in investments long-term predictabilit increased and perspective long-term a t to according emissions, historic on based cap One reduction 20% a that ensuring EU whole the for cap 2013 from ETS, of history the in time first the For (European 2008:3). Commission signal price forward undist for clear, a incentives reinforcing by right decisions investment the create low and a into economy Europe transforming to contribute to (3) the in ETS EU the improve and refine to (2) manner, i commitments reduction gas greenhouse overall EU's t of potential the exploit fully to (1) amendments: ob main three by driven was Commission European The was full of auctions rule forintroduced the change of system trading allowance emission gas greenhouse to as so 2003/87/EC Directive amending COUNCIL THE PAR EUROPEAN THE OF DIRECTIVE a proposed Commission Ja In 2008). Commission (European way substantial a Em Union European the revise to Commission European p second the in over-al Plans Allocation National assessing producers, power (2005-2 ETS EU the of phase by first the in allowances earned profits Windfall allo emission of ex the themat revenues additional earned companies allocation free that outraged were governm The bodies. administrative governmental any the power sector. power the he EU ETS to contribute to the the to contribute to ETS EU he y, which would be required for required be would which y, hase (2008-2012) inclined the inclined (2008-2012) hase use 1.6 billion offset credits in billionoffsetin 1.6 usecredits he Commission would provide would Commission he onwards there would be one be would there onwards 007) and a difficult process of of process difficult a and 007) light of experience gathered, gathered, experience of light message to investors about about investors to message target was achieved by 2020. 2020. by achieved was target e to take action domestically action take to e carbon long-term and orted pense of theof pense consumers. ) Te a wud decrease would cap The 7). ents, NGOs and consumers and NGOs ents, the Community. The main The Community. the n an economically efficient efficient economically an n nuary 28th, the European European the 28th, nuary greenhouse-gas-emitting greenhouse-gas-emitting wances to the polluting polluting the to wances 70 million of allowances allowances of million 70 in Scheme Trading ission e f h shm (2008- scheme the of se jectives when proposing proposing when jectives improve and extend the extend and improve okn lw carbon low looking location of emission emission of location LIAMENT AND OF AND LIAMENT 20 CEU eTD Collection Article 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty” (2008:11). Afte (2008:11). Treaty” EC the of 88 and 87 Article utos pooe b te omsin wr acclaime were Commission, the by proposed Auctions, lo keig n id h apocig n dt o t of date end approaching the mind in keeping Also, 2011).Watch respo in 2013 (IETA) Association Trading Emissions International April to offsets gas industrial these de Commission The integrity.” environmental of lack Hedegaa Connie Commissioner Action Climate EU which f come date to used offsets the of cent per 80 Over Cle UN’s the from derived mostly III, and II phases installations (p.15-16). (p.15-16). installations and entrants new to made be also should allocations for rule a become would auctions through allowances whi aid state constitute would free for Th “allocation (p.7). emissions reduce to action early rewarded allow the with would best complied Commission, They effects. the distributional to due Auctions, (p.7). transparency ETS, the of efficiency ensuring “best loain o nutil ntlain wud e har be would mosttheofaccount take which “should “benchmarks” installations industrial in to auctions full allocation to 2013 in allowances free of 80% exp sectors in installations Th for transition gradual 7). (p. emissions” global increasing thereby and f activities emitting gas greenhouse of “relocation i European protect car perceived It markets. global in competitiveness to necessary it found Commission ot in absent still were Union European the in those red emission 2008 linkin in since However, p.10-11). 2008, good a provide to seemed s allowances The emission markets. emission regional t other to to it or link market to easy was it that so scheme European Commi the agreement, global new a negotiate to need osed to global competition from from competition global to osed bon leakage as viable threat of threat viable as leakage bon rom the EU to third countries third to EU the rom her regions and countries, the countries, and regions her and others (see Carbon Trade Carbon (see others and r 2012, allocation of emission emission of allocation 2012, r and simplicity of the system” the of simplicity and an Development Mechanism. Mechanism. Development an oltr py rnil and principle pay polluters uction targets comparable to comparable targets uction carbon capture and storage and capture carbon ch must be justified under under justified be must ch o idsra gs projects, gas industrial rom greenhouse gas and energyand gas greenhouse ae a a o te s of use the on ban a layed nse to lobbying from the the from lobbying to nse Cmiso pooe a proposed Commission e the and Protocol Kyoto he power producers. No free No producers. power ssion wanted to amend the amend to wanted ssion e Commission stated that that stated Commission e e uue lbl emission global future he 2020 (p.8). Transnational Transnational (p.8). 2020 oie ad ae on based and monized imple rule of auctioning auctioning of rule imple d by the Commission as as Commission the by d ptnil (Commission potential g rd admits have a “total a have admits rd viig undesirable avoiding dsre fo losing from ndustries 21 CEU eTD Collection Greece, (Spain, (p.33). Ireland)” growing were they which at rate the (Finlan emissions their stabilize to pledged either Kingdom. United the and Netherlands, the Luxemburg, Belgiu Austria, emissions: their reduce to expected A targets. wh national in differentiation for need the success t a community-wide ambitious an guaranteed for pushed Commission approach sharing burden the Tib and Schreus (see Protocol Kyoto the approach negotiating sharing burden a the to like compared seemed solidarity States Member poorer to allowances of redistribution The 1990s. since Community European a as emiss States accompanied which sharing Member burden of principle EU new the by perceived was This to Member marketdifferences due internal thein in shou there that stating by it reiterated It (p.15). i in scheme Community the under differently sectors “inappr it found Commission the However, prospects. per GDP lowest with States Member the to average EU red be th head, incomeofper average level an with States would auctioned be to allowances circum of quantity national account into taking For and ETS. solidarity, EU the in emissions 2005 of share dis relative be would auctioned be to allowances of quantity o thirds f proposal The two (p.8). auctioned be would least allowances at that estimated Commission The negotiation period. of set separate a within established be storage” and capture gas greenhouse and renewables prod alternative substitutes, efficienttechniques, ld be “no distortion of competition competition of distortion “no be ld uction processes, use of biomass,ofuseprocesses, uction s a result, “only seven MS were were MS seven “only result, a s d, France) or to work to reduce to work to or France) d, at is, more than 20% above the above 20% moreis,than at State implementation” (p.43).implementation” State m, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Germany, Denmark, m, oresaw that 90% of the total total the of 90% that oresaw erghien 2007). In the past, past, the In 2007). erghien s before the 2013 trading trading 2013 the before s of 10% of the total quantity total the of 10% of tne, 0 o te total the of 10% stances, ion reduction efforts in the in efforts reduction ion (p. 16). Benchmarks would Benchmarks 16). (p. ndividual Member States” States” Member ndividual capita and highest growth highest and capita rbtd codn t the to according tributed Other EU Member States Member EU Other opriate to treat economic economic treat to opriate reasons of fairness and and fairness of reasons istributed from Member Member from istributed otgl See, and Sweden, Portugal, adopted at the time of of time the at adopted arget while recognizing recognizing while arget te oa qatt of quantity total the f moderate gesture of of gesture moderate tp ak rm the from back step en the European European the en 22 CEU eTD Collection in theMarket Polandand Sector Electricity Power e of sector companies. power Polish allocation free for lobbying were which sector gove Polish the by supported been also has proposal se power the to also but industries the to only not al for method alternative their proposed t industries At proposals. Commission’s the of many challenged Commi the after 2008, in place took that debate The 19). har implementing for Communit and verifiers of accreditation transitional verif and reporting monitoring, for the for allowances, adop allowances, to of Commission the auctioning on conferred be should Co power the on conferred th powers down implementing laying of exercise 1999 June 28 of 1999/468/EC Decision measure “The adopted read: be should Directive we this of Directive implementation ETS the of proposal bo governing main the as Commission the established cen greater a to led also proposal Commission’s The 2007 the share of coal in electricity production in production electricity in coal of share the 2007 Wotheto According production. electricity in coal E the in countries two only the are These percent). ma electricity generates Poland Estonia, co to uses Similar exclusively almost which Poland, is them of carbon-int with States Member EU th in concerns raised for auctions’ ‘full of proposal Commission’s The ctor companies. This alternative alternative This companies. ctor

rld Bank’s (2011) calculation, in in (2011) calculation, Bank’s rld the EU27 was 29 percent; for for percent; 29 was EU27 the monised rules for projects” (p. projects” for rules monised location emission allowances allowances emission location ny rm ol i aon 93 around (in coal from inly cto o eisos fr the for emissions, of ication wt sc a ih hr of share high a such with U tralization of the system and system the of tralization in accordance with Council Council with accordance in pwr etr companies sector power e net n industry-power and rnment iso alwne t the to allowances mission so pooa ws issued, was proposal ssion ensive power sectors. One One sectors. power ensive al to generate electricity. electricity. generate to al e ae ie European time, same he y f h sse. n the In system. the of dy mmission. In particular particular In mmission. -ie loain of allocation y-wide e procedures for the the for procedures e s necessary for the the for necessary s maue fr the for measures t 23 CEU eTD Collection Slovakia, Slovenia. Slovenia. Slovakia, 1. Transnational GridEle Polish the Transnational in Connections1. coal wwęgla energetycebędz (“Udział falling constantly of share the and lignite from 33.66% and coal electricit of 55.84% 2009 in Operator, PSE company, t and – old years Accord future. near the in block new 30 in investments around are blocks power of 40% al is sector power Polish The production5. domestic electri of amount total the Almost countries. other as isolated fairly is market electricity Polish The mining thoughcostly, secto aworking, reservesand of energy in Poland is about 160 TWh (source: GTE “ GTE (source: TWh 160 isabout Poland in energy of 5 4 EU10 Coupling” Konferencja “Power Ring” December 2008). 2008). December Ring” “Power Konferencja Coupling” Poland imports 140 MW from Belarus, 220 MW from Uk MW 220 from Belarus, MW imports140 Poland E Republic, theCzech Bulgaria, comprisesof: EU10 4 was 59 percent and in Poland it was 91 percent. Po percent. 91 was it Poland in and percent 59 was

Import energii, połenergii, Import stonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, stonia,

raine and 600 MW from Sweden. Yearly production production Yearly from Sweden. MW 600 and raine it is lacking grid connectors with with connectors grid lacking is it city consumption is covered by covered is consumption city ctricity Marketctricity ie malał,” 2010). malał,” ie r. r. ing to the national power grid power national the to ing ą so fairly old and inefficient – – inefficient and old fairly so czenia transgraniczne, Market Market transgraniczne, czenia ws rdcd rm hard from produced was y n oads nry i is mix energy Poland’s in i ncsiae large necessitates his land also has vast coal coal vast has also land

, , 24 CEU eTD Collection consolid vertical of process a in created were They the are they – Poland in market distribution the of fou The surroundings. its and Warsaw in electricity Enea. and RWE Energa – capital foreign by owned company distribution Tauron, PGE, groups: energy currently owned is market electricity Polish The economy. of is country, every in as Poland, in sector Power 200Review, Energy Strategic Source:Source:Second 148.61 %)(in TWh, mix Electricity Mtoe, %)(in products recovered and production Primary MixinMtoe, %) (Energy consumptioninland gross Poland’s 2006 Mix(2006)Energy Poland’sof Structure 2. 948. hydro mocy” 2011).223MWzielonych ponad from and MW 1344.317 wind from MW, 0.104 MW, 399.05 biomass from MW, 87.773 biogas from MW: e renewable of capacity installed the 2011 March In ele in renewables of share the However, limited. is arou landscap flat for rather a to Due Poland. in accounts production and small is sector renewable The transgranic połączenia December2008. Ring” Conference “Power energii, “Import GTE Source: 91% 91% 57% 57.04 fuels fuels Solid 86% 86% 67.58

Oil Oil 2% 2% 2,44 2% 1,47 25% 24.23 owners of the distribution grid. distribution the of owners e the potential for hydropower hydropower for potential the e r energy groups share the rest the share groups energy r ctricity production is growing. is production ctricity strategic importance for the the for importance strategic ation of various state-owned state-owned various of ation nergy sources was 2780.079 2780.079 was sources nergy 8 STOEN – which distributes which – STOEN oiae b fu state- four by dominated nd 7 percent of energy energy of percent 7 nd n, akt Coupling” Market zne, from solar power plants power solar from Gas Gas 5% 5% 3.88 3% 3% 5.02 13% 12.37 835 MW (“Przybyło (“Przybyło MW 835 hr i ol one only is There s s Renewable 3% 3% 4.31 6% 5.05 5% 4,99 25 CEU eTD Collection 43,2 ml tones of lignite. It also owns six combined six owns also It lignite. of tones ml 43,2 mines, coal brown two owns PGE plant. power another consumption Poland’s of percent 40 covers which GW, its – Poland in producer electricity biggest the is i 2010 in and plants power coal-based four owns PGE http://www.rynek-energii-elektrycznej.cire.pl/st,33 2011 Source:CIRE Since 2009, PGE is also the leading investor into t into investor leading the also is PGE 2009, Since 7 6 inPoland ElectricityofStructureDistribution 3. coalmines. own themalso distri production, electricity own would group each Vert 2006. in started which companies, sector power rdcin cons o 1 pret f eeal ene renewable of percent 11 for accounts one production and plants power hydro twenty-nine manages also http://www.pgesa.pl/pl/PGE/Podstawoweinformacje/St http://www.pgesa.pl/pl/PGE/ObszaryDzialalnosci/Str

ony/Energiakonwencjonalna.aspx ony/Energiakonwencjonalna.aspx rony/default.aspx rony/default.aspx

total production capacity is 12,2 is capacity production total ,201,tr,69,0,0,0,0,0,osd.html ,201,tr,69,0,0,0,0,0,osd.html heat and power plants power and heat wo first Polish nuclear power power nuclear Polish first wo ical consolidation meant that meant consolidation ical t produced 53 TWh netto. It It netto. TWh 53 produced t bution and sales. Some of of Some sales. and bution g gnrtd t Poland it generated rgy which in 2010 extracted extracted 2010 in which . It will soon take over over take soon will It . windmill farm and its its and farm windmill 6 . PGE PGE .

26 7 . CEU eTD Collection et n pwr lns 2 4, MWt) 443,7 (2 plants power and heat 282,7 (5 plants power coal-based sever owns Tauron Europe. Eastern and leading a and leader sector power country’s become 11 10 9 8 ofcapacity thou 3 have eachwould which of plants, to a more sustainable energy production in Poland. Poland. in production energy sustainable more a to sect power Polish the of consolidation Vertical The manage owned grid and highestis voltage the Poland i are which plants, power many also are There well. o EDF and plant power one owns CEZ plant, power one group energy Polish the by owned plants power based wi two and plant power and heat combined one plant, hydro twenty-one by generated is electricity plant apar and MW 189,27 3 is Enea of capacity production in MW 880 2 of plant power coal-based one owns Enea 0,79 Mg of carbon dioxide per MWh carbonofdioxide per Mg 0,79 energy large-scale perc 3.09 – gas natural percent; 8,19 energy, – hydropower) renewable solar percent; energy, wind 30,22 geothermal, – lingnite percent; supplies and its of most produces It mines coal. hard for consumption coal hard two owns also It PGE. is fuels of structure Its sources. energy renewable percent an percent 2,92 – gas natural percent; 4,12 – hydro wi percent; 5,93 – biomass percent; 24,83 – lignite f energy its of most produces It MW. 1200 is Energa fifty-fo all, in owns, It plants. power hydro scale p hydro one plant, power coal-based one owns Energa http://www.tauron-wytwarzanie.pl/o-firmie/Pages/de http://www.pgesa.pl/pl/PGE/ObszaryDzialalnosci/Str http://www.energa.pl/dla-domu/grupa-energa/grupaen http://www.tauron-pe.pl/tauron/Pages/struktura-pal 11 . .

10 . iw.aspx iw.aspx fault.aspx fault.aspx ony/Energetykajadrowa.aspx ony/Energetykajadrowa.aspx erga erga 9 I as poue eetiiy from electricity produces also It . ur power plants. Total capacity of of capacity Total plants. power ur power plants, one biogas power power biogas one plants, power or was also meant to contribute contribute to meant also was or sand MW sand more diverse than the one of of one the than diverse more energy from hard coal – 54,72 – coal hard from energy nd – 5,79 percent; large-scale large-scale percent; 5,79 – nd ent. On average Tauron emits Tauron average On ent. d by PSE Operator. PSE d by Strong power groups would groups power Strong rom hard coal – 53 percent; 53 – coal hard rom t from the coal-based power coal-based the from t ower plant and many small- many and plant ower salsae yr – 0,55 – hydro small-scale d oe cmay n Central in company power ndependent companies. In In companies. ndependent nd farms. Apart from coal- from Apart farms. nd stalled capacity. The total The capacity. stalled W) n to combined two and MWe) , lcrbl UZ owns SUEZ Electrabel s, hydropower, small-scale small-scale hydropower, wns one power plant as plant power one wns 20 percent of Poland’s Poland’s of percent 20 8 sources (biomass, (biomass, sources . PGE was formed toformed was PGE . 27 CEU eTD Collection atzbk Sók Wgoa Ktwci odn Węglo Holding Katowicki Węglowa, Spółka Jastrzębska inPoland Power BiggestPlants The 4. for especially prices, electricityhigher generated i that experts by criticized been often has process Jaku (see regulation EU the with comply to measures investments out carry to capital more with dispose sector closely related. Hard coal is also produced produced also is coal Hard related. closely sector inte the makes This coalmines. own also them of two companies plant power state-owned four the on Data Source:http://www.wiking.edu.pl/upload/geografia/i

the industrial consumers.industrialthe t brought less competition and competition less brought t mages/Polska_energetyka.gif mages/Polska_energetyka.gif into environmental protection environmental into presented above show that show above presented et o pwr n mining and power of rests ik 09. oee, this However, 2009). biak y ad uesi Węgiel Lubelski and wy, n apna Węglowa, Kampania in

28 CEU eTD Collection aiu eeg cnues A o hay nutis B industries, heavy for (A consumers energy various Adamów and KWBKonin.and Adamów nentoa ivsos lk EF RE Vtefl a Vattenfal RWE, EDF, like investors, international ex secto power stock Polish the the of on transformation accession, are Tauron and Enea groups: an investors capital foreign of Polish the of hands private Toda 2009). (Ruszkowski plan privatization the from commencial was sector power the 1990s, early the In St in stay or privatized be should sector power the ther transformation, Poland’s of beginning the From competitifreed regulated by be and will households i However, decisions. regulator’s the over leverage actors and politicized still is prices electricity Ruszkow to According companies. other by owned grid sup various rule, Access Party Third the for thanks t of choice a granted were consumers household 2007 te for R and households for G companies, commercial agency – the Office of Energy Regulation (URE). URE (URE). Regulation Energy of Office the – agency regu market electricity the of role the 1997, Since contractedthe than which lower wereprices market compensat granted be would producers and 2008 March th decided was It duration. their to as varied they betw made were contracts long-term The investments. so plants power to capital provide to was contracts oper grid power the – PSE and producers the between long-t of institution the in resided electricity of orga in challenge major The process. administrative electrici and companies between competition free no si re-organized was electricity for market A 1990s. tr significant undergone has electricity for Market o two in produced also is mines Lignite „Bogdanka”. of the power sector compete to gain gain to compete sector power the of erm contracts (KDT) for electricity for (KDT) contracts erm at last contracts would expire in expire would contracts last at lator was granted to a separate separate a to granted was lator nce during socialism there was was there socialism during nce ansition since the beginning of beginning the since ansition pliers of electricity can use the use can electricity of pliers on between companies.between on that they could take loans for loans take could they that ate hands (Ruszkowski 2009). (Ruszkowski hands ate nizing a market for free trade trade free for market a nizing e was no agreement whether whether agreement no was e ones. ones. n 2013 electricity prices for for prices electricity 2013 n hs trce te biggest the attracted has r d two of the power sector sector power the of two d d lcrbl (Ruszkowski Electrabel nd y, some companies are in in are companies some y, hr pn i mns KWB mines: pit open ther mporary constructions). In In constructions). mporary o bg opne, for C companies, big for ator. The purpose of those those of purpose The ator. regulates price tariffs for for tariffs price regulates ty prices were set in an an in set were prices ty zd u i ws excluded was it but ized een 1994 and 1998 and and 1998 and 1994 een e nry upir And supplier. energy he k (09, euain of regulation (2009), ski hne Sne h EU the Since change. ion from the State for for State the from ion 29 CEU eTD Collection fromEnergy Various Emissions GHGsof Comparison 5. equivalentthan carbon dioxide lesstimes twoemits it because fuel climate-friendly more a also is Gas o monopoly having Poland in company gas biggest the still is it and today Poland in group sector power electri and heat gas-fired in or plants power fired i and PGNiG and PGE of group capital big a build to sector power Polish the of development for scenario ar blocks investmentspower new affordable into and a the in and build to easier and cheaper are plants com coal to competition real the mines. out, points lignite (2009) the and mines some coal about hard the writes between (2009) Ruszkowski mining. coal on ma – lignite and coal hard – coal of share high The t of 2009). (Ruszkowski strategies on depended and politicized greatly Pol the of management and Transformation companies. the from withdrew Vattenfal 2011 in However, 2009). kes the power sector dependant dependant sector power the kes emits less carbon dioxide. Gas Gas dioxide. carbon less emits city plants. PGE is the biggest the is PGE plants. city owned by the State. PGNiG is is PGNiG State. the by owned coal. , Jan Popczyk (2006) proposes proposes (2006) Popczyk Jan , ging Polish power sector fast sector power Polish ging es from gas. Gas-fired power Gas-fired gas. from es e necessary. In analternative necessary.eIn Polish market selling all its all selling market Polish e hnig governments changing he vs it salsae gas- small-scale into nvest Sources ver the Polish gas market. gas Polish the ver ish power sector has been been has sector power ish However, as Ruszkowski Ruszkowski as However, ee o competition of level

30

CEU eTD Collection at the average EU level – 10 tCO2e (World Bank 2009 Bank (World tCO2e 10 – level EU average the at emis and percent1 equals emissions global in share 12 in Wikipedia economies emitting most the among not is Poland region. the in influence o real toward hint inevitably Poland in gas natural 2012). Sharples also (see Russia – source one from nat and cru oil crude its of of 45% than 60% more and imports, than more and gas and oil of consumption It condition. third the and second the meets Poland 16) sou energy that of consumption its of 45% than more energy major a of imports its of 60% than more for depends country a c) or sources, foreign from comes E Eastern and Central the of most (in source energy con annual country’s a of 50% than more b) sources; energy total country’s a of one-third than more “a) conditions: w c situation a oil as dependency’ crude ‘energy defines Poland’s (2008) of 91% provided Russia 2009 in consumed of terms in Therefore, Norway). and UK the remainde (the imports oil crude Poland’s of percent oil crude for gas Russian on dependant heavily also per 11 further a (with imports gas ac natural Poland’s gas Russian consumption. gas natural Poland’s of of supplies Russian 2009 in p.13), p.5, (2011, IEA for fuel troublesome a been always has gas However, plan power hydro gas, 2000Source: IAEA nuclear power plants. windmills, coal, left: the from Starting Source: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_c 12 i anal eis 1,6 tosns oe o carb of tones thousands 316,066 emits annually it ,

arbon_dioxide_emissions natural gas covered 57 percent percent 57 covered gas natural cent from Germany). Poland is is Poland Germany). from cent r alleged Russian interets and interets Russian alleged r r being imported from Algeria, from imported being r imports more than 50% of its its of 50% than more imports sions per capital in Poland are Poland in capital per sions on a single external provider provider external single a on imports – accounting for 94 for accounting – imports Therefore, all debates about debates all Therefore, comes consumption gas ural supply comes from foreign foreign from comes supply hen state meets one of the the of one meets state hen sumption of a single major major single a of sumption rpa sae, i o gas) or oil states, uropean ). Average world emissions world Average ). rce”. (Balmaceda, 2008, p. 2008, (Balmaceda, rce”. ore o ta cuty or country that for source crude oil and natural gas, gas, natural and oil crude oad Acrig o the to According Poland. counts for 82 percent of of percent 82 for counts h wrd Acrig to According world. the ts, solar power plants, plants, power solar ts, onsumption. Balmaceda Balmaceda onsumption. e i ad aua gas natural and oil de

n ixd. Its dioxide. on 31 CEU eTD Collection recipe simple a like seemed this ou government, Polish countries to production moving tur or in down this factories And markets. global on competitive less woul products Their Poland. in operating industries and prices electricity in increase high a in result generati electricity of cost increase significantly fo costly very ETS in participation make would This secto power the for allowances emission of auctions industries and sector, power government, Polish the t Directive, ETS the of negotiation 2008 the During 2005. th in percent 21 by emissions dioxide carbon reduce 14 by sectors non-ETS the in emissions Pola its increase 2008, in Commission the Accordin by EU27. proposed directives in 40% around to compared accoun emissions, sectors These sector. oil the and industries t of comprises ETS scheme. the by covered not those i sectors economic divide policies climate European 2011).EU27 Bank (Wordaverage onin as last the over improved although economy, Polish of the At transport. and sector power the are: Poland sources main two The EU27. the in GDP per emissions per dioxide carbon much as twice emits It GDP. per ter in inefficient is economy Polish States, Member Howeve emissions. global to contribute EU10 new the diffe significant a shows This percent. 2,4 emits – E new emissio The percent. 11 emits – EU15 old the – States global the of percent 13 emits EU whole The capita. per tCO2e 2 emissions temperatures,average the global average to order in and, tCO2e 7 equal capital per GHGs of on in Poland. This in turn would turn in This Poland. in on additional production costs for for costs production additional rence in how the old EU15 and EU15 old the how in rence ms of carbon dioxide emissions dioxide carbon of ms d become more expensive and and expensive more become d nto those covered by ETS and ETS by covered those nto GDP compared to the average average the to compared GDP r the Polish power sector and and sector power Polish the r same time, energy efficiency efficiency energy time, same percent but it would have to have would it but percent he main point of objection of of objection of point main he per capital should go down to goshoulddown capital per U Member States – the EU10 EU10 the – States Member U twenty years, is twice as low as twice is years, twenty as well, was the rule of full full of rule the was well, as for lower economic growth growth economic lower for e ETS sectors, compared to to compared sectors, ETS e achieve the 2°C increase in in increase 2°C the achieve bten 03 n 2020. and 2013 between r t for 60 percent of Polish Polish of percent 60 for t he electricity sector, heavy heavy sector, electricity he cud eut n closing in result could n r, compared to other EU EU other to compared r, sd o Pln. o the For Poland. of tside s Te l E Member EU old The ns. d ol b alwd to allowed be would nd of carbon emissions in in emissions carbon of t te e st of set new the to g 32 CEU eTD Collection T mixes. energy various have sectors i power national markets those on competition isolated, fairly are s States, Member EU different in different be would addition with industries burden would sector, power th due prices electricity in increase An producers. be would which sectors, power the for auctions full into take not did Commission European the However, pr separate a within negotiated be would allocation Details allowances. emission free granted partially meant This industries. European to allocation based Commission European the proposal, Directive ETS new leakage’ ‘carbon called was this – EU the from away indu ETS, on allowances emission of auctions costly emissio severe to due lobbi that argued industries have They European manner. ETS, new on debate the In inas relative production change ofplace can they d for conditions deteriorating of case in thus, and mor also are factories Industrial globally. the compete to limited not are they producers, power Polish and European Polish, on consumers for t compete they from result inevitably a industries Polish production. cement processesin emissions those of o tons percent mln 11,4 yearly emits industry cement Polish indu cement example, for But CIECH. distributor and KGHM producer copper the like companies, big owned althoug hands, foreign in mostly is industry Polish t to occur t could profits’ ‘windfall in liberatlization due However, 2008). (Jankowski Poland in occur companies, power in profits’ ‘windfall in resulted t by Commission European go the by Polish justified auctions’ the Also, unemployment. increasing an and he future.he because ‘windfall profits’ did not did profits’ ‘windfall because hort time. time. hort of the benchmarking system of of system benchmarking the of re modern, highly efficient and efficientand highly modern, re oing business in one country, country, one in business oing rl o fl acin fr the for auctions full of rule e tee r sil eea state several still are there h that industries would still be still would industries that mbl ta pwr plants, power than mobile e ocedure called commitology. called ocedure rgltd ifrnl and differently regulated s industrial by incurred also ince national power sectors power national ince al cost. Moreover, this cost cost this Moreover, cost. al e at ht re allocation free that fact he eeoe n nlss f the of analysis an herefore stry is all in foreign hands. hands. foreign in all is stry tis a dcd t move to decide may stries Teeoe aray n the in already Therefore, . ainl akt u they but market national account an indirect cost of cost indirect an account global markets. Unlike the Unlike markets. global n reduction measures and measures reduction n cro doie ad 62 and dioxide, carbon f or the chemical producer producer chemical the or he prospects of market market of prospects he vernment objected ‘full ‘full objected vernment d n wl organized well a in ed he basic technological technological basic he rpsd benchmark- proposed 33 CEU eTD Collection electricity in coal on relies also compl UK The almost pipeline. the to due Russia from imports gas for inves huge Germ 2008, In made decades. last the during technologies already has Germany hand, other the a quite has still it because fence a on sitting was major other in situation the of overview an give To allowancesemissionby impactedstay not auct would o cost the and energy’ ‘black producing of cost the au full to due And electr EU. the of across in similar price become the connected, more and more become the As plants. power nuclear to profit bring could auct ‘full fact in And neutral’. French ‘carbon completely The dioxide. carbon emit not do sav plants to power battle its in Poland for ally good a not was a ‘fullof rule findthe not Directive, did ETS new wh i most France, during 2008 sectors. of half second mining the in Presidency and power the in as well electricit of source Pola this in fears of lot a raised proposal Commission’s have not did still Poland constr about plans making already although 2008, In hope istherea d for reserves in gasPoland, shale However, gas. natural of imports the on dependency direc future the in also could This off. workers of futur the in plants power or coalmines some closing woul electricity of source reliable quite therefore coal, extracting for times good the that meant This different and nuclear gas, like fuels emitting less from coal out phasing of policy the implied sector emission carbon making of proposal Commission’s The fo different Member be States.EU different would rules ETS new of implications uctions’ threatening. Therefore, threatening. it uctions’ few coal-fueled power plants. On plants. power coal-fueled few kinds of renewable technologies. renewable of kinds omestic supply gas. of omestic supply d soon be over. This also meant also This over. be soon d production but emission trade trade emission but production nd – both in the government, as government, the in both – nd ioning’ of emission allowances allowances emission of ioning’ t Poland into an even greater greater even an into Poland t EU Member States, Germany States, Member EU h E adrpaig t with it replacing and EU the e its domestic coal. Nuclear Nuclear coal. domestic its e U lcrct mre would market electricity EU ions. ions. e and thus letting thousands letting thus and e any also had good prospects good had also any ucting nuclear power plants, power nuclear ucting and the use this domestic, domestic, this use the and ctions for the power sector, sector, power the for ctions tnie eoitos f the of negotiations ntensive pouig ula energy nuclear producing f isald Teeoe the Therefore, installed. y today, with the discovery of discovery the with today, s very costly to the power power the to costly very s idsre oeaig in operating industries r td od tem Baltic Streem Nord eted power sector is almost almost is sector power ct i te U would EU the in icity c to oe te EU the over took ich mns n renewable in tments 34 CEU eTD Collection Poland topicreseafuturefor moreexciting in even becomean made decisions policy but focu itself dissertation process This list’. do ‘to sector’s power real to sectorleaders power did and government thefor consolidation, vertical Directi ETS new the of negotiation The its investments. then and horizontal s power State-owned the of structure the in Changes investments out s be to is carry consumption energy Poland’s if necessary to manage not did governments a old centralized, therefore is sector power Polish power theproblemsofexpertisesector on o provide li companies consulting foreign also are there that sector power the for modeling business of services Officeconsul and research Polish one also is There the (URE). and Environment of Ministry the Economy, Ministry the Poland: in sector power the regulating There 2009). Jakubiak (see that for responsibility and Poland in slowly very progresses privatization priva for responsible is and companies sector power ofmanager the Ministryofis The Treasury giants. pr of targets’ ‘cheap companies sector power Polish governmen The investment. for capital from it drain cost the and capital needs sector power Polish The in processes privatization in part taking actively The Poland. in investing in interested are they and th are companies sector power German and French The City Londonthefor prospects new 2013sinceopened m having Therefore, sector. financial the – economy ano for opportunity business a constituted also has the Central and Eastern Europe. Europe. Eastern and Central the the property of the state-owned of state-owned the property the nd under-invested. Subsequent under-invested. nd y have a lot of capital and are and capital of lot a have y r fu gvrmna bodies governmental four are ther vital sector of the British British the of sector vital ther f the electricity market. electricity thef rch. rch. ore allowances traded on ETS on traded allowances ore ting company, which provides provides which company, ting ize the scale and length of theof length and scale theize no government wants to take take to wants government no t feared that this would make would this that feared t atisfied in the coming future. future. coming the in atisfied e o te T negotiation ETS the on ses ve was an important moment important an was ve ke Ernst&Young, which also also which Ernst&Young, ke of Treasury, the Ministry of Ministry the Treasury, of tization processes. However, However, processes. tization called EnergSys. Apart from Apart EnergSys. called . ivatization by the European European the by ivatization ector companies, first their first companies, ector f msin utos could auctions emission of fe te eoito may negotiation the after o rsl i greater in result not e most affluent in the EU EU the in affluent most e o Eeg Regulation Energy for , which today seem seem today which , 35 CEU eTD Collection EU member states was questioned (Crowley 2004) and 2004)and (Crowley questioned was statesmember EU Europ the of Extension 2002). Meardi 2004, (Crowley the of shape future the about fears by accompanied accessi Their 2000). b (Meardi have West the conflict in class antagonism a into anger workers’ unions channel European Eastern and Central of weakness The Western than their counterparts. weaker are they 2005) Terletzki and Matthes 2005, (Avdagic suc a of examples 2006, scarce despite (Ost and 2001) role Candland minimal a play countries political Communist national within integr general, In European areas. these the to c influential of out it left projects restructuring counter-position a formulate the (2006), Bohle by out pointed As 1996). Reutter 20 (Casale debates post-accession and pre-accession re societies post-Communist other in unions as well co socio-economic new brought accession EU the When this(Cr Europeoflabourofpart in condition poor few the of one were past Communist the of legacies 200 (Ost anger workers’ to respond to inability its “d and 2007), (Vanhuysse Europe Eastern and Central er 1999), Pańków Mokrzyszewski, Gąciarz, Gardawski, 1996, (Gardawski processes privatisation of course of collapse about theses reiterated have sociology Scho reality. economic new the in labor of weakness on debates by followed soon were regime, Communist to power and impact its Solidarity”, of “phenomenon H capitalism. to Communism from transition economic contribu their to due mainly debates science social o have unions trade Polish decades, two last the In UnionsEUinTradethe Polish

ircles shaping political discourse in in discourse political shaping ircles owley 2004). owley 6). Institutional and ideological and Institutional 6). tion to the political, social and social political, the to tion mained on the sidelines of the the of sidelines the on mained ccupied a prominent place in place prominent a ccupied 2001; Gąciarz, Pańków 2001; Pańków Gąciarz, 2001; European industrial relations industrial European rns nos n h post- the in unions arenas mobilize people against the against people mobilize factors to be blamed for the for blamed be to factors ean social model to the new new the to model social ean to labour Polish of inability 2004, Mailand and Due 00, lars in political science and science political in lars the unions’ fortress in the the in fortress unions’ the owever, explanations of the of explanations owever, Poland’s EU accession was accessionEUwas Poland’s efeat of Solidarity” due to due Solidarity” of efeat iey osdrd much considered widely n o U tutrs was structures EU to on esu pltcl influence political cessful so o lbu pwr in power labour of osion een deemed triggers of of triggers deemed een ncerns, Polish unions as as unions Polish ncerns, gauly discovered gradually a n ter nblt to inability their and lie 20, i and Sil 2003, Pleines to ad market and ation 36 CEU eTD Collection Along with concerns about the impact of union organ union of impact the about concerns with Along capitalism. new source potential as movements social new and unions poin she economy, European the in poli position neo-liberal Poland’s of impact the of analysis rigorous of strength the on view optimistic more a provides fragment American-style rece a However, 2002). (Meardi relations industrial an to contribute to thought eet tde b Gjwk (08 20a ty o ove to try 2008a) (2008, Gajewska by studies Recent (T agenda neo-liberal the to Union strategy accommodation Trade European the and neo-liberalism against gras between division a and representation interest leve national a by reinforced is fragmentation This alo representation interest labour of fragmentation mov labor European a of easy emergence the an for obstacles be to not seems 2005), (Hyman authors of some incorporation However, EU the at representation labor into 1994). characteristics Hyman 1996, Turner 1995 (Tilly Europe integrated the in representation a interest labor oftenperceived is action collective transnational of European representation the for in institutions interests its capacity represent the effectively about concern growing a been has There thingsEuro as“do in to as way”well a European in tra Polish will words, other In interests? economic and passive weak, stay they will or movement labour cont they Will arenas? national for relevant models t Will positions? counter formulate or colleagues Western arena? EU the within representation interest states member EU new the from unions trade Will EU. to capacity labor’s post-Communist about questions European the EU, the within relations on countries as crucial for anfor ascrucial efficient interest l organization of the corporatist corporatist theof organization l de unions be able to “do things “do to able be unions de pe”, and how will they do it?they do how and will pe”, ng national lines (Bohle 2006). 2006). (Bohle lines national ng level, although argued for by for argued although level, sroot labor movement fighting fighting movement labor sroot nt study by Jane Hardy (2009) Hardy Jane by study nt trade unions in Poland. In her In Poland. in unions trade ribute to building a European a building to ribute Will they find European policy European find they Will represent its interests in the the in interests its represent izations from newly accessed newly from izations Rct 01 Tro 2001, Tarrow 2001, Rucht , is n vrdy ie and lives everyday on cies nerto i 20 brought 2004 in integration te U ee d exist, do level EU the t focused on national socio- national on focused ement is perceived to be a be to perceived is ement o calne o Poland’s to challenge of s yo ad ahr 2002). Mathers and aylor hey cooperate with their their with cooperate hey s o h rvvl f trade of revival the to ts no. lhuh these Although Union. cm ti psiim by pessimism this rcome be capable of successful of capable be ation of the European European the of ation ofdrto (ETUC) Confederation f uoen ao to labor European of ak Oe f h main the of One task. social movement movement social 37 CEU eTD Collection Gąciar Gardawski, e.g. (see processes impact privatization considerable a having power political strong thousand 100 tr of bastions strong are sectors mining and energy around employs sector power Polish The unionsthetradei Polishofand Directive role ETS t to response labor’s examines dissertation this of in role significant a play energ may economies, intensive with those from especially States, Member new fragmentati shows also It greater issues. policy climate over movement of risk a to point dissertation debates. European in unions trade of participation gl of promotion for opportunity an leader as some organizations by perceived are policies climate hand, coal-b or industries like sectors, carbon-intensive because movement labor European the for challenging o organization particular, in and, policies climate u trade European the for controversial proved which of case the examining movement- by it of does It studies labor. European latest upon builds thesis This flexible. is formulation interest as unions trade study a to us enables f account, (2008) movement social base The solid 2008). (Gajewska a mobilization become especia might labor, networks, European communication the of institutionalization S development. movement labour the of prospects the of emergence might the identity, common not action, common formovement: conditions necessary outlined 20 in Nice Rights in negotiations the Fundamental during demonstration of Charter the of incorporation strategy accommodation mere a beyond went ETUC the Mathe and Taylor by study a to refers 2008a) (2008, lab transnational successful for evidence providing ased power sectors. On the other other the On sectors. power ased he Commission’s proposal of the of proposal Commission’s he n the ETS the debate. n ETS f its main tool – the ETS – are are – ETS the – tool main its f this process. The last chapter last The process. this ade unions, which constitute a a constitute which unions, ade The analysis presented in this in presented analysis The learning organizations where organizations learning us that labor unions from the from unions labor that us rs (2002a) who point out that that out point who (2002a) rs r rts atos Gajewska actions. protest or nion organizations. European organizations. nion 00. Gajewska (2008, 2008a) 2008a) (2008, Gajewska 00. h 20 ES negotiation, ETS 2008 the n f h Erpa labor European the of on , oryzwk, Pańków Mokrzyszewski, z, bl utc ad greater a and justice obal he concludes that a robust a that concludes he n etutrzto and restructurization on o te uoen labor European the of s hy nal o lse in losses job entail they l te institutionalised the lly ie oiiain f the of mobilization like be a better measure for for measure better a be poc, n Gajewska’s in pproach, itnie n carbon and intensive y n ognzd mass a organized and epe Te electric The people. hn ihig o the for fighting when h Erpa labor European the r frhr mass further a or 38 CEU eTD Collection gemn fr h Pwr etr mlye ws reache was Employees Sector Power the for Agreement o fragmentation growing a movement. to contribution their and pos unions’ Polish to respect with analyzed be will and Brussels in support mobilize actively to began natio the to themselves limit not did unions Polish pr ETS Commission’s the against fight to government i of outside and Solidarność from mining and energy the while And view, this share not did Solidarność of structures sectors. mining and power Polish the poses ETS the clear: and strong are leaders unions’ cooperat close reacti Thefact. a was unions trade workers’ mining that showed negotiation ETS 2008 The est was CommissionSector Energy thefor Tripartite Multi-est a 1993 May In employees. sector power the force social strong a Such sector. mining the from of support the on count can sector energy electric tho 30 around structure, union same the within way, sectio union covers which (SGiE), Energy and Mining former the t of example an gives on (2009) Matuszewski privilege. count always can latter The sectors. the between cooperation of level certain a is There sectormining(see the after unionism,trade Polish m This organization. union trade a employed to belong thousand sector 100 the of percent 50 around that “S Union Trade Free the and (FZZ) Forum Union Trade M of Secretariat its with Solidarność NSZZ are ones on of specific or company-specific are them of Most organizations union trade of tens are There 1999). trade union organizations in the in organizations union trade Matuszewski 2009). Matuszewski resulted in many privileges for privileges many in resulted nal policy arena, but they also they but arena, policy nal ons that have come from those those fromcome have that ons mining and electricity energy energy electricity and mining ition within a wider EU arena EU wider a within ition around 60 thousand unionists thousand 60 around threat to people employed in in employed people to threat ablished. ablished. e profession. The most active active most The profession. e he Solidarność Secretariat of Secretariat Solidarność he of bastion second the it akes ining and Energy (SGiE), the (SGiE), Energy and ining Strasburg. This mobilization mobilization This Strasburg. n h Pls pwr sector. power Polish the in usand of workers from the the from workers of usand ns from both sectors. This This sectors. both from ns uie t ak h Polish the ask to united t ierpień 80.” It is estimated estimated is It 80.” ierpień psl Itrsigy the Interestingly, oposal. hn ihig o more for fighting when n h eeti energy electric the in ainl organizational national o aog oe and power among ion te uoen labor European the f ablishment Collective Collective ablishment d. In March 1998, a a 1998, March In d. 39 CEU eTD Collection events. This way the core of the lobbying network i network corethe lobbying theofway This events. s the examines also chapter This campaign. lobbying even and network this in positions analyzed central occupied is structure network The network. lobbying proces industries’ and the sector power of officials, government account an provides chapter forth The challenged. was an thingspecific locally historically and a became of economies Western in emitted dioxide carbon with act Polish by framed was countries European Eastern Pol in emissions dioxide Carbon economies. European impac the and EU the in emissions carbon of framing actors Polish of discourses media examines chapter of proposal Commission’s European the to industries government, neg Polish the the of reactions early introduces examines thesis the of chapter second The fiel various in andfor national markets goods, industrial markets, and expertise, in embedding complex ET the of organization study to th order in Therefore, equip to interests, companies’ represented which acco also framework fo necessary it makes this and ETS the of character The markets. other in on ETS the advantage in participation their of cost the lower the in engaged companies Therefore, markets. other impact an has also it but ETS the in participating on not does it role double this of because and tool b is ETS the that fact stra the to a point I as organization. 2008 in negotiation ETS the examine to me framewor theoretical the presents chapter first The Dissertationtheof Roadmap

d the economic frame of the ETS theof economicthe frame d oth a market and a governance a and market a oth s identified and it is shown thatshown is it and identified s EU policy fields. policy EU r companies and governments, governments, and companies r on profits companies make on make companies profits on representatives established a a established representatives k of the thesis, which allows allows which thesis, the of k power sector companies and and companies sector power its for account to has one S ly generate profit for actors actors for profit generate ly the new ETS Directive. This Directive. ETS new the imilarity between actor and actor between imilarity re t gi competitive gain to order s ht ee eta i the in central were that ts and and in the Central and and Central the in and and t of the new ETS rules on rules ETS new the of t h qetoe economic questioned who mevs ih expertise. with emselves h E. abn dioxide Carbon EU. the T ngtain ed to need negotiation ETS tain f h ES and ETS the of otiation tegic moment of market market of moment tegic ors as incommensurable incommensurable as ors ds of action: electricity electricity action: of ds o dniy cos that actors identify to truh hc Polish which through s unts for a technical technical a for unts 40 CEU eTD Collection o fields many on reconfiguration joint of process a ETS the of Negotiation policy-arenas. European and ETS the of markets boundaries between politics, and economics boundaries making: boundary of processes negotiatio that out pointed it is conclusion the In UnionConfederatiTrade – European the organization for the and look Federations Industrial European and the between trade emission co only This industries. with or on NGOs environmental expertise lack They wit crossroads the at is that one is movement labor deba ETS The debate. ETS the in organizations union in differences and organizations labor European the analys The Commission. European theof proposal the a Polish of reaction the examines chapter sixth The s marketstudieswould approachin performative the everything something not was it but negotiation ETS expertise that fact the to points This industries. ado intereststheto adapted it was but changes without not was abroa Poland, ETS for attractive the though on proposal, expertise for search to had actors in more became network lobbying Polish the how show effi economic and purity’ ‘market their to pointing justifie sides both how and Commission European the t on debate a in engaged IFIEC the how show to One, branch European T (IFIEC). the Consumers Energy Intensive of of Federation one and Commission ar European proposals Two allowances. emission comp of to allocation allowances emission of supply the specifi organizes a of negotiation examines chapter fifth The negotiation. the ETS in commonposition enviro Polish invite not did companies sector power was a crucial resource during the during resource crucial a was n of the ETS involved multiple involved ETS the of n of the Polish power sector and sectorand power Polish the of iny Te eod ol s to is goal second The ciency. f action and a moment when when moment a and action f can therefore be examined as examined be therefore can how they defined the role of of role the defined they how nd European trade unions to to unions trade European nd uggest. nmental NGOs to work out a a out work to NGOs nmental h regard to climate policies. policies. climate to regard h and States, between national andnational between States, te showed that the European European the that showed te ntributes to a greater divide divide greater a to ntributes on. on. is shows various concerns of of concerns various shows is cluain eie which devise, calculation c le a ebde i, as in, embedded was else he allocation methods with methods allocation he he analysis has two goals. goals. two has analysis he td y h Pls actors Polish the by pted eaie – n o the of one – examined e ternational because Polish because ternational main European umbrella umbrella European main ter w pooas by proposals own their d ne – h mto for method the – anies d. However, the IFIEC IFIEC the However, d. budre between boundaries , allies either with with either allies f h Industrial the of 41 CEU eTD Collection an power changes offorbecomes moreopen field the grasp and constructed, perceived, are opportunities ed. It is also a moment when moment a also is It ed. d reconstruction. d 42 CEU eTD Collection Joskow, Schmalensee, Montero, Bailey 2000; Betsill Betsill 2000; Bailey Montero, Schmalensee, Joskow, and on their compliance with emission reduction tar compliance reduction their emission on with and em of benefits and costs on focused have economists Econ implementation. its on agreement international frami legal architecture, institutional efficiency, it to relation in discussed been has trade Emission scienc political in scholars as well as economists, occupi primarily has trade emission of Organization governancetools. and markets of role oth it among place special a markets emission but granting 2005), Muniesa and Callon 2009, Callon 2001, (s lives sociol their in moment to specific a as contributing organization at aims project dissertation withi various from devised coming actors involved were which networks, ETS the for solutions Innovative discours actors’ through manifested complexity this th of negotiation way 2008 The complex practices. and a relations in embedded becomes ETS the way, This companies by produced are which goods, for markets profit- about concerns by structured also is it but propell only not is ETS the of development the that se was efficiency economic and which environmental its 2008, improving in (ETS) of Scheme re-organization Trading examine Emission I framework this Through to governance a of role double its for account with bee org studying has for framework trade a present I emission and sciences how on focus I chapter, this polic to challenges theoretical and practical p posed for instrument new relatively a is trade Emission Introduction Trade? Emission orChapter Performing 1. Embedding

ng and attempts to reach an an reach to attempts and ng making on the ETS and on the on and ETS the on making ol and a new market structure. structure. market new a and ol s economic and environmental and economic s ad nentoa relations. international and e gets (Crocker 1966; Ellerman, 1966;(Crocker Ellerman, gets e ETS was the moment when when moment the was ETS e ed economists, environmental environmental economists, ed ee e.g. White 1891, Fligstein Fligstein 1891, White e.g. ee y-makers and economists. In In economists. and y-makers and Hoffmann 2009; Convery Convery 2009; Hoffmann and ed by governance objectives governance by ed er markets due to its double its to due markets er s poet ad strategies. and projects es, Te xmnd ae shows case examined The . luin oto, hc has which control, ollution anization of emission trade trade emission of anization raiainl ils This fields. organizational ogical studies of market market of studies ogical omists and environmental environmental and omists ission trade to companies companies to trade ission lo ae a li for claim a makes also atcptn i te ETS. the in participating htrgnos policy heterogeneous n apoce i social in approached n h Erpa Union European the n s motn for important as en n aiu realities, various in 43 CEU eTD Collection olr 05 Wtetd 05 Sjest ad Wettest and Skjaerseth 2005; Wettestad 2005; Vogler to respect with schemes trading emission of ec design Environmental tool. soci this of and premises trade fundamental anal emission policy of between efficiency polarity environmental a is as there trade emission governance, on focuses that literature the In emis of in press). Liverman and 2009;Lovell technologies MacK 2009; in Callon (see society in role interest performative significant a been Engel 2009, (Knox-Hayes studied were trade emission and institutionalization and 2009) (Braun analyzed is the around mobilized Paters networks policy and Also 2010). (Newell general in action climate of and 200 al. et Lovell 2008, MacKenzie 2008, Smith 2007, poli of studies 2010), (Stephan structure hegemonic an gramscian 2009), Reyes and Gilbertson2007, Dada 200 Smith 2008a, 2008, 2006, (Lohmann atmosphere of pri of consequences on focusing analysis capitalist It backgrounds. theoretical various hav from markets scientists emission of functioning and Development 2010). Asseltvan 2010; Wettestad and Damro 2000; Yamin 1994; (Skjaerseth politics EU s trading (Lev trade emission emission toward businesses of strategies on NGOs of impact the on focused towar NGOs businesses, states, like actors, between sc political and relations international in Studies 2000). (Żylicz Ru 2008; Perthuis De Ellerman, Convery, 2007; Pizer C Buchner, Ellerman, 2002; Vainio and (Zapfel Union and (Convery Chile in 2008), Owens and (Nye UK the 2003; Lewis and Morgheim (Akhurst Petroleum British part of organization examined also have They 2009). ec hv eaie relations examined have ience vatization and financialization and vatization y 2005), and emission trade in trade emission and 2005), y tics of carbon offsetting (Bond (Bond carbonoffsetting of tics a atatd rtcl anti- critical, attracted has d emission trade. They have They trade. emission d enzie 2008, 2009; Hopwood Hopwood 2009; 2008, enzie organizational structures of of structures organizational u o eiso tae were trade emission of sue arraro 2006; Kruger, Oates, Oates, Kruger, 2006; arraro Katz 2001), in the European European the in 2001), Katz alysis of emission trade as a as emissionof trade alysis 8, Boehm and Dabhi 2009) Dabhi and Boehm 8, Victor and House 2006), in in 2006), House and Victor clr cee, .. n the in e.g. schemes, icular to fr environmental for tool a Mendez 2003; Cass 2005; Cass 2003; Mendez onomists tend to discuss discuss to tend onomists n 98 20, Paterson 2009, 1998, on ce 00, r n Poland in or 2010), sche d 08 Sjest and Skjaerseth 2008; ad ological critique of the the of critique ological 20) Tee a also has There 2009). s 7, Bond 2007; Bond and Bond 2007; Bond 7, yses of economic and and economic of yses chemes (Dreger 2008), 2008), (Dreger chemes in rd ad their and trade sion as eggd social engaged also e rvdn additional providing 44 CEU eTD Collection value can be ‘discovered’ in markets themselves” (p themselves” markets in ‘discovered’ be can value derivative complex of evolution the resembles sadly cl the (2011), Lohmann For (p.98). left” is taken warming global have markets mathematicized and reengineered, decontextualized, “carbon concludes: (2011) em for calls by threatened most and fuels fossil on for areas accumulat for conditions background those “securing new stabilizing and “creating as markets post- the to responses neoliberal to affinity their environm for tool appro a market to inherent contradictions illuminates as trade point emission 2011) of 2009, inadequacy 2008a, 2008, (2006, Lohmann Larry an willful the understanding of 662).(p.world” the injustice and in inequality ways new us for out intell an and idea imaginative an as change climate Opp and Inaction Controversy, Understanding Change: We “Why book his in (2009) Hulme Mike example, For chang structural a wa only and inequalities global structural critics, those For capital. the of owners a emissions to rights property assigning by warming assumption false on based is it because environment and civilized or improved be cannot trade emission emi of one totalizing a usually is critique of kind societie for externalities new generating 500), (p. valuatio comparative becomes itself “trade that out commercial into objects environmental “transform to accou environmental which to according approach the Larr e.g. as such markets, environmental of Critics ofintrinsicrevealthevalueto us helpNat should environ of value the calculate must “we that states environment. for accounting economic of importance environm of Supporters 2008). 2000, Commission (see i scaling by e.g. investments, green for incentives 1970s crises. He criticizes carbon carbon criticizes He crises. 1970s ssion trade as such. Accordingly, Accordingly, such. as trade ssion ure (see e.g. Barnes 2001). Barnes2001). (seee.g. ure s and natural environment. This This environment. natural and s t up to new sectors or regions regions or sectors new to up t n and environmentalist action” environmentalist and n e can reverse climate change. climate reverse can e . 500). Lohmann (2009) points points (2009) Lohmann 500). . ission cuts” (p. 90). Lohmann 90). (p. cuts” ission it will never work well for the the for well work never will it y Lohmann (2009), challenge challenge (2009), Lohmann y aches to global warming and warming global to aches the story of carbon markets markets carbon of story the s that one can combat global combat can one that s ion that are most dependent dependent most are that ion “opens that resource ectual ‘goods and services’ whose services’ and ‘goods mn i a eut f global of result a is rming s markets, which have lost lost have which markets, s it until little of relevance to relevance of little until it et (. 6 ad markets and 86) (p. ment” nting is supposed to help us help to supposed is nting ental markets underline the underline markets ental For example, Porter (1995) (1995) Porter example, For nd by giving them to the the to them giving by nd ortunity” urges us to treat to us urges ortunity” aiait ciiis and activities” capitalist iare bu Climate about Disagree d structural causes of of causes structural d na gvrac. He governance. ental t te alr and failure the to s imate issue and and issue imate 45 CEU eTD Collection nhn Gdes n i 20 bo “h Pltc o C of Politics “The book 2009 his in Giddens Anthony conig rcie hv be eaie i odr to order in examined been have practices Accounting cha climate mitigating on trade emission of effects 105 (p. Europe” within transformation technological stimulat as ETS EU the perceive (2009) Paterson and soluti right the as trade emission about enthusiasm Econom Global the of Transformation the and Warming “Cl book 2010 Paterson’s Matthew and Newell’s Peter Pro of Era new a of Creation 2009 the and Stern’s Change Climate Nicholas in absent is perspective This theMichelby – Callo hope expressed ‘civilization’ improvement about hope no with us leave approaches reprod capital of processes in embedded be to seems pro knowledge interests, – everything approach this gl re-organize also may trade emission how studying emission of consequences the of diagnosis alarming the - ‘about’ be to made were they what with touch governance structure is: how to account for carbon carbon for account to how is: structure governance emis concerning question sociological important One moretocalls 199) and (p. state returning for up” th for ineffective been “has ETS EU the that states The approach that influenced this dissertation the dissertation this influenced that approach The itself. and 21), p. 2007, O’Neill (see exchanges market of irrespective that, spr reality our of part say a become has trade emission would others However, t 2011). emission on debates practices. of depoliticization accounting dangerous of technicalities to f economy attention shifting thus accounting, environmental become has it environment, the to relations humans’ markets Since 2009). Lohmann 2009, MacKenzie 2009, f actual and potential their markets, of modalities intervention. intervention. n(2009). most was proposed by scholars scholars by proposed was most eading mechanisms and norms and mechanisms eading e purpose for which it was set set was it which for purpose e ailures (Cook 2009, Hopwood Hopwood 2009, (Cook ailures on to global warming. Newell warming. global to on this fact should be studied in studied be should fact this ). More skepticism about the the about skepticism More ). obal or regional relations. In relations. regional or obal nge has been expressed by by expressed been has nge trade leaves little space for space little leaves trade sion trade as a market and market a as trade sion duction, politics, science – – science politics, duction, rvso o crany This certainty. of provision rom problems of political political of problems rom ae se omn 2009, Lohmann (see rade iae hne. hr, he There, Change”. limate ixd ad te GHGs? other and dioxide ok Te lbl Deal: Global “The book y”. All three authors show show authors three All y”. n a gnie economic- “genuine a ing omn o pa about speak to common uction. Therefore, critical critical Therefore, uction. Some perceive it as a a as it perceive Some rs ad rseiy or Prosperity” and gress mt Cptls: Global Capitalism: imate of academic debates, debates, academic of f msin rd – its – trade emission of rlfrt t regulate to proliferate better understand understand better 46 CEU eTD Collection in studied be to are Interests tra ETS. may the assembling they and negotiation the during articulated contrary, the On negotiation. ETS the of result the be as or static being as interests actors’ perceive seriously taken be should working, its by effected thi developing in interested are who it, administer actor of interests that claim I organization. trade category inte theof bringing forargue I approach, dissertatio this in out carried analysis the Though whichorganization. impact its realities, l or more in organized is it but vacuum social a in Em science. and innovation technical of black-boxes o embedding the to and relations power to attention MacKenzie studies, his In policy-making. climate in r with and produce may it lock-ins and w consequences them making and function governance trade’s emission in interested together markets emission putting technolog and facts scientific scientists, Science, eff reduction emissions compare to us enabling thus rol its and a Potential Warming Global the of construction measure examines organizing he innovations example, For technical allowances. to paid attention studies also 2009a), 2009, (2008, MacKenzie Donald socio-technical mediated teceffects,byare which various generate are markets Emission markets. those time, same the At organization. their of markets moments in emission ways matters of the kind the and produce they externalities about questions asks and organizat markets’ emission opens He products. into pro and participants market of scope the examine to over boundary-making of processes to attention our welco is markets emission of organization technical Callon’s(200 Michal tradition. STS the from coming ing the ultimate determinants of determinants ultimate the ing n is largely inspired by the STS the by inspired largely is n rest into the studies of emissionof studies the into rest into account. However, I do not do I However, account. into ess black-boxed socio-technical socio-technical black-boxed ess s system, and of those who are are who those of and system, s s who trade on the ETS, who who ETS, the on trade who s with respect to the unintended the to respect with I argue that interests become become interests that argue I of concern become articulated articulated become concern of hnical devices. hnical 9) proposal to study the socio- the study to proposal 9) me here. Callon (2009) draws draws (2009) Callon here. me e ae motn mediators important are ies he emphasizes materiality of of materiality emphasizes he ion to empirical investigation empirical to ion e in making GHGs the same, same, the GHGs making in e ission trade is not organized not is trade ission these new markets, urges us urges markets, new these (2008, 2009, 2009a) draws draws 2009a) 2009, (2008, f emission trade in powerful in trade emission f emission markets with great with markets emission espect to the role of science of role the to espect orts across space and time. time. and space across orts action and through actors’ actors’ through and action cesses transforming GHGs GHGs transforming cesses nsform in the course of of course the in nsform sebae ad they and assemblages d lc-oig f the of black-boxing nd xhne f emission of exchange ok te id of kind the work, r. aKni is MacKenzie ork. 47 CEU eTD Collection various organizational fields as it makes actors re actors makes it as fields organizational various Callon John Michel and by developed repertoire ANT ET the in role their and interests to approach this p are that ETS of projects various through actions, The third reason is that the concept of a field all field a of concept the that is reason third The their justify intereststheiand their positions, explain conceptualized themselves Actors constraints. particular within functioned companies sector other were they unions trade as this, do could they NGOs organiz their on relations from resulting interests actors w faced constantly following was I rules, ETS the while negotiation that, is reasons second The comconflictofand define lines andnew allies new th that visible becomes It ETS. the to respect with fields those in participating actors which in ways unions trade or NGOs of fields organizati fields, bureaucratic various within competition o differentiate concept The electricity. for and goods industrial trans at aims which tool, governance a and market a the for account can I way This emit. they GHGs for for markets to relation in have ETS the by covered understan furthersmy field a conceptof the First, mainthreereasonsfor it Idid field. concepta of natu the about ‘be to decided I problem, this of questionBecause networks. open an with left still are fromtheir and thoseactorsofenrollments previous answ an for repertoire Law’s and Callon’s to resort part this in defined been have interests their come with us leaves approach this – Y or X as articulate interests accordin is to this because is: answer the – way other approach desi be Law’s to ETS the want actors why and of understanding Callon’s though But r objections toward the ETS.the toward objections r . . ational fields. Actors said that asthat Actorssaid fields. ational ding of stakes, which companies companies which stakes, of ding ows me to distinguish between distinguish to me ows petition. orient their strategies, look for look strategies, their orient may calculate gains and losses and gains calculate may g to their interests, which they which interests, their to g tray’ the ANT and resort to theto resort and ANT the tray’ position in other wein networks; position little clue for finding out how how out finding for clue little S negotiation I go back to the to back go I negotiation S e ETS is a factor of change in in change of factor a is ETS e double function of the ETS as as ETS the of function double ith their own framing of their of framing own their ith from result interests their er: ad o nesad various understand to and – roposed by them. To develop develop To them. by roposed technical and organizational and technical goods they produce; and not and produce; they goods able to do that and in this or this in and that do to able Law inLawthe 1980s. forming existing markets for markets existing forming a il as alw m to me allows also field a f clr a. n ee i we if even And way. icular nl ils as within also – fields onal gned in this and not in the in not and this in gned e n srcue f these of structure and re raiainl ils to fields organizational n hi atmt t re- to attempts their in a frhr our further may 48 CEU eTD Collection various moments in market lives: the moment of its its of moment the lives: market in moments various As Fligstein (2001) points out, “market rules are n rules are “market out, (2001) points Fligstein As

id f xenlte te my rdc. msin tr Emission produce. may they externalities of kind trad emission particular why on light more shed may v of realities structured in composed and assembled w complex on reflection sociological a that claim I o fieldapp theto structuremarkets ofand stability change and movement history, of examination leave d from coming actors chall of main interests the between of translate one and devices, various of means the networks these In fields). organizational var other span which networks, within place takes ETS the its of understanding the further to and better even d the articulate to me helps approach (2009) Eyal’s fie between boundaries the and former the to fields Lat with Bourdieu ‘marry’ to proposal (2009) Eyal’s ‘ho and fields ‘cold’ between distinction My ‘hot’. Cal with ‘co are Fields situations. ‘cold’ accords and ‘hot’ between This process. like movement social as is structure the when organization its of moment n hs e mre, n toe eae t competitio to related those fields).policy and fields(markets organizational and market, new this on gove r those actors: a various of stakes multiple identify and market expert new a by both is trade organized emission that – existin assemblage the in embedded also is new which technologies, a – in innovation scratch from organized be to had which terrain, becoming an opportunity structure or a constraint. constraint. a or structure opportunity an becoming mediati by change about brings it and innovation an yesterday’sor ‘capit from today’s derived directly of organization time, same the At organization. ETS organization and markets emission between relations th is, It 28). (p. ‘interests’” account into taking erefore, important to account for for account to important erefore, roach. elated to competition and profits profits and competition to elated alist relations’. Emission trade is is trade relations’. alistEmission ld’ and translation networks are networks translation and ld’ ot created innocently or without innocentlywithout or created ot t’ networks is also inspired by inspired also is networks t’ ays in which emission trade is trade emission which in ays lds to ‘the prince of networks’. networks’. of prince ‘the to lds organization. Organization of Organization organization. stabilization as a field and the and field a as stabilization our by leaving the concept of of concept the leaving by our ng interests, practices and by and practices interests, ng g structures. Having in mind in Having structures. g T i ngtae wt the with negotiated is ETS ul rl f msin trade emission of role ouble sembled and composed in a a in composed and sembled ade is not a a not is ade ing schemes exist and what and exist schemes ing ros raiainl fields organizational arious al fields when studying the studying when fields al msin rd cno be cannot trade emission feet ils Ti wy I way This fields. ifferent sca vcu. t s an is It vacuum. social a When emission trade is is trade emission When nne ol los s to us allows tool rnance os ils mres and (markets fields ious enges is to successfully successfully to is enges mres o N, and ANT, to markets n lon’s (1998) distinction distinction (1998) lon’s n and profits in their their in profits and n s, scientists and and scientists s, er nova terra a – 49 CEU eTD Collection n is oil otx. hs a be psd s pr a as posed been has This context. social its and rela the in interested therefore, are, Sociologists t firmsof structuring and internal thefor dynamics (5) and markets; among relations tran the are characterize and stability, attain created, are markets view”; “economic an to opposed as markets, in do to “so the (3) markets; of production the in firms and (2) fu markets; stable to produce to markets necessary structures for exist to have which rules, social sociologists relation economic out, points social (2001) Fligstein by shaped and specific historically 1985) Schwartz and Mintz 1989; Mizruchi 1984; Useem othe each to actors and things relating of practice sociologist economic For markets. economic of force ‘com of concept abstract the challenge sociologists 1992; Whitley 1992; Takahashi and Gerlach, Lincoln, ( societies for outputs economic these successful produce how and organized are they way the in differ in interested been always have sociologists Market termsla abstractof in markets have depicted which neocl to opposition in mainly itself positioned has Soskice and Hall 1996, Drache and Boeyer 1996, produc Dore of contexts literatu capitalism of variety the (see consumption institutional and macro-societal Whil 2). (p. governments” customers,and suppliers, relati social extensive by characterized structures Daut and Fligstein to According sociology. economic been has markets study to how and are markets What Markets and Embeddedness their Defining d are constraints em networksorganizing actorsof within constructed and opportunities these organized

tion between economic activities activities economic between tion onships between firms, workers, workers, firms, between onships labor markets more generally. markets moregenerally. labor re, e.g. Albert 1991, Berger and and Berger 1991,Albert e.g. re, r (Fligstein 2001, White 1981; White 2001, (Fligstein r share the same interest in (1) in interest same the share assical theories of economics, economics, of theories assical cial view” of what actors seek seek actors what of view” cial ws of competition.ofws e political economy focuses on on economyfocuses political e er (2006), markets are “social “social are markets (2006),er ission trade. ission eiin a te an driving main the as petition’ the relation between states states between relation the aitn n Bgat 1988; Biggart and Hamilton be o “meddes of “embeddedness of oblem (e Fisen 01. As 2001). Fligstein (see s s, ‘competition’ is an actual an is ‘competition’ s, fre, n hw e can we how and sformed, (4) the dynamics by which by dynamics the (4) markets real how and why cin n tps f social of types and nction 2001), economic sociology sociology economic 2001), e mlctos f market of implications he oi 98. n on so, doing In 1998). Aoki multiple social structures structures social multiple fnd atcltd and articulated efined, n o ky usin of questions key of one in dsrbto and distribution tion, Mre rltos are relations Market . 50 CEU eTD Collection acto between relations of content how in interested have, analysts Network 1990). North Fligs 1990; also Lindberg (see control of governa conceptions and rights, exchange property of definition need Markets DiMagg and cognit cultural, as embeddedness Zukin of concept broader 2001). Fligstein (see market given suppl consumers, producers, as such terms actors, between in defined be may structures Social behavior. 1996 (Flingstein political and 1996) Abolafia 1985, 1985 (Granovetter structural social the investigate economic ‘new The const 1985). Granovetter are (see relations institutions and behavior individual that ‘embed of argument The 1991). in (Swedberg differently present is the defined has sociology economic embeddedness new however,the on reflection Polanyi’s economicand actors. governments between arrangements, institutional historical on depended interve governments which in ways The 12). p. 2006, capitali and groups between interactions that guide socialpro provide to themand stabilize to markets w governments that “suggested he and action states’ t that claims (1957) He analysis. the of center the and society of notion the places 2009) Caliskan and appr substantivist a of representative a as Polanyi mayas readaembedd ofprocessmarkets be regulate embed this lacking are economies market Polanyi, to 1957 (Polanyi of etc. community, variety neighborhood, family, a in embedded was acco production of systems, process economic pre-market the In embedding. o terms in primarily organization economic of forms ma a distinguished action, economic of embeddedness insti of father the political (1957), Polanyi both Karl sociology. influenced has and action” economic he creation of markets required markets of creation he tection for workers and rules to rules and tectionworkers for , White 1981), cultural (Zelizer cultural 1981), White , rs impacts on what happens in happens what on impacts rs tutional approaches to social social to approaches tutional institutions derived from it in it from derived institutions oach to economy (see Callon Callon (see economy to oach ing markets in societies. marketsingin According 1957:30). :46-53; ) embeddedness of market market of embeddedness ) ive, structural and political. and structural ive, ould have to intervene into intervene to have ould f the former lack of social social of lack former the f ned and stabilized markets stabilized and ned iers, and governments in a a in governments and iers, concept of ‘embeddedness’ ‘embeddedness’ of concept sts” (Fligstein and Dauter Dauter and (Fligstein sts” hc ognzd relations organized which and y non social ongoing by rained oilg’ a st u to out set has sociology’ ding and any attempts to to attempts any and ding f ewrs f relations of networks of en 96 Cmbl and Campbell 1996; tein rket economy from other other from economy rket nce structures, rules of of rules structures, nce on the other hand, been been hand, other the on ens’ as n general in says dedness’ cnm ad economic and economy institutions such as the the as such institutions io (1990) proposed a a proposed (1990) io dn t Plni the Polanyi, to rding economic sociology; sociology; economic 51 CEU eTD Collection aiu cmoiin o cptl wr efcie Fi effective. were capitals of compositions various Guarido Filho and Rossoni (2006) provide an overvie an provide (2006) Rossoni and take Filho Guarido domination and profit for games various which s a and cultures local cooperation, and competition ca and gains various for competed actors collective spa social a as field a defined who (1992) Wacquant 1 1988, (1977, Bourdieu by developed systematically (see organization social modern to generic is field McA and Fligstein 2001; 1997, 1996, Fligstein 1985; 19 Wacquant and Bourdieu 1977; of Bourdieu (see theory fields the on focus I goods’, to ‘green and for markets markets existing on relations and practices trade emission of problem the approach to order In objectives be interestsand oftranslations propose variou between position the in – positions bridging manage actors of kind what out find to is it behind interpe of t in examined also networks are structure their and networks in embedded closely is behavior to According behavior. malfeasant discouraging and avoiding such of structures and of relations personal concrete example argume embeddedness an the that gives argues He malfeasance. He actors. atomized by acti assume both that out points (1985) Granovetter internal an by propelled as action human perceives norm social culture, by influenced highly as action 1985). Granovetter (see economics and sociology in undersocializ and “over- of problem the to relation act economic of embeddedness social of question The trus 1993). (Podolny statuses of impacts 1992), Stout and (David Palmer information 1992; Takahashi and Gerlach, Lincoln, 1988; (Mizruc ownership and power 1983), (Burt dependence the explain to tried have They market. particular a tween those fields. thosefields. tween ed” conception of human action human of conception ed” se results by studying resource resource studying by results se d to position themselves on the on themselves position to d his dissertation. The rationale rationale The dissertation. his tructure of domination within within domination of tructure lgti 20) I hs been has It 2001). Fligstein ls ae hi on ue of rules own their have elds ons and decisions carried out carried decisions and ons o ohr cos Te latter The actors. other or s s organizational fields – and and – fields organizational s 998) alone and together with together and alone 998) eain i gnrtn trust generating in relations human perceives former The ce of positions, within which which within positions, of ce dam 1993). The concept of a a of concept The 1993). dam w of theoretical approaches approaches theoretical of w akt a organizational as markets ion has also been posed in posed been also has ion being organized to govern govern to organized being t (Uzzi 1996) and actors’ actors’ and 1996) (Uzzi t re o idvda gains. individual for urge 92; Scott 1995; DiMaggio DiMaggio 1995; Scott 92; Granovetter (1985), most most (1985), Granovetter ias ad ihn which within and pitals, hi, Stearns, and Brewster and Stearns, hi, nac dvlpet of development enhance lc. Machado-da-Silva, place. t l 19) acs to access 1995), al. et snl eain. Policy relations. rsonal nt stresses the role of of role the stresses nt n discouraging and 52 CEU eTD Collection According to Fligstein (2001), markets are “social “social are markets (2001), Fligstein to According theETS. theof into rules fields different var translate to need the by makers policy to posed helps nationa This organization. ETS the on influence their of practices worke consumers, producers, between in competition and and able am c I goods fields, to referring By administrations. of other for interests markets economic circul Its between governments. of objectives environmental mediate emission – Moreover, framing. commodity and negotiation to open m and more although form, commodity its and product fr legal emis the and measurement, – uncontroversial fairly are consumers their – stabilized fairly are tha realize to me helps also field a of concept The allowance emission betweenrelation the and markets impac the of understanding the furthers it b example, and within relations changed ETS the respect what wer networks policy ETS the sense what in examining field a of concept The product-specificity. its by th fie organizational An and 30). (p. service, exchange” structured or good some of sale and production o services similar produce that organizations other consumers product and resource suppliers, organizational key life; an define a constitute aggregate, the in (1983) that, organizations Power and DiMaggio 2005, al. et(PowellWhit relationships of networks not but Last 1991). Jepperson 1991; Swednerg 2001; cognitiv and power as and 2005) Zietsma 2001; 1999, dia of centers as 1995, Scott (e.g. arenas specific b also have Fields 1983). Powell and DiMaggio (e.g. recognize a constituting meanings common of systems studied been have Fields fields. organizational to gives me a point of departure for departure of point a me gives t industrial goods and electricity and goods industrial t e 2004).e to examine relations of conflict conflict of relations examine to recognized area of institutional institutional of area recognized logue and discussion (Hoffman (Hoffman discussion and logue as a totality of actors sharing sharing actors of totality a as me to understand difficulties understand to me ld may, therefore, be defined defined be therefore, may, ld een examined as functionally as examined een sion allowance is still a ‘hot’ ‘hot’ a still is allowance sion ation becomes embedded in in embedded becomes ation t of the ETS on the existing existing the on ETS the of t ious organizational logics of logics organizational ious s and other goods. other and s goods. e structures (Fligstein 1996, (Fligstein structures e rgltr aece, and agencies, regulatory , pout” p 148-149). (p. products” r structured are fields least, aming and the range of of range the and aming arenas that exist for the the for exist that arenas ore accepted, is still fairly still is accepted, ore d area of institutional life institutional of area d etween those fields. For For fields. those etween y r caatrzd by characterized are ey s n gvrmns and governments and rs htrgnos n in and heterogeneous e loacs a new a – allowances il a “es of “sets as field ad European and l ompanies and and ompanies 53 CEU eTD Collection According to this approach there is nothing economi nothing is there approach this to According are markets (2005), Muniesa and Callon to According soci be not would which operation, of mode economic T relation. socio-technical a – associated being of 20 Latour (see etc. natural, the economic, the from for not – associated’ ‘the for stands social’ ‘The socia between opposition the because social, the in outsi not components(Cal them”of become essential contrary, clearly are which ar devices “socio-technical and “procedures are Markets of nature. into technologies in together economic brought and are they actors way the of composition, assemblages are They ma their in but aspects, social purely their in not proces in interested are (2009) Callon and Caliskan howactions and becomethings identify tosets out research The actions. and things various of quality ‘eco toward thing a as economy’ ‘the from attention elab wher (2009), has Caliskan Callon with together calculation. “economization” of technologies by and performe are Economies economics”. in “embedded are is approach performativity the of argument main The new direction.Muniesaa into goes Fabian Da Caliskan, DonaldKoray MacKenzie, Callon, Michel w box same 2001), Jessop e.g. (see economies” of embeddedness the into put althou been And sometimes 2007). has Holm approach 2007, al. et MacKenzie 2007, e. has (see sociology economic economic in actions approach performative and things making of take processes actors between exchanges economic crea which it as within far so in tax emission an from different in environmental and economic be would that action enterpris complex a also is ETS the of Organization something immanently different immanently something terial, technical aspects as well. well. as aspects technical terial, economic. economic. l and economic does not exist. not does economic and l here is therefore no abstract abstract no therefore is here 05). The economic is one way way one is economic The 05). rga o “economization” of program ses of market construction – – construction market of ses that economies and markets and economies that e a e mre structure market new a tes lon 2009, lon p.541). the framework developed by developed framework the o cetn a e fed of field new a creating of e c out there to be embedded embedded be to there out c character. Emission trade is is trade Emission character. niel Beunza, Yuval Millo and Millo Beunza,Yuval niel oi’ s n detv – a – adjective an as nomic’ g. MacKenzie 2003, 2006, 2006, 2003, MacKenzie g. e they argue for shifting shifting for argue they e e f hm u, n the on but, them of de -ehia i isl. One itself. in o-technical ewrs mks them makes networks, socio-technical devices. devices. socio-technical rangements” of people, people, of rangements” orated his program of of program his orated d by economic theories theories economic by d place. An interest in in interest An place. en hw b the by shown been h h performativity the gh ith studies of “social “social of studies ith aclto. Their calculation. 54 CEU eTD Collection a national ofcarbons commensuration as suchissues dis revealed negotiation ETS 2008 The itself. trade T dissertation. st to difficult it made trade this emission of character in examined organization trade importan be will observation This 1991). Powell and exchanges almost an in in markets of engaged reproduction help actors exchange, traded, be to things of no and Taken-for-grantedness made. is transaction a have not do such as and meanings, shared and norms are exchanges market and practice Economic granted. va the when best work money with mediated exchanges (1 Babb and Carruthers money, of value the of study 2005, 1994, 1985, (Zelizer moralities and feelings o intertwining the to points which and project this embedd to approach culturalist more a also is There trade negotiation. ETS the experts in and expertise emission embedding/assembling of ways complex will sections exper following The 1992). Miller and Rose and expertise act of fields new of of organization in and governance importance growing a observe is EU the in policy and business making of aspects pa new el establish devices calculation ETS The goods. technologies, emissions, governments, companies, companies, to allowances emission distributing for this involves det for methods as such ETS trade emission on Expertise the of organization that argue I netw a into algorithm of elements. ontologies its changes new a or network a into actor netw market socio-technical assembling or composing disembed and embeddeding of speak not therefore may abilize the meaning of emission emission of meaning the abilize show how to account for these these for account to how show 2010). In a macro-culturalist a In 2010). ermining the emission cap, or cap, emission the ermining recompose relations between between relations recompose ion in the modern world (see world modern the in ion cross Europe. 996) point out that economic that out point 996) rms shared about the nature the about shared rms f economies with meanings, meanings, with economies f tterns of relations and many and relations of tterns eness which partly inspired inspired partly which eness gemn o fundamental on agreement eofgrd Oe a also can One reconfigured. t for the case of emission emission of case the for t (DiMaggio way automatic to be negotiated each time time each negotiated be to id f sebig work. assembling of kind embedded in cultures, in in cultures, in embedded rs Isrin o a new a of Insertions orks. he new and innovative innovative and new he lue of money is taken for taken is money of lue crct ad industrial and ectricity r, eopss t and it recomposes ork, and the character of of character the and ig bt ahr f re- of rather but ding, and for the role of of role the for and s n rcse of processes in ts 55 CEU eTD Collection ue o cmeiin codnto, ofit n co and conflict coordination, competition, of rules 1 (p. space” that in domination of system a produce field co “fields (2001) Fligstein to According Fligstein. of concept the sociology, economic the In of fields. perspective the from problem this approach I businesses. their for stability ensure p their defend to strategies actors’ triggers trade moment the Therefore, accordingly. actions economic diffe emitting of cost the calculate will companies are or auctions, open on purchase through allocated wheth emissions, i of levels whether current on charge, or of emissions, free is allowances emission of indirectly Depend produce. they they goods for markets on companies but allowances, emission purchasing co the determine only mark not do those allocation allowances’ in participating actors of interests and s upon touches tool governance a as trade, Emission onobstacle thosenot making is an profit for trade companie in interest generates it markets, existing structu market governance a as comes and trade emission policy net fields: that organizational fact the different to spanned attention draw to like would I and (seeBrau Petroleum British and Commission European economists environmental Polish administration, 2010) think- Pooley based U.S. the 2009, trade, emission of Braun propagator part (see when designed actors were political schemes and business experts, of communi examine which analyses, network policy find tr emission to regard with have they do stakes What involved? actors the are Who them. about questions negotiatin actors of networks toward focus Shifting Fields inOrganizational Emission Trade Embedding ntain collective actors who try to try who actors collective ntain markets. markets. rently. They will also plan their plan also will They rently. stos n hi mres and markets, their on ositions

s to make sure that emission emission that sure make to s ade? In the literature, we can can we literature, the In ade? frhr hoie b Neil by theorized further s tructures of various markets markets various of tructures te T pooe further provokes ETS the g ak D lbid h Bush the lobbied EDF tank partially allocated for free, free, for allocated partially r msin loacs are allowances emission er operation. Fligstein (2001) (2001) Fligstein operation. akt ils Ad since And fields. market cation within narrow circles circles narrow within cation t opne wl icr by incur will companies st Where do they come from? from? come they do Where ) Fed ae euae by regulated are Fields 5). n 2009, Żylicz 2000). Here, 2000). Żylicz 2009, n ets. Methods of emission emission of Methods ets. ok fr msin trade emission for works re to regulate the already the regulate to re theory of organizational organizational of theory ing on whether allocation whether on ing t is based on historical historical on based is t f raiig emission organizing of Ministry officials, the the officials, Ministry icular emission trading trading emission icular nlec psto of position influence . The most active active most The . 56 CEU eTD Collection sol policy a implement To existence. their maintain goin debate policy a keep To solution. a or problem organizati their build gradually they way, this and they where debates in engage they solution, policy establi they scie education, in invest latest actors that the means follow to and problem given a solve mea the by driven pure be may as They positions. way organizational instrumental an in solutions policy a t transform not is This problems. to of set given be a for paradigm may field policy a budg on of achievement allocation or grants, positions, high-level ar There control. a and influence ideas, Within over compete 1991). 1984, Bourdieu (see way legitimate languag (also resources more have usually position, ( firms” (dominated) challenger over position their stab to strategies and tactics use firms (dominant) O place. take struggles power where and distributed f Therefore, 15). p. 2001, (Fligstein ‘challengers’ in game the of rules challenge to try less benefit called are They arrangements. current from most the i the to according organized primarily is field The environmental objective and companies of objectives t of c logics different between main translate to the capacity ETS, the negotiating actors For studies. betwee relations the and fields policy as important disser this In 2001). (Fligstein domain the in made be to gets who define also They others. over actors and meaningful field the in actors other of actions concept and frameworks interpretative contain which domination collective for arenas possible limit and Formal discovered. empirically be should mechanisms competit of mechanisms and domination of structures fiel policy and fields market between distinguishes ields are arenas where power is is power where arenas are ields ilize themselves and reproduce and themselves ilize ee ils bten economic between fields, hese g may mean for some actors to to actors somefor mean may g nterests of actors who benefit benefit who actors of nterests p. 69). Actors in the dominant the in Actors 69). p. onal identities around a given given a around identities onal sh relations around particular around relations sh treat policy-makers that say o gvn il. hy r called are They field. given a the player and how rules are rules how and player the inscribe domination of some some of domination inscribe n them becomes an object of of object an becomes them n have to defend their position, their defend to have s of policy-makers. policy-makers. ofs e also stakes to be won, like won, be to stakes also e e) to pursue their goals in a in goals their pursue to e) s wih ifr s o their to as differ which ds, t eore. h greatest The resources. et ain mre fed ae as are fields market tation, most sincere motivation to to motivation sincere most . Fields are local cultures, cultures, local are Fields . ions of control. They render render They control. of ions n market fields “incumbent “incumbent fields market n tfc icvre. u this But discoveries. ntific and informal rules create create rules informal and ution makes some actors actors some makes ution ‘incumbents’. Those who who Those ‘incumbents’. and structures These ion. alne eie i their in resides hallenge oiy il, cos also actors field, policy ns for advancing their their advancing for ns policy solution into a a into solution policy 57 CEU eTD Collection aiu mres nae i ngtaig o emission how negotiating in engaged markets various hog fl acin t pwr rdcr, n te I the propo which and IFIEC), (the Consumers producers, Energy Intensive power p to which auctions Commission, full European through the between debate The them.to allocated prev and uncertainty reduce to order in and change, source a was ETS The plants. power gas-fueled favor marke electricity Polish the dominate by would justified Gazprom companies power the for auctions full th was case exemplary Another future. the in coa Poland in invest to possibility a mind in having 2008, the for auctions full from derogation supported RWE F markets. given on domination companies’ expanding pe also were rules allocation The energy. renewable thus and expensive, more energy’ ‘black make would ag f auctions position full supported their energy green of advance Producers to them allow would supported which markets alloc those the on Challengers supported benchmarks. eagerly they trade, emission of electric and aluminum, paper, glass, cement, steel, maintain for fought markets’ ‘paternal their within negotiat ETS the during for fighting were unde companies our furthers also fields as markets at look To disappearing. implemented and successful solutions some make that under us help may field the of theory that the shows and solutions also This it. on up give never would was ETS the that interviewees my from heard I have experts became officials its of group small a when i directorates various within position its advanced emissio which trade. emission is for EDF the say: could One identity. organization an of example good a T resourceful. and powerful important, influential, he U.S.-based think tank EDF is is EDF tank think U.S.-based he ity markets. To lower their cost their lower To markets. ity on positions dominant their ing The DG Environment has also also has Environment DG The Polish power producers after after producers power Polish te uoen Commission European the n rceived as an opportunity for opportunity an as rceived l-based power generation in in generation power l-based of uncertainty and potential and uncertainty of once Not trade. emission in tn ognztoa factors organizational stand rstanding of stakes various various stakes of rstanding r h pwr etr which sector, power the or ‘Jos Delbeke’s child’ and he and child’ Delbeke’s ‘Jos e Polish resistance toward toward resistance Polish e h fa ta te Russian the that fear the sed benchmark allocation, allocation, benchmark sed e s mre fr policy for market a is re o. opne dominant Companies ion. and other condemned to to condemned other and , s uh ehd would method such as t, to mto bsd on based method ation r xml, h German the example, or ent change actors from from actors change ent less competitive against against competitive less dsra Fdrto of Federation ndustrial n trade constitutes its its constitutes trade n allowances would be be would allowances h ES organization, ETS the ainst the incumbents. incumbents. the ainst roposed allocation allocation roposed 58 CEU eTD Collection allowanceemission purchase themtofor costly less prevent would of price it the to price allowances pass to continuing since option, middle-ground a NG was governments, Th by Commission. European the and condemned experts industries, were and States Member electr distorted companies c power power by earned to profits’ allocation free for claim the legitimate th to allocated were allowances while – electricity of price market the pass to countries European many prac past However, energy.” “black with competitive renewabl from produced electricity companies, power Otherwis markets. domestic their within electricity s of coal- positions dominant their allow maintain to companies thus and allowances emission purchasing w method This IFIEC-method. the supported producers the of most and debate this joined producers Power th and companies, emissions.on remainedhistorical based allowances sector power the for rule binding because unsuccessful partly remained Environment DG Tran field. policy the in predictability of factors industrial on uncertainty generating be to appeared and policy the in control of conceptions different dissertation, the in examined is which controversy, carbo produce to expensive more it make would which h other the on Environment, DG The borders. EU’s of to EU the from away moving industries of threat the leak ‘carbon phrase the Therefore, co schemes. other trading competitiv in companies loosing and India China, feared in producers have they markets, European global Since expensive. more products their make increa would prices electricity in increase sharp a full against fought Industries objectives. economic to is trans it challenging how of example good a is slation between the IFIEC and the and IFIEC the between slation late between environmental and environmental between late em for free – made it difficult to difficult it made – free for em auctions with an argument that argument an with auctions electricity but it would make it it make would it but electricity market fields. Solutions, which which Solutions, fields. market s. s. se their production costs and and costs production their se lo hwd ht hr are there that showed also markets, were perceived as perceived were markets, produce and pollute outside outside pollute and produce , u t fl acin for auctions full to due e, ples f eaiey cheap relatively of uppliers tices of power producers in in producers power of tices g’ a cie t express to coined was age’ allowances to the price of of price the to allowances icity markets in many EU EU many in markets icity ol ad a-ae power gas-based and coal- mais Toe ‘windfall Those ompanies. erefore, the IFIEC-method IFIEC-method the erefore, full auctions remained the remained auctions full n, atd ul auctions, full wanted and, n-intensive products. This products. n-intensive e sources would become become would sources e nre wtot emission without untries alcto o emission of allocation e n gsbsd utility gas-based and power producers from from producers power ould lower the cost of of cost the lower ould industries compete on on compete industries avnae against advantages e s consumers, Os, 59 CEU eTD Collection aiu fed. rc o eiso alwne, price allowances, emission of Price fields. various r md ad h rc wrd f rcs ht eie t define that prices of world rich the and made are Velthuis m the “understand to necessity the to points (2007) 2001, Geismar 1985, Zelizer 1980, Robinson of nature cultural and social the underline to tend Soci 1977). (North contexts making price as markets act between relations market about message a communicatio convey of means are prices out, points (2001) ec in defined variously been has prices of role The metallocation variousof schemes,example, for ETS environmenta and economic of a comparison for ETS allowed the on happen may what of predictions further communi clear and intersubjective were predictions, ils n te ht fed f h ES Hr I focus I Here communi ETS. to actors allowed which device, translation the of field ‘hot’ the and fields positi their negotiated simultaneously actors to us which help not does negotiation, in engaged actors helpf although fields, as markets of theory the But fields. policy and organi The trade emission of organization examine to us allows domains. policy national for and markets therefore had method, allocation the as such rules, nuclear two construct to decided government Polish 13 nuclear favoring strategies Commissio the by proposed rules the However, lobby. coincided only allowances emission of auctions full producers nuclear favoring at aimed Commission the energie green alternative to competition constitute d which plants, power nuclear to favorable also was green, the for – market electricity European the on w proposal Commission’s the that notice, should One The Fukushima disaster in March 2011 reversed that reversed 2011 March in disaster Fukushima The

13 Fr xml, fe te 08 T ngtain the negotiation, ETS 2008 the after example, For . trend. trend. prices (MacKenzie et al. 2008, 2008, al. et (MacKenzie prices f lcrct, r ahr their rather or electricity, of onomic sociology. As Fligstein As sociology. onomic aterial processes where prices prices where processes aterial as taking place within market market within place taking as s. There is no clarity whether clarity no is There s. hods for particular sectors. particular for hods with interests of the nuclear nuclear the of interests with o not emit carbon dioxide and dioxide carbon emit not o ul in understanding stakes of stakes understanding in ul small-scale producers. But it But producers. small-scale cate their objectives between between objectives their cate wide implications for other other for implications wide power plants in Poland. ETS Poland. in plants power or whether new ETS rules of rules ETS new whether or ologists and anthropologists anthropologists and ologists as favorable for challengers challengers for favorable as n rc peitos s a as predictions price on n ewe ter paternal their between on rs te ehnss by mechanisms the grasp aos wih loe for allowed which cators, l consequences of various various of consequences l bten cos which actors, between n ors. Economists describe describe Economists ors. n resulted in new policy policy new in resulted n zational fields approach approach fields zational he processes of market market of processes he d n te mres It markets. other on nd 2003, 2005). Caliskan Caliskan 2005). 2003, 60 CEU eTD Collection avoid actual emission reductions or sell the surplu the sell or reductions emission actual avoid (E Allowances European into way this earned credits cheaper in invest to decide may industries example, low pro for carbon trading time, same the for At economies. instrument market-based a is trade Emission anwithinEconomicFrame Emission Trade Performing f actorsinterestsrepresentingof and articulating The networks. expertise into actors of mobilization cruci were costs various of calculations and Prices f tool market-based a as – e fields other in embedded of negotiations for allowed predictions their and variou further to used also was it ETS, the of case Calis as Price, trad various further to deployed investments. device “prosthetic green of level the and living structure, employment in changes industries, predictions for allowed prices Electricity trends. e and method, allocation discussed the on depending prices other of predictions for allowed allowances Predict EU. the in sectors power and industries for consequences damaging and volatility price prevent pric the on ceiling a putting for asked negotiators On technologies. green in investments to incentives allowances emission of price the method, allocation th said Commission the IFIEC, the with argument the wou allowance emission an of price the that assumed Directive, lobbyi ETS new the proposing When Point. Polish Carbon Greenpeace, WWF, Commission, European pric of multiplicity a revealed has debate 2008 The 20 MacKenzieal. et seealso 2007, (Caliskan market one if even locations, multiple in produced are and socio-tec within made are Prices 241). (p. marking” rom various fields. various rom s policy goals. Therefore, prices prices Therefore, goals. policy s for participation ETS of cost of al means of communication and communication of means al ing objectives” (p. 242). In the the In 242). (p. objectives” ing would be too low to give clear give to low too be would s allowances on the ETS. For ETS. the on allowances s or environmental governance. environmental or 08). – like e.g. electricity prices – – prices electricity e.g. like – offset projects and exchange and projects offset For itself. in goal a be may fit ions of the price of emission emission of price the of ions o eiso alwne to allowances emission of e tde a ige commodity single a studies ot o Erpa citizens, European of costs hnical universes of markets markets of universes hnical h ohr ad te Polish the hand, other the as sre a mas of means as served also y iso tae s market a as trade mission conomic and environmental and conomic f pcltos n h ETS the on speculations of assmns eg b the by e.g. assessments, e

the European Commission European the d e rud 0 uo. In Euros. 40 around be ld A) Ti wy hy may they way This UAs). a (07 ntcs i a is notices, (2007) kan at due to the benchmark benchmark the to due at ering GHG emissions in in emissions GHG ering sts, Deutsche Bank, Bank, Deutsche sts, 61 CEU eTD Collection economic way. an in emissions within governance, of system a organizing at aimed institut and technical Thr organized. was trade and allocation a allowances’ and chosen were allocation propo regions. and and companies for emissions GHGs GHG historical of lists with together put was installatio trade of list A cap. emission an designed and perm emission as such concepts operationalized mec They concrete into coined was trade emission of idea how analyzed 2006) Ellermann 2005, Vainio and Zafel Econom enterprise. ‘technical’ a as presented often of supply the of organization literature, policy In fromcompanies. c emission the of level (the allowances emission of sim d the on depend will allowances emissionfor a demand In trade. emission all in participating emission companies lowe always of be to has supply it and lowered result, systematically governance a additiona buy achieve to have may they allowances, of limit allowan level. certain a to up emission allowances emission granted allocating of procedure particular calculate be can and possible are companies between emission exc that so operationalized and and defined technically limits emission Emissions, emissions. comp on imposing by achieved is This created. be to deman a allowances, emission trading for incentives char governance and market its to key seems schemes dem and supply the of Organization place? first the tra start actors come How achieved? this is how But therefore is emissions seeking. profit also by but objective government trading of o Practice sake the targets. for not a and profit become for traded may portfolios allowances emission banks, investment emission allowances has been been has allowances emission If they emit above the allocated the above emit they If hanges of emission allowances emission of hanges anies legally binding limits on limits binding legally anies d for this new commodity has commodity new this for d ough these activities, experts experts activities, these ough and side of emission trading emission of side and s atcptn i emission in participating ns which actors would relate to relate would actors which p ad h ata emission actual the and ap) ifference between the supply supply the between ifference ss n plc mkr (e.g. makers policy and ists ding emission allowances in in allowances emission ding reduction with complying f Procedures for allowances’ allowances’ for Procedures ta ata eisos of emissions actual than r l cpadtae system, cap-and-trade ple To market. the on ones l , step-by-step, an abstract an step-by-step, , . hr as hs o e a be to has also There d. o ol ssand by sustained only not e. opne my be may Companies ces. provide to order In acter. aim ad procedures. and hanisms t, msin allowances, emission its, loacs ae o be to have allowances sed ways of calculating calculating of ways sed ional infrastructure for for infrastructure ional owances has to be be to has owances at f investment of part 62 CEU eTD Collection codn t te efraiiy prah wih emp which approach, performativity the to According iin f ua ato (e Clo ad uis 2005 Muniesa and Callon (see action human of vision

ic cluain s cmlx olcie practice. collective complex a is calculation since agen ‘calculative of speaks (1998) Callon networks. no of and humans of networks throughout distributed activity. human a for frame cultural a not also is ou carried solely act an not is calculation (1998), aclt’ B dig hs hy lo iet rm the from divert also they this doing By calculate’. an to holding from refrains approach performativity con real in interest sociology’s economic Following var – algorithms laws, are These 1998). Callon (see ‘requisi for reality outside the on depends Framing stayinoutside. towhatof meant was spilling the brea possible a by threatened always is transaction com successful its to threat a referrin poses of frame economic possibility A project. finished a never of because is And what and frame a within on going is what between it. of outside left is what to links n is frame the within Reality place. taken have not been there Had it. of outside stays what and frame b line a drawing like is Framing frame. to the outside due only possible is framing to processes, referring framing out, points (1998) Callon as However, existence. contexts its of enti calculated a around boundaries draw to ability Calculability 1229). (p. calculable” be must goods th out point (2005) Muniesa and Callon example, For t order in society in play they functions and roles be three the All 1998). Callon (see existence their become good det exchanged the and seller the buyer, economic on meet to goods exchanged the and seller it makes frame economic An 1998). Callon (see frame implies exchange commercial economies, of character t in a human’s brain. Calculation Calculation brain. human’s a in t

It is an action organized by and by organized action an is It of goods is predicated upon an upon predicated is goods of o engage in a commercial act. act. commercial a in engage o ch, a sudden break, caused by caused break, sudden a ch, ever really able to cut all the the all cut to able really ever He points to “the material material “the to points He t wa sas usd an outside stays what to g e’ o faes construction frame’s for tes’ other from abstracted come going outside of it, a good is good a it, of outside going the into comes what etween this immanent relationship relationship immanent this at “in order to be calculated, calculated, be to order “in at ty – to detach it from other other from it detach to – ty btat da ht ‘markets that idea abstract of contexts other from ached ious devices for calculation. calculation. for devices ious under- and over-socialized over-socialized and under- terms. For that moment, the moment, that For terms. o otie, rmn would framing ‘outside’, no iuain o mres the markets, of figurations possible for the buyer, the buyer, the for possible cies’ rather than ‘agents’, ‘agents’, than rather cies’ n-humans – socio-technical socio-technical – n-humans a creation of an economic an of creation a the existence of a reality reality a of existence the lto. lo n economic an Also pletion. ofa’ terzto of theorization Goffman’s ). According to Callon Callon to According ). aie te organized the hasizes 63 CEU eTD Collection Western carbons were based on a different worth, wh worth, different a on based were carbons Western pl incommensur for Claims ETS. the within various frame common in produced dioxide carbon putting about was There market. carbon pan-European a as ETS the chal actors Polish negotiation, ETS 2008 the During in zero.to reduced were Any technologies Euro. 1 to down fell allowances of price the emitted, they as companies to allowances emissions g national when 2007 in obvious became vitality Its st market a as both trade constitutesemissions and s the organizes which device, a is This allowances. meth the – emissions to relations companies’ frames foc dissertation This negotiated. strategically and ec its sus when moment a be is organization trade may emission being transactions and out stops carry exchange to frame economic impossible of a 2005) Latour When (see question. intermediary into called are economic an of organization when moments are There 2008).2009, Beunza and comple more to office organized sophisticatedly sheet, or models economic excel an or catalogue library simp very from vary technologies Calculative 1230). ( exchanges’ ‘calculated and agencies’ ‘calculative Technologie beings. human in exist potentially that bri and coordination efficient facilitate also They carry to humans enable These which prostheses’ cognitive institutions. and concepts theories, economic tool technical as understood only not – calculation In consequencesunintended (seeMacKenzie2 and action and action mediate devices Calculative 5). p. 1998, writing figures, involving calculation, of reality as f h Markets the of Laws 19) Clo pooe t fcs n ehoois of technologies on focus to proposes Callon (1998), mediums and inscriptions” (Callon inscriptions” and mediums g no xsec competencies existence into ng ss n n o dvcs which devices, of one on uses ructure and a governance tool. tool. governance a ructureand overnments allocated as much as allocated overnments Callon and Muniesa 2005, p. p. 2005, Muniesa and Callon fr aclto, u as as also but calculation, for s prom clual goods’, ‘calculable perform s le ones, like e.g. a counter, a counter, a e.g. like ones, le upply side of emission trade trade emission of side upply emission trade collapsed and collapsed trade emission s of bond traders (see Stark Stark (see traders bond of s hs a poue hfs in shifts produce may thus lenged the general frame of frame general the lenged out various types of actions. of types various out onomic framing is explicitly explicitly is framing onomic etvs o net n green in invest to centives ich was assigned to carbon carbon to assigned was ich 008, 2008a, 2009, 2009a).2009, 2008a, 008, od for allocating emission emission allocating for od ehoois r ‘socio- are technologies aces in the EU under a a under EU the in aces ability of the Eastern and and Eastern the of ability pended. The moment of of moment The pended. goig disagreement growing a rm ad t requisites its and frame cmue programs, computer x s, calculation may be be may calculation s, n unproblematic an 64

CEU eTD Collection codn t hm vle o tig eeg fo a se a from emerge things of values him, to According researc anthropological on build they and valuation economy. The region’s economic growth in the second the in growth economic i region’s The of economy. collapse total almost an and unemployment high w associated were 1990s of beginning the at dioxide emiss High development. recent their of and economy histo their of part a was dioxide carbon countries, the For work.” daily our of product the is “Carbon mining the from or Bełchatów in plant power Polish engine from heard be could lines Similar community. sto the telling (1969) Dennis Norman by book famous is “Coal commodity. a as dioxide carbon of framing dissertation this in examined negotiations ETS The perpetually diverseand are mechanismsvaluation of an create people processes these During localities. di and commensuration of (2004) processes through Guyer produced commodities. and gifts of distinction thing of bet re-contextualization distinguishes and hand, contextualization other the on (1991), Thomas things of life social The propose (2009) Caliskan and Callon 1229). p. 2005, given be to value the on and distribute and produce on compromise reaching for devices also are Markets reduction emissionfora governancetool and market Scheme Trading Emission European the of development and Espeland (see non-calculabilation of situations incommensuratio alleged The them. from suffer would reducti carbon from benefit to ready were economies w Poland what achieved already had which role economies, important an acto Polish by played seen was carbon Western development. it industries, and unions governm Polish the to According economy. developing p a was carbon Polish The EU. the of parts those in 18) ae a rcsul prah o valuation. to approach processual a takes (1986) Central and Eastern European European Eastern and Central h of this process. Appadurai in Appadurai process. this of h is f rniin o market a to transition of ries revealed fragility of economic of fragility revealed to them (Callon and Muniesa and (Callon them to flourishing. s. s. and energy unions in Poland: in unions energy and ons while Eastern economies Eastern while ons Stevens 1998) threatening threatening 1998) Stevens . hs s h bss o a for basis the is This s. ost-transition carbon from a from carbon ost-transition d exploit asymmetries and and asymmetries exploit d ith a painful experience of of experience painful a ith the of title the is life” our ers working in the biggest biggest the in working ers rs as emitted in developed in emitted as rs decade of the 2000s was was 2000s the of decade pamtc prah to approach pragmatic a nelns ht au is value that underlines dsra pouto and production ndustrial y f Yrsie mining Yorkshire a of ry ion reductions of carbon carbon of reductions ion ent, power sector, trade trade sector, power ent, the nature of goods to to goods of nature the my ae eutd in resulted have may n jnto wti various within sjunction s tiig o. Western for. striving as is f transformations. of ries en rcse o de- of processes ween s Erpa carbon European a as n oads economic Poland’s in 65 CEU eTD Collection organized. be toones economic as not are They markets. framed regards same The activities. are which activities, are there There discovered. be to had that sphere specific a 2007) al. et Muniesa 2005, Muniesa and Callon 2007, Cal 2008, Beunza 2009, 2006, MacKenzie 2007, al. et (MacKen framework performativity the within working sp an (2010), Lepiney and Latour (1998), something Callon frame. of effect an gives always also Framing emission (EUA). commodityallowance an – European carbon framing of process the examined thesis This exchangeab and commodities other with commensurable with it provide would which framing, political and a needs it transferable, fully quotas fishing make fishing of framing the examine (2007) Nielsen Nolde proc making commodity the of part a also is Framing 1998). va monetary a to value good’s a reduce to difficult Comple up. it blow may frame economic an into worth 5-6) p. 2009, (Stark price than different something compon moral a have economies all and ways multiple fra economic the of outside stay should 2009) Boltan Stark (see valuations which on agreement no be may diffe in ways different in valued is dioxide Carbon aske also be can money, about asked (1996) Babb and t to similar meanings, multiple of Questions worth. embe is dioxide carbon that mind in bear should one orga studying while above, said was what of Because to „emit senseentitlementtoof a sector was there ind in but emissions carbon growing with associated rent places in the EU and there and EU the in places rent grow.” stability. Framing makes things makes Framing stability. is no land called ‘economy’, but ‘economy’, called land no is hose Zelizer (1994), Carruthers (1994), Zelizer hose lue (see Espeland and Stevens Stevens and Espeland (see lue . Bringing too many orders of orders many too Bringing . lot of legal, economic, metric metric economic, legal, of lot spheres to be discovered, but discovered, be to spheres d many economic sociologists sociologists economic many d me. Things can be valued in valued be can Things me. iskan and Callon 2009, Holm2009, Callon and iskan , argue that economy is not is economy that argue , nization of emission trade, trade, emission of nization uts n age ht to that argue and quotas zie et al. 2003, MacKenzie MacKenzie 2003, al. et zie s. ee Hl ad Kare and Holm Peter ess. ixd a a transferable, a as dioxide dded in various orders of of orders various in dded sre ad n h power the in and ustries xity of valuation makes it makes valuation of xity cfc xsig nie the inside existing ecific le for money equivalents. equivalents. money for le aot abn dioxide. carbon about d ski and Thevenot 2006, 2006, Thevenot and ski ent since value may be be may value since ent gis ohr ye of types other against 66 CEU eTD Collection A distinction proposed by Callon et al. (2002) betw al. et Callon by proposed distinction A value (e.g. Fine 2003), I would like to argue that that argue to like would I 2003), Fine (e.g. value 20) on ot tig hv lf o ter w bef own their of aretransformedproduc they They when are products. life have things out, point (2002) Ca (see process socio-technical a is It enterprise. fr this But construction. markets’ e of policy-phases market during only not actors, by framed actively Goods character. ‘organized’ and ‘constructed’ its to is which value, carbon’s of ‘objectiveness’ the all framework Callon’s the that out point I market. carbon’ how conceptualizing for point starting good developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol, had t had Protocol, Kyoto the under countries developed div a gases, greenhouse of potential warming global e.g like devices, measuring metrolo various dioxide, carbon al. specific et (Callon “implies equipment” measuring in This investments 198). (p. qualified” agents between interactions involve which trials or “th but observed, be to not are goods of properties Callo products. of value performs framing that fact approa own his utilizing sufficiently not is Callon th At allowance. emission tradable a became dioxide pr examine to us allow fact, stabilized a as good a its for callonistics’ ‘the of critique the Despite an v their market also ‘organizing’ of commoditiesbut qualifying of task a only not is It sub-species. o markets, t environmental creating supposed about substantial is There 2009). least, Lohmann at (see be, to environment supposed is price market The 500). ‘discove can be value services; which ofand ‘goods environ “transform to po us help to said is accounting (2009) Lohmann As 2001). Barnes (see revealed be intri an environment, to extended be will practices marke emission of assumptions underlying the of One ch in order to better theorize the the theorize better to order in ch be ‘discovered’ on the market, to market, the on ‘discovered’ be inability to address problems of of problems address to inability llon et al. 2002). As Callon et al. al. et Callon As 2002). al. et llon een a product as a process, and process, a as product a een mental objects into commercial into objects mental alue. red’ in marketsthemselves”(p. in red’ Callon’s framework provides a provides framework Callon’s ey are ‘revealed’ through tests through ‘revealed’ are ey nsic value of environment will environment of value nsic ows us to shift the focus from from focus the shift to us ows mn i nt ‘uey social’ ‘purely a not is aming actices through which carbon which through actices d framing GHG emissions as as emissions GHG framing d . greenhouse gas inventories, inventories, gas greenhouse . (teams) and the goods to be to goods the and (teams) ision between developing and developing between ision o be agreed upon in order to order in upon agreed be o r c-lbrtd te are they co-elaborated, are wih abn akt are markets carbon which f ed, marketized or sold. ormarketized ed, vle s rdcd n the on produced is value s n et al. (2002) notice that that notice (2002) al. et n e same time, it seems that that seems it time, same e r te gt tblzd as stabilized get they ore cutr bt lo n the in also but ncounters s s ht ne accounting once that is ts 02 p 19. n ae of case In 199). p. 2002, poy f h vle of value the of proxy a ia wr ad heavy and work gical ns u, environmental out, ints o be something more more something be o 67 CEU eTD Collection a qualification goods’ in involved actors by shared (2002) al. et Callon demand. and supply the between the through constructed is which value, carbon’s on so and bought demanded, thus and visible allowances The allowances. carbon for demand and supply the on compan in carbon of invisibility and visibility The adopte practices sometimessometimesand invisibl visible was carbon accounting diverse to due that out 447). p. 2009, (MacKenzie rights indeed wheth were (EUAs) discussed IFRIC example, For 447). (p. being” Fi rights’ International ‘emission called it which items, new the to the Scheme, to how “discussed (IFRIC) Committee Interpretations Trading Emission develo Union the to also run-up the was in how product examines (2009) MacKenzie a as allowance emission The EuropeantheCommissi completein wasnot allowance 8). (p.Qualif transferability” of somedegree with practi all are Policy Agricultural Common the under Po Fisheries Common the under quotas catch fish the unde Substances Depleting Ozone for quotas “The EU. was allowances tradable of concept the Also 8). (p. of field the in standards technical po of application environmental in established ‘per well of was concept explained, The ‘caps’. allowa and emission ‘quotas’ whether ‘permits’, decide to had they example, emissi dioxide Direct carbon framing ETS in engaged first Commission the of project the preparing While constructionexchange-value thetheof impact on an If Europe. various then in value, exchange goods’ and of abstraction countries developing the in both c the on impact real a has potential warming global (200 MacKenzie exchanges. market for carbon qualify ication of carbon emissions as an an as carbonofemissions ication y’s accounts has a direct impact direct a has accounts y’s , which were about to come into into come to about were which , waste, water and air pollution” pollution” air and water waste, organization of an interaction interaction an of organization . nd which divides them “is to to “is them divides which nd o ttlyufmla i the in unfamiliar totally not e in company’s accounts.company’se in measuring devices also have also devices measuring apply accounting standards accounting apply cal examples of allowances allowances of examples cal 8, 2009) points out that the the that out points 2009) 8, ld. This also has an impact impact an has also This ld. on. is, s h Commission the as mits’, s o eiso reductions emission of ost re are more or less carbon carbon less or more are re ive (2003), the European European the (2003), ive MacKenzie (2009) points points (2009) MacKenzie write that the challenge challenge the that write iy priual fr the for “particularly licy iy ad h ml quotas milk the and licy, i vros companies, various in d For commodity. a as ons r uoen allowances European er te otel Protocol, Montreal the r launch of the European European the of launch pie s monetary a is price a cs ol b called be would nces ped by accountants. accountants. by ped aca Reporting nancial 68 CEU eTD Collection Actor-NetworksThrough Emission Trade Translating a asset, theiron economicitscontrol to impact strategies st an may as companies and of profit, making conceived for opportunity be to start their to may relation dioxide in it value will they way the and str actors’ impacts dioxide carbon of qualification com them making in and products of value market the qual and framing of role the to point to like would im an is This 201). (p. qualities” of list a around suppl a between adjustment difficult this establish on which they were in fairly stable relations with with relations the When stable gains. and resources various fairly over competed in were they which on from negotiation ETS the entered actors that argue process “previous of results are interests that say Callon’ following of Instead interests. to approach concep actions the bridging for past point entry actors’ good a on provides depend they that sense the ma they that sense the in historical, are Interests stabilized. temporarily interestsare in new a Once interests. their enact actors orders, by and projects their pursuing By structure. social actors from derived as them studying by than rather s the inte actors’ of thefor examination asks definition in (…) organizations or groups, institutions, m and, define to attempts are they Rather, analyst. fac background not are “interests argue: (1982) articulated, Law were interests which c flexible this grasp To simplified. or transformed of course the in for. accounted and limitatio constructed defined, recognized, these negotiation, ETS the During ope also actors. can it but constraint, a is trade Emission portant point in Callon’s text and Iand text Callon’s in point portant rests by studying them ‘in action’ studyingthem‘in restsby activities. activities. haracter of interests, Callon and Callon interests, of haracter ategies towards this commodity this towards ategies s and Law’s (1982) proposal to to proposal (1982) Law’s and s y change over time but also in in also but time over change y y and a demand that is formed is that demand a and y ification in the construction of of construction the in ification ost importantly, to enforce the enforce to importantly, ost This involved communication communication involved This s f nolet (. 2) I 622), (p. enrollment” of es

tttoa odr s n place, in is order stitutional business activities. Carbon Carbon activities. business nocn nw institutional new enforcing u sm opruiis to opportunities some up n various organizational fields organizational various ocial world” (p. 622). This This 622). (p. world” ocial s n opruiis were opportunities and ns o a il wt te ANT’s the with field a of t ETS became a ‘hot’ issue, ‘hot’ a became ETS the by imputed be to tors pstos ihn wider a within positions ’ r t egg i devising in engage to art mensurable. Framing and Framing mensurable. actors, with whom they they whom with actors, and involvements. This This involvements. and oprd juxtaposed, compared, eore a ot an cost, a resource, 69 CEU eTD Collection ANT’s program of studying interests differs from ra from differs interests studying of program ANT’s negotiateinstitutions. and to actors forces opportunities and constraints new cha the in re-constructed are they contrary, the On ne are interests But 617). p. 1982, Law and (Callon recognize are that constraints constructed actively intere and element, politi new a rule, new domestic a by threatened or community NGOs’ European making, market about talking started Actors enacted. became become fields organizational their within relations say could We interests. their articulate to fields, games the to and relations, these to referred they ersn a hvn a omn neet Te as en also They ex of network interest. a become to common algorithms or instruments a having as represent t into them join to willing actors for look They stronger. – non-humans and humans both – others enroll th ne to 2008 points the and in change, and ETS mobilization the movement, was so and – actions actors’ constructed actively is Structure 622). p. 1982 Law str influence that entities coercive (contingently) groups interest and interests of fate the ANT, For shifts. major interests the their how networks learn to the ETS the through to negotiating actors follow I but fields actors of observation an at stop not do I analysis, su and failed – alliances their and actions actors’ kn at aims it but actions, actors’ in ‘rationality’ aim not does ANT positions. structural ‘objective’ rather them pursue actors how and projects actors’ Howeve enabling. and constraining actor both that are networks and gains their maximizing at aim actors studyin to approach ANT situation. given a in gains r interests where institutionalism, choice rational owing as much as possible about possible as much as owing that this was the moment when when moment the was this that cceeded. Due to this fact, in the in fact, this to Due cceeded. and for actors whom they could they whom actors for and ’ interests within organizational within interests ’ cue n ato” Clo and (Callon action” and ucture reflected upon and these fields these and upon reflected sl fo cluaig maximal calculating from esult d as limiting available options” available limiting as d they were involved in on those those on in involved were they nging reality, which by putting by which reality, nging ver defined once and for good. good. for and once defined ver g interests does not deny that that deny not does interests g tional choice approaches, e.g. approaches, choice tional is “one important part of the of part important “one is make choices, take decisions take choices, make s, the EU arena for decision- for arena EU the s, t sesn te mut of amount the assessing at ee negig io or minor undergoing were n rcntutd through reconstructed and sts were articulated “out of “out articulated were sts than focus solely on their their on solely focus than ets (e Ea ad Pol and Eyal (see pertise s’ positions within wider wider within positions s’ e fact that actors try to to try actors that fact e , hy rps t study to propose they r, heir projects to become become to projects heir ji ad ul while build and join y oito. N studies ANT gotiation. s Te otn was routine The cs. ol eot, data, reports, roll 70 CEU eTD Collection ANT’s studies of interests and interest groups are are groups interest and interests of studies ANT’s national domains. policy within an negotiation ETS the interestsin labor silencing so was projects two the of either supporting to due articulate to Si unions. trade adequate European of concerns and interests was however, projects; these benchmark- the supported and industries with allied proposal Commission’s the supported and a NGOs green they therefore and theirs, be ‘organically’ would to able not were organizations union trade European for account would which and proposal, w Commission’s which way, a in allowances of not allocation did organize they and labor on ETS new the of impact the int T others devices. enrollment efficient enroll lacked they to because able not were They support. to a negotiation ETS the in interests their articulate found hand, other the on organizations, union Trade problem. European an national, ec a became prices both electricity of – problem development for cost energy of importance electricity Poland’s competitive on dependant economic being of as economy speak to chose 2008, in ETS act Polish well. as problems their are issues these try they and aspects their of some highlighting by represe to want they issues select actors projects, 198 Law and (Callon identical” was it if as treated words other in where, another: one with equated are different which “in identities, and preferences of si selection, of processes through change Interests leas various at interestssimilar making – together m into put is effort of lot a network a such become a represent to enough strong be may is which 2011), nt and solve. They simplify them them simplify They solve. and nt t forwhile. t a d in shifting them to be cared of of cared be themto shifting in d nd what kind of an ETS project ETS an of kind what nd claims, substance or processes processes or substance claims, 2 p. 619). While pursuing their pursuing While 619). p. 2 far reaching that it resulted in resulted it that reaching far mplification, and juxtaposition and mplification, ors, while negotiating the EU the negotiating while ors, to persuade other actors that that actors other persuade to d with time, even an Eastern Eastern an even time, with d hey did not have a report on report a have not did hey mplification of their interests interests their of mplification larger part of the reality. To reality. the of part larger it difficult to decide how to to how decide to difficult it based allocation. Neither of Neither allocation. based aking different elements fit fit elements different aking llied either with European European with either llied ul u a ewr which network a up build ould be alternative to the the to alternative be ould directly connected to the the to connected directly o a network of expertise expertise of network a o wa i i fc ulk is unlike fact in is what , rcs Te epsd the exposed They prices. have an idea on how to to how on idea an have h vle f ao. The labor. of value the The social. and onomic f ul utos o they or auctions, full of diverse, labor-related labor-related diverse, ness of their national national their of ness 71 CEU eTD Collection utps te wt ter w. hs s h frt mo first the is This own. their with them juxtapose o dac ter oiin wti vros organizat various within positions their advance to prop also Actors allowances. emission of allocation earned who society, the of parasites greedy of role the locked successfully pay community NGO should The society. who polluters of role the into producers industri lock to wanted Commission the prog negotiation, the in them for proposed been had which roles, seek actors some which by processes of series a as int is process translation the of moment second The not it.” disregard should sector.You power the partner, social EMCEF) (the Federation Workers sectoral Energy and Chemical our “look, Commission, the Europ the industries The considertation.” into it “look, take should governments, national au full supports partner, social our Confederation, to say pow morecould networks their and actors both made unions t to or proposal Commission’s the to either support is negotiation ETS the in unions trade of case The et (Callon asseena havinganimportance” be could whic in forces of field the of structure the define it an outmap “to to means words, other in problem, commensur unlik made be to and simplified be to and compared, distant seemed What change. institutional p simplify actors problem”, my like just is problem 1 (Latour others for points” passage “obligatory as acto way, This problems. the with deal to solutions th defining by actors w other to indispensable become moment betwe first the distinguished is (1982) Problematization translation. Law and Callon scallops, is ANT in power for name The 1982). Law and (Callon thei funnel problems, their to solutions them offer de to ability actors’ an is Power power. of problem , on the other hand could say to say could hand other the on , ctions for the power sector. You sector. power the for ctions r interests and represent them represent and interests r h the solution to the problem problem the to solution the h references of other actors and actors other of references to problems, actors’ other fine osed new roles for themselves themselves for roles new osed l. 1983, p.204).1983, l. inerary, to block others and to and others block to inerary, rs try to establish themselves establish to try rs eressement. It can be defined be can It eressement. he industries’ proposal, trade proposal, industries’ he additional profit on the free free the on profit additional to lock other actors into new new into actors other lock to exemplary here. By granting granting By here. exemplary 8) B syn: lo, your “look, saying: By 987). suggesting and problems eir translation. In their text on text their In translation. eet oad oil and social toward vement hen some actors seek to to seek actors some hen able and alike. To define a define To alike. and able es and coal-fueled power power coal-fueled and es tlt cmais no the into companies utility back their debts to the the to debts their back e is put together to be be to together put is e a-ouin I te ETS the In ram-solution. oa fed. hy were They fields. ional h Erpa Mining, European the supports benchmarks for for benchmarks supports ru. h Commission The erful. en four moments of of moments four en a Tae Union Trade ean 72 CEU eTD Collection thosew and mobilized easily be can who actors mark in the in was solution this saying: By navigate. to ne out map to actors help also interests of Framing thei with addressing solutions. were they fram field those organizational between moving often were leaders, union go lobbyists, Polish ETS. the of project particular mobiliz for frames were kind’ human the of interest Europ of interest ‘the interest’, economic European econ Polish ‘The enrollment. of mechanism important c power sector and industries governments, European enroll efficient very a and important an was EcoFys it and IFIEC-method The opportunities. new for eyes ‘si in were they that actors to conspicuous it made communicatio stabilized and furthered enabled, They methodologies, calculations, reports, various were device various through achieved often is Enrollment out: As network. patterned a into composed and together a incompatible as appeared far so has What project. standi movement social the to pattern and coherence allo had they roles various inter-relate and define plac takes and enrolment called is moment third The saviorsjobs ofinorEurop concernedcitizens, and Eu of engines deal, climate global the of guardians Law 1982, p.622)1982, Law int our in is ‘it that noting by others to relation def to seek They to…’. interest your in is ‘it that th via is b persuade to try attempted small and great is Actors interests. enrolment such which in ways but One, achieved. sometimes and proposed, is order ways the with concerned is enrolment of theory The e. terests of an X or Y actor, they they actor, Y or X an of terests milar trouble’, and opened their their opened and trouble’, milar ropean economies, responsible economies, ropean ing actors to support and join a join and support to actors ing enetl fiil ad trade and officials vernmental s. In the ETS negotiation these negotiation ETS the In s. tworks, across which they try try they which across tworks, rgoi, rpsl, reviews. proposals, prognosis, cated to others. This brings brings This others. to cated ho may resist enrollment. My My enrollment. resist may ho nd heterogeneous is brought is heterogeneous nd ine their own position in in position own their ine Callon and Law (1982) point (1982) Law and Callon a idsre’ ‘h general ‘the industries’, ean e when some actors seek to seek actors some when e ompanies. Framing is also an also is Framing ompanies. ment device for the Eastern Eastern the for device ment n between actors. They also also They actors. between n s review by the consultancy consultancy the by review s rs t…. Clo and (Callon to…’. erest mc neet, te Central ‘the interest’, omic ng behind an institutional institutional an behind ng y telling one another another one telling y cam, rbes and problems claims, r in which provisional which in s dpnig n what on depending es, only one, of the the of one, only ctgr of category e 73 CEU eTD Collection t In network. a become to has policy-making of part experti This general. in policies climate and trade producing in engage Netherlands the or Germany UK, a universities best the in economists Environmental a distributed unevenly is knowledge change, In climate problems. their to solution a others to propose others. of problems the and problems own her or his actor without possible is strategy enrollment ofNo reality. capacity crucial a is production Knowledge fueledEurop by largely still be sectorwould power in strong a have still would Europe whereby project represe They industries. and energy for responsible a governments German and Hungarian Estonian, Czech, were They Federation. Workers’ Energy and Chemical Federation Workers’ Metal European the with Europe, German from unions trade and companies sector power companies. sector power the for and themselves for industries, European were there hand, other the On Europ emission servicesfueledallow trading by financial of project a also was It solar. wit and plants windmills power coal developing replacing Europe and Europe devel sources, and research of in involved project Europe technologies, the represented actors acto financial for attractive more market this make European the of transactions of full volume the of increase favor in was which government, British the E the Se Public of Federation European the Confederation, NGOs, environmental Sarkozy, President of Doyle, Presiden Rapporteur the the Pöttering, President Barroso, Hans-Gert Parliament, the Durão Manuel example, José Environment for Commission, DG were, the by These proposed Commission. ETS the on auctions ac particular to pointing eagerly were interviewees se, in order to become an active active an become to order in se, ances. ances. an actor’s capacity to diagnose to capacity actor’s an e’s domestic fuel – coal. e’s – fueldomestic rs from the London City. These City. London the from rs tors speaking in favor of full full of favor in speaking tors nd research institutes in the in institutes research nd rvice Unions. There was also was There Unions. rvice he chapter on the history of of history the on chapter he e with a stronger sector of of sector stronger a with e nted a different project – a a – project different a nted oiy ra a cmlx as complex as areas policy dustrial base and European European and base dustrial which opposed full auctions full opposed which They allied with coal-fueled coal-fueled with allied They rs Erpa countries. European cross oevr atr hv to have actors Moreover, abn akt ad thus and market, carbon would this since auctions atmtn t translate to attempting s represented by the Polish, the by represented y and Central and Eastern and Central and y opment of green energy energy green of opment n te uoen Mine, European the and the ETS Directive, Arvil Arvil Directive, ETS the nd by the Commissioners Commissioners the by nd ncer oe plants, power nuclear h nweg o emission on knowledge rpa Tae Union Trade uropean t of the European European the of t noaie green innovative of the European European the of in the European European the in 74 CEU eTD Collection problem to be addressed” (Rose and Miller 1992, p. p. 1992, Miller and (Rose addressed” be kn to certain Governme problem to “claim 177). a with (p. activity government” problematizing of component central techni and experiments projects, theories, as persons, o but ‘ideas’, role as the understood simply to not point government (1992) Miller ref and a Rose for experts. asks production knowledge on put Emphasis won. proposal Commission’s th vote, final the During this project. in enrolled wh States, n of Heads IFIEC many by the betrayed was December, allocation in Meeting Council Acco the th language. during of event legitimate important most with the during it interviewees, represent and way of speak to able – spokespersons – representatives beco project a when moment the is This project. new p are collectivities relevant in various for successful spokesmen a a some of by used methods of – set a is It translation mobilization. of moment last The inDecember meeting 200 European the Council at and the for spokespersons important became unions trade governm Polish The IFIEC). (the industries propo European project a into enrolled got government network Polish the in engage would which centers, research in Poland faded away until the ETS was established was established ETS the until away faded inPoland emission of theimplementation resultin not did it 14 networkthis in participate were They years. two almost for functioning the already at Bulgaria, and Romania as or, Union European a months seven ETS the joined States Member new The BPand like She companies tanks,thinkand European officia few joining network a became trade emission the of stage early the at that out point I ETS, the Polish Ministry of Environment got enrolled in the enrolled got Environment of Ministry Polish

14 . As the analysis will show, due to the lack of str of lack the to due show, will analysis the As . trade in Poland. After this failure the interest i interest the failure this After in Poland. trade in the EU. EU. inthe project of tradable emission permits in the early theearly in permits emission of tradable project ey did not support this idea and theand supportnotidea this did ey ETS’s development, expertise on on expertise development, ETS’s a new institution in a coherent coherent a in institution new a ls in DG Environment, US and US Environment, DG in ls ques that has become such a a such become has that ques ctors to ensure that supposed that ensure to ctors oel al t rpeet the represent to able roperly the latecomers who did not did who latecomers the ll. IFIEC project in the region region the in project IFIEC ent, business lobbyists and lobbyists business ent, weg o te pee or sphere the of owledge 8. 8. e b te soito of association the by sed ES eoito, ht is that negotiation, ETS e “the vast assemblage of of assemblage vast “the mes an institution with its its with institution an mes fter their accession to the the to accession their fter c see t hv been have to seemed ich ie hn h ES was ETS the when time kolde n modern in knowledge f n msin rd, the trade, emission on 8) Kolde itself Knowledge 182). tttoa poet is – project stitutional lection on the role of of role the on lection etwork of benchmark benchmark of etwork dn t m Polish my to rding t a bcm a become has nt n emission trade trade nemission 1990s but 1990s ong 75 CEU eTD Collection purifi and translation of character material the to obje with alliances forge and ‘mobilize’ ‘recruit’, ‘ nor facts’ objective ‘discover neither scientists scientists. of work the of theorization Latour’s to b out carried work of type the conceptualizing When f (see2 volume their real, Eyal have material fields of work a C (see is connecting and separating It of – disentangling them. whi of process, outside a not and is networks work Boundary issues. and objects in of work a is It devises. various of use the with rea a is work boundary that notes Eyal 2009). (Eyal spac and Bourdieu to fields gives He opponents. big tran on pea work some bringing be to claims Latour’s he tone lighthearted and fields quest on this work approaches Bourdieu’s He fall? itself work boundary Ey Gil practices. through and discourses in defined c is it but economics and politics between boundary boundari creates also co it but it them, fields, between problems different span to tries expertise The objectives, rules between in translating may be it diffe markets n expertise howthe heterogeneous more the and stronger and undistorted and free be compet would and efficient be would markets that meant it and economy what argued They boundaries. their and fact In politics. and economy between 1983) (Gieryn expertis own their justifying in engaged sides both C European the and experts IFIEC the between debate p this of example important An anymore. neutral not ‘th proposal’, IFIEC’s parti into inscribed becomes it way This proposal.’ ‘the proposal’, Commission’s netwo a as Expertise shortcomings. its to out point evaluat expert further of course the in transformed selectio of rules various to subjected also becomes cts they study. Eyal (2009) points points (2009) Eyal study. they cts 009, Mitchell 1991). Mitchell 009, and realities of fields. variousrealities and cular fields of action where it is is it where action of fields cular socially construct’ them. They They them. construct’ socially n and legitimation. Expertise is Expertise legitimation. and n cation. Experts, by producing producing by Experts, cation. ldn ad xldn things, excluding and cluding According to Latour (1987), (1987), Latour to According e by referring to boundaries boundaries to referring by e k eoe qaiid s ‘the as qualified becomes rk allon 1998). Spaces between Spaces 1998). allon ncs hm y translating by them nnects y experts, Eyal (2009) refers refers (2009) Eyal experts, y ce into relation of these two two these of relation into ce they re-defined those fields those re-defined they os wih eiiae t or it legitimate which ions, al (2009) asks: where does does where asks: (2009) al etwork, the more successful successful more the etwork, wr ad t s are out carried is it and work l re- and organized onstantly s ewe fed t Latour to fields between es markets were about, what about, were markets oes s rvdd y the by provided is rocess s Tee s o universal no is There es. ition between companies companies between ition ommission, during which during ommission, e Polish government’s government’s Polish e ion by trying to bring bring to trying by ion aig etnln and entangling raming, h ae pae within place takes ch e fo pltc. The politics. from red lto tgte. n a In together. slation 76 CEU eTD Collection At the same time, actors engage in ordering network ordering in engage actors time, same the At being embedded in various organizational fields – n – fields organizational various in embedded being allowed It structure. governance a and market new a t which through processes for account to able be to organizat ETS the of embedding complex the grasp to out framework theoretical the of objective main The Me Some - Organization ETS the Considerations of Embedding Complex astrucquasi-state its of as production production reconstructi and construction the of process a also ETS The national. as seen processes and things and and things between boundary a in also but markets, and markets free between boundary a ETS, the around var of establishing in resulted negotiation ETS The control. their exert may they to try actors which through enterprise pragmatic a t Creat 1987). Latour and 2009 Eyal (see purification comes translation and Mobilization politics. ends administration starts there and economy Herestarts “internal therefore are Boundaries 6). (p. allies” scientis that networks the by crisscrossed are they politic and science discourse, and reality society, bou “the that means this that concludes (2009) Eyal expertise.of networks connected being are Realities 1). (p. arrangements” st instruments, actors, together connecting network attribut mere a not is latter the as expertise, and should one that out point (2011) Pok and Eyal time, collection data analysis, reports, as such devices, probl actors, between relations inscribe, expertise

to the network” (Eyal 2009, p. 6). p. 2009, (Eyal network” the to s or policy solutions. At the same the At solutions. policy or s ture. ture. s, are thick and fuzzy, and that that and fuzzy, and thick are s, e of the former. Expertise is “a is Expertise former. the of e ems and fields into their expert expert their into fields and ems on of the European Union, and Union, European the of on ion of those boundaries is also is boundaries those of ion his diversity is negotiated into negotiated is diversity his differentiate between experts experts between differentiate ot only markets for goods like goods for markets only ot . Here ends science and there there scienceHereand ends . os onais a boundary a boundaries: ious s ev i odr o recruit to order in weave ts lined and discussed above is is above discussed and lined and translated within those within translated and delineate spaces over which which over spaces delineate s into some distinct spheres. spheres. distinct some into s me to see emission trade as trade emission see to me ndaries between nature and nature between ndaries processes seen as European as seen processes gte wt te ok of work the with ogether ion in various realities, and realities, various in ion atements and institutional institutional and atements an intervention into these these into intervention an negotiation was therefore therefore was negotiation thodological thodological 77 CEU eTD Collection s lrey ehia ise ognzto o te E the of organization issue, technical largely a As o un or developed as regions European framing by or interests, the like framing, of sorts other through But way. economic an in interactions and things of paid I above discussion the In framing. is enrolled humans – actors which through mechanism the of One pushthembitto strategically attempt toa able be of limits the know to themselves, orient to actors im are Boundaries governance. European and national bur marketsand between traded, be tocommodity the boundar – boundaries new of establishing the to due out pointed also is it framework, presented the In p of institution. process laborious of project certain a for up stand will that network a in ult The mobilization. and enrollment interessement, stabilized and composed histo statements, targets, reduction morals, fuels, revi reports, like objects, of kinds various of and heterog are which expertise of networksin embedded Organization devices. translation various of means com re-assemble and between re-composed be relations could dioxide carbon which in ways various propose s EU-wide under a together heterogeneity this bring real the And it. to indifferent nobody almost left developm of mode greener a into it push the and economy of goal final The them. across out carried are action of logics visions, objectives, interests, of be understo also can trade emissionof Organization discussedhere.not was thoughthis well; aspect as politi in embedded is trade emission terms, general also but – etc. cement, steel, glass, electricity, as in various policy fields. In more In fields. policy various in as particular to various fields, which fields, various to particular challenge resides in the ability to ability the in resides challenge further in the in further future. legitimacy, and by knowing it to it knowing by and legitimacy, the ETS – for a new order and and order new a for – ETS the

close attention to the framing the to attention close that this new order is possible is order new this that derdeveloped. The multiplicity multiplicity The derdeveloped. ries, etc. These networks are are networks These etc. ries, w, acltos algorithms, calculations, ews, S s oe y xet, which experts, by done is TS translations ofprocess a as od imate goal is to build a strong a build to is goal imate cheme of emission trade. trade. chemeemission of of emission trade is thus also thus is trade emission of cs, economics, and in science in and economics, cs, enrollment was also achieved also was enrollment ETS is to govern European European govern to is ETS eneous and consist of actors actors of consist and eneous ies around the ETS, around ETS, the around ies eaucracies and theeaucracies between and ent and this bold plan has plan bold this and ent r nationalistic framing of of framing nationalistic r portant and necessary for necessary and portant . hy civ i b the by it achieve They d. n nnhmn – are – non-humans and panies, governments, governments, panies, roblematization, roblematization, 78 CEU eTD Collection aiu odr o wrh ihn hc ti market-ba this which within worth of orders various rd so md m raie ht h soe f actors of scope the that realize me made soon trade empiric in g and market The actors. any exclude to not decided discovered be to are participants market within Call place Michel takes markets by emission led of was organization I Here negotiations. ETS the organizati the of embedding the to points frames of hs oe loe m t oe m rsac t heterog to research my open from me prevented to me allowed move This relations actions,strategies, their else:actors, p entry an and Richar analysis of and object their Martin controversy e.g. (see others many and (1987), like scholars STS by developed methodology research cen were fu data collect to out set I and open was controversy auctions, – study full case from my derogation for allocation, selected I which – Poland In allowances’emissionforallo method the was issues that clear became it time, With develop. to started Commission European the of proposal the and with governmental happy all Not media. the by conveyed was observa simple a from out set project research This produce. ab and opponents and proponents its trade, emission themwe studying by and governance environmental of w movements Quasi-social before. never as intensive w preferences, objectives, of articulation the when partic is phase policy ca the However, trade. emission be will organization its and ETS, the of life in policy-making its – organization trade emission of exam dissertation this noted that be also should It evaluated. be will and functionwill governance a priori priori a classifications of ‘who was supposed to’ take part part take to’ supposed was ‘who of classifications between them and their interests. their themand between ines only one particular moment particular one only ines on it. By doing so I followed the followed I so doing By it. on phase. This is only one moment moment one only is This phase. ularly interesting as a moment moment a as interesting ularly one of the most controversial controversial most the of one cation. re o truh rcie of practices through on rried orries and hopes has been as been has hopes and orries overnance nature of emission of nature overnance it o suyn everything studying for oint tion of a controversy, which which controversy, a of tion ere created around this tool this around created ere out matters of concern they they concern of matters out can understand a lot about lot a understand can n f msin akt in markets emission of on hbi frm’ n that and forums’ ‘hybrid Nelkin (1995) and Latour Latour and (1995) Nelkin sed tool of environmental environmental of tool sed rl hms n ei. A media. in themes tral neetd n h ES is ETS the in interested al research. This way, I I way, This research. al s 95, h md a made who 1995), ds n gauly debate a gradually and l utos benchmark auctions, ll on’s (2009) point that that point (2009) on’s business circles were were circles business eneous actors and and actors eneous 79 in CEU eTD Collection the from actors to similar were they how and actors as also could I fields. those across communicate to how ask could I fields, organizational various from a that fact the to pointing by words, other In ETS. so into negotiated was diversity this which through the pose to me allowed also field a of concept The categoryused actors. by pragmatic bo field organizational an of concept the employ to oth of sets bounded within themselves position well of boundary the about questions posed actors While f of interest the and society Polish the of problem the of or sector power Polish the of concerns into time same the at but multiplied concern’ of ‘Matter ma other on also but ETS the on stakes about talked voc most betw distinctions and made they that realized I main method. the were industries government, and Polish companies The critics. their and auctions distinguis to started I actors, interested the with organ various of websites media, in negotiation ETS po the for auctions full to objected strongly which well. as accidental not was lobbying Polish the and al emission for method allocation the about debates stud and follow to chose I actors of crowd the From grea a was green futureinthetheir jobs about organizations discover to expect not did I which them, ‘matt (2005) Latour by called are These objectives. ec its exceed that interests and concerns integ generates and civilizing a also is ETS The politicians. NGOs, makers, policy of attention of object an was gover a into economy European As the transforming pollution. of objective for pay to had and allowances compani beyond far went It expected. I than greater EU. EU. it happened that they managed they that happened it ctors negotiating the ETS came ETS the negotiating ctors wer sector. While following the following While sector. wer k how they differed from some some from differed they how k rating project and as such it it such as and project rating Poland was the only country, only the was Poland izations and during interviews during and izations bten upres f full of supporters between h actors started ordering them ordering started actors th as an analytical tool and a and tool analytical an as th Poland of Selection lowances. European industries, into the into industries, European rkets, or within policy arenas. policy within or rkets, een themselves and that they that and themselves een nnil n ncer sectors. nuclear and inancial er organizations. This led me led This organizations. er ehn, hc i cle the called is which mething, think tanks, researchers and and researchers tanks, think field they thought to belong to thought they field usin bu mechanisms about question y those who participated in participated who those y r f ocr’ ad n of one and concern’, of er nmc n environmental and onomic a low carbon economy, it it economy, carbon low a the ETS, they could fairly fairly could they ETS, the s h rcie emission received who es h Pls pwr sector power Polish the union trade of concern t ac to wt a bold a with tool nance al opponents to this this to opponents al 80 CEU eTD Collection fie inter their on impact would ETS the how of speaking organizational various in ETS the embedded they interests translating for and fields organizational communicatio for devices were steel or electricity, prices of Predictions ETS. the for of embedding important complex were They prices. of predictions the trans the made which devices, identify also could I GHGs. and devices,histories calculative fuels, the about reflect acto of also assemblage an as ETS couldthe of and negotiation I way This ETS. the of p and bits brought and shifts small introduced they innovate they how followed I other. the over method acto various by used were which etc., papers, green re the to non-humans, to extended focus My devices. heterogen this from assembled being was ETS the how fields, organizational various in embedded was ETS h in interested being From research. my in followed started ETS the to difference a make would they how about, I allocation. of methods various of content Th 2011). Pok and Eyal (see translation’ of network th and translation of concept ANT’s the to resorted orde In action. of fields various across negotiated ne ETS unders an the with me provide not could actors, of between structure the understand to me helped of theory the in grounded analysis network the But frombetweenvarious coming actors positions occupy to point could I example, For negotiation. ETS the establish was which actors, of network the of sense field a of concept The visible. more opportunities cleare tha became stakes important The it NGOs? others was and companies how And cement. or steel compani other some that mattered it how curious was I to. between them. On the one hand, hand, one the On them. between r to explain the mechanisms, I mechanisms, the explain to r also helped me to make more more make to me helped also n between the ETS and other and ETS the between n lation work move on, like e.g. e.g. like on, move work lation the actors, which managed to managed which actors, the ieces into coherent proposals proposals coherent into ieces rs to argue for one allocation allocation one for argue to rs is turned my attention to the to attention my turned is ests. On the other hand, they hand, other the On ests. d with various proposal, how proposal, various with d and to various actors which I I which actors various to and ed by the Polish lobbyists in lobbyists Polish the by ed organizational fields, though fields, organizational cnet f eprie s a as ‘expertise of concept e fields. rs, companies, technologies, companies, rs, tanding of how the ETS was was ETS the how of tanding nurn wa te were they what inquiring I began to be interested in in interested be to began I ow the organization of the the of organization the ow y nesadn o the of understanding my for emission allowances, allowances, emission for ports, expert statements, statements, expert ports, d bcue cos were actors because lds s rdd lcrct and electricity traded es aeilt o te ETS the of materiality iy f cos n their and actors of eity oito ad relations and gotiation t some of them were were them of some t , n cntans and constraints and r, 81 CEU eTD Collection various organizational fields. Actors did not only only not did Actors fields. organizational various As Callon and Muniesa (2005) point out, markets are markets out, point (2005) Muniesa and Callon As collection Data actor-networks. translation structuretheto fiel movementto and dynamism more bringing at aims Th avoid. should they whom and approach should they what understand and reality across navigate to able Thanks become. they what illegi become things when moment or legitimate become practices certain which distin and categories new orders, new about brought Purifi negotiation. ETS the in moment final the was boundaries purific that show to seems analyzed I that drew material also They fields. problems, other into of field concerns one of concerns and interests ou carried was translation that argue I field. a of translation, of processes following when way, This movement. and cause o mobilize and battles their frame to actors helped oslain etns raie b te uoen Com European the by organized negotiation, meetings 2008 consultation the preceded Howev that States. events of Heads presents the of Council European 2008 and 2008 January in Directive ETS the for proposal C European the when began negotiation ETS The 2009. on based Se between out carried research fieldwork is extensive analysis The governance. environmental a both is which trade, emission the of organization e is It 2008. January in Commission European the by d and of negotiation the is dissertation this in examined design research the for advice methodological disse this for basis the became which research, The

the new ETS Directive proposed proposed Directive ETS new the t across fields and it re-enacted it and fields across t rnlt polm, objectives, problems, translate ation, rather than mobilization, than rather ation, cation was the mechanism that that mechanism the was cation I did not abandon the concept concept the abandon not did I ptember 2008 and December and 2008 ptember a as remark this took rtation ctions between spaces within spaces between ctions they are doing, why, whom why, doing, are they e mre ad to for tool a and market new produced in various places. various in produced hr cos no common a into actors ther ds and more grounding and moregrounding and ds iae Prfcto i the is Purification timate. ne wt te December the with ended xamined as a case of the the of case a as xamined ewe te. n the And them. between ommission announced the announced ommission objectives, interests and and interests objectives, faeok presented I framework e t cleto. h case The collection. ata and namely, the four four the namely, and to this, actors are again are actors this, to data collected during during collected data mission in 2007. The The 2007. in mission er, the analysis also also analysis the er, 82 CEU eTD Collection th of Office the from officials governmental Group; or the approached: I Poland, In categories. several in energy Thes package 2008.change and Climate the ge more and negotiation, ETS the in with involved actors interviews in-depth seventy around out carried collect were dissertation this in analyzed data The sensitive. Som that at because record the off given were opinions actors. foreign and Polish the from negotiation e very often and fresh, quite collect to me allowed eagerly interviewees my of many and event important cam lobbying Polish the 2009 In debated. still were o many and vivid very still was negotiation ETS the consequen and results its about and negotiation ETS ab actors various from accounts collect to able was extendin By States. of Heads European the of Summit year one 2009, December in ended research field The 2009attitude it aftertheir in see how to 2008 and officia some interview to managed I unveiled. it as f could I way This campaign. lobbying Polish the as P st project this for the collection Data 2008. September of activities lobbying Intensive mid-2008. in the of proposal the to reactions organizational ra and were scheme proposed regard with activities Polish follows dissertation the to objections strongest controver through approached is negotiation ETS The EU. the in and emis on articles and data the secondary on based is how analysis in and of system Kyoto global account the in an institutionalized gives chapter historical functio the to regard with Poland in situation 2008 and political some provide also chapters analytical to the ETS Directive. First media media First Directive. ETS the to s and opinions and schanged. ls during the ETS negotiation in negotiation ETS the during ls arted roughly at the same time time same the at roughly arted ning of the ETS. Moreover, the Moreover, ETS. the of ning time they were still considered considered still were they time ETS Directive came in Poland Poland in came Directive ETS ed through various methods. I methods. various through ed motional, accounts of the ETS the of accounts motional, economic context to the pre- the to context economic ollow the negotiation process negotiation the ollow paign was still considered an considered still was paign out the whole process of the of process whole the out ganizers of the Green Effort Effort Green the of ganizers h E ES Te historical The ETS. EU the emission trade in the world the in trade emission nerally, in the negotiation of negotiation the in nerally, ces. In 2009, the memory of of memory the 2009, In ces. sies it evoked. And since thesince And evoked. it sies olish companies started in in started companies olish e actors may be divided intobedivided may actorse te sus asd n 2008 in raised issues the f after the December 2008 2008 December the after akdaot t Ti also This it. about talked oih n international and Polish and information the of e g my fieldwork to 2009, I I 2009, to fieldwork my g Erpa Integration European e sd n oad the Poland, in ised in rd became trade sion 83 CEU eTD Collection cinNtok uoe te uoen niomna B Environmental European the Europe, Action-Network m the interviewed: I 2009, June-July and 2009 April ak rsdn i Busl (W, repae Friend Greenpeace, (WWF, Brussels in residing tanks e of representatives Environment; DG from officials Rep the of Office Representation the from Directive (before Directive ETS the of proposal the evaluate ne ETS the to regard with taken steps and interests as to able be to interview each before them studied wh organizations all from papers position collected poli climate to relation in role organization’s the individu designed were interview each for Scenarios negotiation. of the ETS the proceedings and dissertation; t this me allowed they since project, this for important in quoted are interviews all Not di I negotiation. ETS the in involved person a with organization each In phone. by leaders union trade Brussels in Group Effort Green the by hired Parliamen company fro European professionals Directive; ETS the the of ofnegotiation Members Unions); Services Mi European Fede Metal European the Federation, Mining-workers’ the Confederation, Union Trade European trad European the from officials Consumers-Europe); Federa International the (Eurelectric, associations o E3G); Bellona, Policy, Environmental European the Brussels In OPZZ). the Solidarnośćand – lead federations Poland; in ZZG the and Solidarność from unions Polis the of leaders Jankowski; Bolesław Poland Poland, in in NGOs ex main the FEWE); environmental Sieć, Zielona Polska Greenpeace, biggest the of engaged Environment leaders of Ministry the from officials and Warsaw t in engaged Economy of between Ministry the from officials Directive ETS the M Prime of the negotiation by assigned was which (UKIE), Committee is n te T ngtain I negotiation. ETS the and cies o better understand the context context the understand better o tion of the Intensive Electricity Electricity Intensive the of tion d not interview any journalists. journalists. any interview not d ere I conducted interviews and interviews conducted I ere nvironmental NGOs and think- and NGOs nvironmental he ETS negotiation; high level high negotiation; ETS he m the public communication communication public the m I was asking for an interview an for asking was I January 2009) or to evaluate evaluate to or 2009) January ally based on my research of of research my on based ally , during two visits in March- in visits two during , bi o Pln i Brussels; in Poland of ublic mnn ad nry trade energy and mining h oee, l o te are them of all however, gotiation. I always asked to asked always I gotiation. k about concrete problems, problems, concrete about k . I also interviewed German interviewed also I . fficials from the employers’ employers’ the from fficials ration, the European Public European the ration, uin raiain (the organizations union e pert on electricity markets markets electricity on pert ain negotiator of the ETS ETS the of negotiator ain r o te oih unions’ Polish the of ers o te at, Climate- Earth, the of s n h ES negotiation; ETS the in urreau, the Institute for for Institute the urreau, Brussels; high level level high Brussels; ig Ceity and Chemistry ning, inister to coordinate coordinate to inister IE PE WWF, PKE, (InE, ivle i the in involved t 84 CEU eTD Collection nte st f aa a cletd uig ie event five during collected was data of set Another various organizations related to each other during during other each to related organizations various actors and themtoorganizations onme advice asked o names disclose not did I people. other from got I id and cooperation intervi some asked I instances many and In controversy. conflict of t lines tried I arguments, way This activities. and postulates their Europe the about asked I organizations, union trade IFIEC, the like proposals, Commission’s the of some organ foreign of representatives interviewed I when their for reactions about asked me tell to and also themselves I ETS. new the to regard with strategies Poland’ about opinion their express to I interviewees negotiation, ETS the in Poland of engagement the in. involved were they disagreements and conflicts act common in organizations, other with cooperation Dir in also ETS was I negotiation. the ETS the of of controversies aspects controversial most the about t January from out carried interviews all (for 2008 Commission’s the with compared as Directive ETS the ETS and climate policies in the EU. I could also ob also could I EU. the in policies climate and ETS part to also me for occasions good I were These recorder conversations. events. voice these during a made on U presentations recorded Workers’ I Energy Grajcarek. and Mining Kazimierz the of Secretariat the an as worked I event last the During 2009. October poli climate on conference unions’ trade a and 2009 Gree the 2009; December May in Katowice in Congress Economic in Poland, in Poznań in COP-14 the during 20 May in London, in Europe’ ‘Energizing conference many of my interviewees.my of many enab meetings These controversial. most were issues ill December 2009). I also asked also I 2009). December ill activities in Brussels. In cases cases In Brussels. in activities terested in the organization’s organization’s the in terested cies in Bad Ort in Germany in Germany in Ort Bad in cies Since, my main focus was on on was focus main my Since, ewees to confirm information information confirm to ewees an Commission’s reactions to reactions Commission’s an serve how representatives of of representatives how serve o reconstruct some lines of of lines some reconstruct o whom I should interview. Ishould whom m ifrat bt often I but informants my f i wih priiae: a participated: I which in s interpreter for the leader of leader the for interpreter ions they carried out and in in and out carried they ions r h idsra European industrial the or led me to identify and meet and identify to me led fill-in my knowledge on the on knowledge my fill-in ztos wih betd to objected which izations, hs meig ad which and meetings those attd, ruet and arguments attitude, s Polish actors to evaluate evaluate to actors Polish n Week in Brussels in June in Brussels in Week n las se m foreign my asked always 08; trade unions’ events events unions’ trade 08; icipated in lunch-break lunch-break in icipated proposal from January January from proposal entify main objects of of objects main entify cie n te biggest the and ective 08 te International the 2008; most speeches and and speeches most nion in Solidarność, Solidarność, in nion 85 CEU eTD Collection After that time, my collection became less systemat less became collection my time, that After – Żmijewski by accessib run publicly company is report This meetings. lobbying en the at prepared Group Effort Green the of report t of part Polish the reproduced E I (ECCP). Programme the constituted meetings These Directive. ETS the the of part a is which meetings, repo the from reconstructed was network the of part established consultto meetingsfour organized during officials actors of network the with Group Effort connec I meetings. numerous its during Group Effort n lobbying the examined also I dissertation this In from two Polish information websites on energy and and energy on websites information Polish two from informati saved systematically I 2009, December and negotiati ETS the on reports media collected also I fromthe received GEG I explanationwas the least, gene more a of name the in regulation different for a be could it that and activities scenes the behind d lobbying that public Polish the to of show to leaders wanted The eye. public the dealings from shady far businessmen of Poland in connotation negative a mentionin worth is public report this making behind during my research fieldwork.research my during will chapters following The Internet. in public the the by collectedwere which GEG, theof appearances 2007. January since Times Financial the in ETS the coll I 2011, June In basis. weekly on database news rcs Inwestycyjne Procesy Impact Assessment Impact transparent process of fighting fighting of process transparent the ETS in 2007. European in The ETS the examine the material collected material the examine leaders. accompanying the proposal of of proposal the accompanying d of 2008 as a document of all all of document a as 2008 of d ral economic interest. This, at This, interest. economic ral ected all articles published on published articles all ected g here. The term lobbying has termlobbying The here. g on. Between September 2008 September Between on. ic but I was still updating the updating still was I but ic tok rae b te Green the by created etwork GEG and made accessible tomade accessible and GEG he network from the official official the from network he in Warsaw. The motivation motivation The Warsaw. in d o hv t ipy these imply to have not id n n h ES negotiation ETS the on on e n h wbie f the of website the on le e atr fo te Green the from actors ted t ouetn tee four these documenting rt as eaie al media all examined also I y h D Environment DG the by nuty CR ad WNP. and CIRE industry: the Green Effort Group Group Effort Green the uropean Climate Change Change Climate uropean ewe pltcas and politicians between 86 CEU eTD Collection n bsnse. t a be rjce ad t a fai has it and rejected been has It businesses. and organiz non-governmental between alliances building been has It actors. particular of determination the gradua has It controversial. highly still ma was trade the in are case the been always not has this today, governance instruments policy market-based While stupid!” economy, “it’s economic and environmental sc reduction emission of flexibility efficiencyand in both expressed become leg the words, other In efficiency”. “environmental cl for criterion prominent a become has efficiency” ac climate of principle organizing an as introduced market of logic the decades, several last the Over c a – rationalit neo-liberal into governmental governance marketization governance climate of case a as impleme and promoted conceptualized, been has trade chapte this In it. against action political on feed It markets. emission of development the furthering th assemblage between political on feed that interests economic generates an relations and – technologies network institutions, socio-technical global a is someth become already has trade emission clear, not gl of approa future the show, Change Climate market-based on Convention a on th to (COPs) Parties the of taken Conferences consecutive gradually has how change of analysis historical a presents chapter This Introduction Hist Fuzzy A Trade States: and Markets Between 2. Chapter

hemes has become key – after all, after – key become has hemes , eaie o te emission the how examine I r, competition has gradually been gradually has competition lly gained legitimacy thanks to thanks legitimacy gained lly action aimed at sustaining and sustaining at aimed action y. put in place in the course of of course the in place in put tmc o ciae cin has action climate of itimacy . Three decades ago emission emission ago decades Three . e United Nations Framework Framework Nations United e also generates interests that that interests generates also in A a eut “economic result, a As tion. led several times in several several in times several led ations, politicians, scientists politicians, ations, mt ato i adto to addition in action imate ing more than a concept. It concept. a than more ing the governance of climate climate of governance the obal emission trade is still still is trade emission obal em. The emission trade trade emission The em. ase of inscribing climate climate inscribing of ase nted. It is discussed here discussed is It nted. f cos projects, actors, of instream of climate climate of instream terms. Economic Economic terms. h Atog, as Although, ch. ory of Emission Emission of ory 87 CEU eTD Collection various alliances between political and other autho other and political between alliances various offer they and theory, social and debate political overestimating against argue (1992) Miller and Rose rel in actors private and public political, between manifest also markets emission the of hybridity The comp with infrastructures. organizations hybrid are markets emission mea still and meant primarily have markets emission or governments some ma e.g. actors, emission other for (EUAs), ‘trade’, Allowances European for credits involv companies European Western traders, bankers, trad emission the for infrastructure administrative o registries, agencies, institutions, created laws, emissi of size the e.g. – trade emission of aspects administerin still are and administered have States Comm European ext large a the to has regionally, and globally market, adminis e.g. as governments, such bodies, national governmental apparatuses, state of suppo strong a without possible been have not would shift neo-liberal a such However, 1992). Miller and (s issues government in interested scholars by with government neo-liberal of spread The literature. in rationality governmental gover climate of financialization and marketization tech neo-liberal new a a called perpetuating be therefore could trade Emission markets. by by problems ecological governing from shift a about celebr may trade emission century, twenty-first the the in general, in However, down. t it tearing toward enough cr strong big its has not trade emission today, proved Even networks. have allies Some places. cnmc ciiy sca lf ad niiul condu individual and life social activity, economic mntrn mcaim a an as mechanisms monitoring r ent been orchestrated by states. by orchestrated been ent ation to knowledge production. knowledge to ation nance. This problem is not new new not is problem This nance. on caps. States have amended amended have States caps. on ct. They underline the role of of role the underline They ct. e. While for some actors, e.g. e.g. actors, some for While e. in environmental governance governance environmental in conceptual tools for studying studying for tools conceptual rities that seek to govern the govern to seek that rities n ‘administration’. Therefore, ‘administration’. n l ainlt hs en dealt been has rationality al ate its big success, bringing bringing success, big its ate the ‘problem of State’ in the the in State’ of ‘problem the the state to governing them governing to state the first and second decades of decades second and first act who opponents and itics ee e.g. Foucault 1991, Rose Rose 1991, Foucault e.g. ee the European Commission, Commission, European the ad otoln important controlling and g rt and organizational effort organizational and rt s itself in alliances forged forged alliances in itself s n laig o the to leading and d n xhnig CDM exchanging in ed e sae n market and state lex nology of governance governance of nology trations, or regional regional or trations, kt piaiy mean primarily rkets dsate adverse dismantle o ission. The emission emission The ission. 88 CEU eTD Collection a politicians agencies, federal Senators, U.S. with su U.S. the into Kyoto the into also on later and program, reduction them weave to applicati managed practical and out theories worked has which (EDF) Fund t think based U.S. the example, for been, has trade c of center socio-t important An extended 1987). Latour (see and created produced is problem particular where place a is calculation of center A interests. si various between objects’ ‘boundary the as served tra emission the for 1987) Latour (see calculation” w network trade emission the of parts and sites the mult on acting authorities diverse about story a is emissio the of history the telling of challenge The it.toagency given has bring to helped has it – assemblage trade emission Knowledge action. climate the de-politicize helped pol been has trade emission of knowledge the times, ideologi or geographically have who actors together the of one been has production Knowledge relations. authoritie and things actors, to roles new ascribed particular and governments markets, change, climate compr to helping and up summing idioms provided has diverse their and actors ideas, adverse (e.g. apparently gaps bridged often has Expertise goals. their advanc to actors some by used structure opportunity Experti them. establishing in role crucial a played wher authorities diverse between alliances emis shifting of history the examine to propose I Therefore, 177).p. Miller1992, and compo central a such become has that techniques and persons of assemblage vast a to refers but ‘ideas’, “ which knowledge, – governance modern in knowledge n trade resides in the fact that it that fact the in resides trade n , theories, projects, experiments experiments projects, theories, , iple sites. I propose to look for for look to propose I sites. iple transmittable knowledge of a of knowledge transmittable new into them inscribed and s se has often functioned as an an as functioned often has se Protocol. EDF, in cooperation cooperation in EDF, Protocol. goals and interests. Expertise Expertise interests. and goals hich served as the “centers of of “centers the as served hich this assemblage together and and together assemblage this de and for the objects which which objects the for and de kolde rdcin has production knowledge e d opne, aae to managed companies, nd the “Project 88”) between between 88”) “Project the s n motn pr i the in part important an is ank Environmental Defense Defense Environmental ank al be qie itn. At distant. quite been cally economic actors. Expertise Expertise actors. economic tes, actors, authorities and and authorities actors, tes, e their position and pursue and position their e iticized and at times it has has it times at and iticized luain o te emission the for alculation nent of government” (Rose (Rose government” of nent in rd a a itr of history a as trade sion mechanisms for bringing bringing for mechanisms ehend relations between between relations ehend cncl ewrs are networks echnical ons of emission trade trade emission of ons does not simply mean mean simply not does fr ixd emission dioxide lfur 89 CEU eTD Collection various localities without the need to establish a a establish to need the without localities various opne, h U ad emr aog uoen countr government Polish The case. European peculiar a seems Poland among Denmark and th At bureaucracies. European the among Environment UK the companies, an BP Europe, in and emission U.S. the to in NGOs regard environmental with movers first Such it. about accor in governance climate market-based of network to ability an and advantage mover first a with them act h early the that is within important seems what shape However, got ideas certain how examine rather onto trade emission o ‘imposed’ has trade, who actor emission central the of history the examining When newtrade into emissionenrolling the allies helped and policy successful a as served trade emission promoting also trade, emission internal BP’s later and elem its of each connecting directly and physically issue-related an of sense a create objects Boundary necessari without trade emission the practicing and EDF’s report report EDF’s actor bound by by bound actor Eur the and (BP) Petroleum British the 1990s, early Administration Bush’s President Senate, U.S. the to object boundary a as served trade, emission the of communication provide They another. to locality one c ideas, translating help They 1989). Griesemer and acto by re-interpreted being for space some provide loosely are They authorities. and interests actors, pote the have which objects, are objects’ ‘Boundary democraand capitalism fromtoCommunism transition unde Poland time the at – 1990s early the in Poland in trade emission on debates initiated It life. own Lev a trade, emission of actor-network an establish Project 88Project Project 88Project – which, among other things, explained the practic the explained things, other among which, – could refer to other actors as knowing, understand knowing, as actors other to refer could Europe in the late 1990s and in in and 1990s late the in Europe network. structured in common use and and use common in structured central coordinating body. The body. coordinating central ents. The U.S. sulfur program, sulfur U.S. The ents. iathan, which started living its living started which iathan, opean Commission (EC). Each (EC). Commission opean rs in their local uses (see Star Star (see uses local their in rs ly getting in touch with them. with touch in getting ly binding EDF’s emission trade emission EDF’s binding network without necessarily necessarily without network rwent economic and political political and economic rwent business strategy, and thus and strategy, business ion of some actors provided actors some of ion nlec ad ul u the up build and influence oncepts, and interests from from interests and oncepts, ntial of connecting various various connecting of ntial s budr ojcs for objects’ ‘boundary as n codnto between coordination and dance with their own ideas own their with dance Pls eooit i the in economists Polish , cy. e backdrop of these actors, theseofactors, backdrop e other actors. One should should One actors. other trade were EDF among among EDF were trade a apoce b EDF by approached was d Shell among global oil oil global among Shell d e ant niae one indicate cannot ne eterogeneous networks. networks. eterogeneous e, n DG and ies, alities ing, 90 CEU eTD Collection tnaie xlnto pooe hr i ta te c the that is here proposed explanation tentative A Scheme. Trading Emission Union i later, only the and 1990s mid systems, the in idea working the dropped and rules practical into trade the coin to managed EC and BP while However, 1990s. (EC Commission European the e with exchange EDF knowledge before and 1990s the of end the at system own EDF before years of couple a was This 1990s. early efficient economically installing of idea the with the socio-technical network needed for trading emis trading for needed network socio-technical the infrastructure existing its used company the easily t emission installing of story the contrary, the On Kyoto the and trade emission to hostile was Europe early the in and say, to tend economists as expand, other to expand to trade emission the for prospects Poland in trade emission the introducing in failure thus and ‘weak’, and ‘thin’ were 1990s early the in e.g. experts, trade emission Polish of eyes the In practice? they become do when socio-tec as markets do when consideration for asks practice a been not has permits into pollution trading of network put been never has it wit policy-makers, circulating was – permits pollution tradable of c a of concept a while And place. in not still were moni emission p of exchange forthe regulating laws the rules and developed and equipment the training, since high, very was markets of components insti free the – encounters’ ‘calculative actors. various between relations market regulated and – emissions ti of that at Poland ‘ – language, behavior market to trained managers – agencies’ Callon’s use To EU. the higher much was trade emission of network technical emission trade for pollution in the in pollution for trade emission Żylicz (1999), markets in Poland Poland in markets (1999), Żylicz alculation method – the concept concept the – method alculation rade system in BP shows how how shows BP in system rade not able to function well. The well. function to able not to establish emission trade – trade emission establish to ssembled in Poland. This case This Poland. in ssembled 1990s, the whole of Western Western of whole the 1990s, And the cost of organizing all organizing of cost the And calculable objects’ – registers registers – objects’ calculable sions was to a large extent in in extent large a to was sions n 2005, joined the European European the joined 2005, n agreement was still to come. to still was agreement a as cue b vague by caused also was hin the Polish networks of of networks Polish the hin in and BP in than Poland in ncl sebae fi and fail assemblages hnical managers lacked sufficient sufficient lacked managers persuaded BP to launch its its launch to BP persuaded onre. akt lk to like Markets countries. s o asmln a socio- a assembling of ost roperty rights of emissions emissions of rights roperty because a socio-technical socio-technical a because Polish government has has government Polish uinlzd n legally and tutionalized tbihd ntok of network a stablished knowledge of emission emission of knowledge ) also at the end of the of end the at also ) e akd ‘calculative lacked me oig ee o well not were toring 91 CEU eTD Collection An increasing attention paid to the problem of clim of problem the to paid attention increasing An bu ffen er atr h atmt t isal t install to attempts the after years fifteen About at university seminars at the best U.S. graduate sc graduate U.S. best the at seminars university at mar more creating by failures market of problem the econ environmental of maturity theoretical relative trade. emission in interest th was BP and Commission, European the hooked trade 19 the of end the At targets. Kyoto the with comply f looking was Europe and Community European the for a tax carbon 1990s, the of end the at since Europe, extendin for prospects clear also were There place. How Economics Met EnvironmentalismHowEconomicsMet governance. colonizes climate the it which and neo-liberalism of dynamics the of understanding ai here adopted approach the and in analysis following enormous was administrations and states of role t order in markets regional or local into assembled authorities. and actors events, many on contingent ne historical a been not has It automatic. been not log neo-liberal the of spread The cases. particular should trade emission the of success the Therefore, in emissions. trade l many by and trade emission for conditions prepare la a by marked were Poland in trade emission the of w as time that at sh high was Poland will in trade emission analysis the as And, initiative. its to due wi negotiated been not had which rules existing the late-comer– a was Poland time this However, (ETS). Uni European the join to had Poland 2004, in EU the th to back get to had government Polish the failed,

ic of governing air pollution has pollution air governing of ic o be put into practice. And the And practice. into put be o omics. Theories trying to solve to trying Theories omics. w te ot f ntlig the installing of cost the ow, cessity, but it has rather been been rather has it but cessity, is issue. With the accession to to accession the With issue. is ate change came along with a with along came change ate ppeared a failed policy option policy failed a ppeared hools. An argument has been been has argument An hools. an actor that had to adjust to adjust to had that actor an e msin rd i Poland in trade emission he be examined with regard to regard with examined be ell. Therefore, the first years years first the Therefore, ell. 90s, the concept of emission emission of concept the 90s, on Emission Trading Scheme Trading Emission on th its participation, let alone let participation, its th ost opportunities to actually actually to opportunities ost t a t b ognzd and organized be to had It a poiig oe better some providing at m rge administrative effort to effort administrative rge kets have slowly developed slowly have kets eiso tae o whole to trade emission g h mcaim through mechanisms the rnig t no ie The life. into it bringing ere to enhance Europe’s Europe’s enhance to ere or a new mechanism to to mechanism new a or 92 CEU eTD Collection part “affected the created are rights property Once s the what, owned who matter no enterprise: private responsib the of idea the against argued also Coase wel common a to contribute to used be will dump the I market. the on put be should dumps pollution that Hi them. measure to how therefore, is, question the produces rights these Exercising labor. or land use l just production, of factor a was pollute to right commo or resource another just of as dump pollution Ky the of way a in also thus and trading, pollution economist,is University Chicago ofa Coase, Ronald 59). (Pearcep 2002,well-being overall the improve preva logic t for compensate may gainers that cost-benefit made was argument The resources. c on army’s spending U.S. the following economics effic of environmental issue the Also 1920s. the in Pigou of work pri no which for party third a to effect beneficial therefore e an of externalities, idea The 58). (p. for well-being human maximize account not do systems t are economics environmental of tenets central The 58). p. 2002, c environmentalism on reflection the brought action and costs DDT of awareness of growing use a and the productivity, business, agrochemical the of growth Carson Rachel by initiated revolution environmental pol the against age of came economics environmental of scarcity the of problem the to related initially W in established was (REF) Future the for Resources the in 1950s in originated economics acti Environmental economic of externalities the assignin market and the on problems– environmental putting for made ike other rights – e.g. the right to right the e.g. – rights other ike resources. But only in the 1960s the in only But resources.

f a market is a perfect market, perfect a is market a f the from came exacted, is ce considered the grandfather of grandfather the considered oto Protocol. He thought of a a of thought He Protocol. oto externalities to third parties; parties; third to externalities hat market-oriented economic market-oriented hat s answer to this question was question this to answer s ’s Silent Spring in 1962. The 1962. in Spring Silent ’s l-being (see Lohmann 2006). 2006). Lohmann (see l-being g market them. gtomarket value ec bcm poiet to prominent became iency ashington D.C. Its work was work Its D.C. ashington lt fr rpry a i the in as property, for ility (Pearce economics to loser xternality, a detrimental or detrimental a xternality, dity. According to him, the him, to According dity. e tesle cn decide can themselves ies itical backdrop of the first the of backdrop itical he losses of the others and others the of losses he m rsls ol occur. would results ame benefits of any economic economic any of benefits United States when the the when States United hs sses cannot systems those ld n wt tm an time with and iled oncerns about military military about oncerns to raise agricultural agricultural raise to on – in particular particular in – on 93 CEU eTD Collection different a in it about thought (EDF), Fund Defense dir executive the Krupp, Fred However, climate. the gl may for relations economic global blame of change structural to is capitalism that argues FoE gain. g them of both while markets emission project-based t from resulting inequalities new to Friends point Theexample, years. for left environmental European b has trade emission of idea The enemies. of number o it bring to attempts First business. and politics lecture academic of tranquility the of out taken be of heart the to came trade emission before However, market. carbon Union’s European the on exchan may they which credits, emission obtain they dev the in emissions reducing Kyoto’s into invest the countries Within e both. (project-based Implementation Joint on and Mechanism based is trade emission polluters-pay the on based is system cap-and-trade environm border cross prevent to order in standards i for states poorer pay states rich when cases many and poor is polluter the when situations world real fir the at unfair appears solution second the While an put Coase ideas, both of efficiency the of terms sec the in and pays polluter the case, first the In payi sufferer the involved second The polluter. the imp that regulation of form some or polluter), (the o tax a was Pigou, of work the from familiar first, of conducive was context externality an that observed one was Pearce As Cost” economics. environmental Social to contributions of “Problem article Coase’s 686). trad private through activities restrict to whether ond the victim pays” (p. 61). In 61). (p. pays” victim the ond n the creator of the externality externality the of creator the n t o h solgt and t a it earned spotlight the to ut equation mark between them. between mark equation principle but the project-based project-based the but principle ing of rights” (Kysar 2003, p. p. 2003, (Kysar rights” of ing ng the polluter not to pollute. pollute. to not polluter the ng to two potential solutions. The solutions. potential two to rooms to the hectic world of world hectic the to rooms mproving their environmental environmental their mproving st glance, it may be found in found be may it glance, st on action of burden the osed the victim is rich. There are are There rich. is victim the way: “capitalism had got us got had “capitalism way: bring about a real change to change real a about bring the Kyoto Protocol, it had to had it Protocol, Kyoto the e lbl a-n-rd and cap-and-trade global he lpd onre. n return In countries. eloped enerate little environmental little enerate ector of the Environmental Environmental the of ector e o eiso allowances emission for ge (2002) points out, “Coase “Coase out, points (2002) een hated by the U.S. and U.S. the by hated een na dmgs Te Kyoto The damages. ental bl amn ad ny a only and warming obal iso tae, developed trade), mission f h Erh FE, for (FoE), Earth the of the most important important most the la Development Clean 94 CEU eTD Collection As Pooley (2011) reports, Graff had radical ideas a ideas radical had Graff reports, (2011) Pooley As And it was Fred Krupp’s great determination that to that determination great Krupp’s Fred was it And eprtl nee i, n ue h poed t fina to proceeds the use and it, needed desperately sell to districts irrigation allow should state the ri untamed few the on dams new building of “instead who economist Ph.D. a Willey, Zach hired he 1975 In connectto EDF link tothe be missing supposed was p. 2011, (Pooley them of one was office California laws environmental of proponents active as act them mo for looking started organizations some strategy, the of core the constituted still suits court While behavior. green encourage to 56). p. 2011, (Pooley thin only the was capitalism and mess, climate into Graff, a graduate from Harvard Law School and the L the and School Law Harvard from graduate a Graff, at w house EDF of fraternity office regional a California of The California. floor top the on office an organizatio the when 1970s the in already attention economics Environmental organization. the of agenda organiza the to crucial (Pool were lawyers and science” scientists hard on based advocacy environmental 196 the from strategy EDF’s describes (2011) Pooley top. (Pooley2011, wished it be” he than as rather “dea it call to preferred who Krupp, Fred pragmatic enemi with “sleeping through achieved been times at o stories success great were these – packaging foam do 2000s the till gasolin of out lead getting DDT, on 1960sBan impression. late the from EDF by scored re the However, group’. front ‘corporate a being of r (2011) environ European the Hague, in negotiations climate Pooley Eric As Brussels. and Warsaw Kyoto, their access water to cities that that cities to water access their U.S. environmental movement’s movement’s environmental U.S. 56). bout using financial incentives financial using bout 59). Environmental economics Environmental 59). e, getting McDonald’s drop its drop McDonald’s getting e, cord of environmental actions actions environmental of cord des of action, which would let would which action, of des n was still very small and had and small very still was n to the world of policy making. policy of world theto ok emission trade as far as to as far as trade emission ok g that could get us out of it” it” of out us get could that g in u sinit doe the drove scientists but tion, mental activists accused EDF EDF accused activists mental as founded in 1971 by Tom Tom by 1971 in founded as ling with the world as it was was it as world the with ling f EDF. And even if they have they if even And EDF. f c nw riain systems” irrigation new nce es”, this did not concern the concern not did this es”, 0s and 1970s as “courtroom as 1970s and 0s . Tom Graff from the EDF’s EDF’s the from Graff Tom . ondon School of Economics. of School ondon es et n aiona (…) California, in left vers the Berkeley campus in in campus Berkeley the tre atatn EDF’s attracting started rpsd aiona that California proposed prs a te 00 UN 2000 the at eports, es not convey such an an such convey not es y 01 p 5) Both 59). p. 2011, ey 95 CEU eTD Collection York office. He was the one who already had a clear a had already who one the was He office. York environmentalism would: Stage Third the (Pool capital the with cooperation the to open remained While clos itself positioned mainly Stage action. Third was the 1970s orientation, environmental and 1960s the into of environmentalism them engage to to condemwant not did EDF clear – was Krupp by out economic more generate to supposed was it contrary, with collide to not supposed was Krupp by news promoted of “capitalistic” most the in environmentalism environm an for move revolutionary a was It 69-70). St Wall the of page opinion the on environmentalism arriva the announced Krupp 1986 November In ope makers. and funding new attract movement, environmental ma advanc to EDF allowed made This EDF. of product distinct Krupp colleagues, economist his by Inspired emissions. exp and emissions of level) maximum (a cap a set to solv EDF one, Later 68). p. 201, (Pooley another’s” on equate to how for approval get and regulator the to wanted facilities two “If amounts. emission than in compliance of definition the one was trade emission out, points (2011) Pooley As 2011). (Pooley off exp these However, Agency. Protection emissio Environmental installing of initiatives local of couple a th in trade emissionfor push to Beforedecided EDF 2011). practice (Pooley work in could was Dudek, Dan economist, environmental another on, concepts academic these made who EDF at guys other Michig of University the at school law a at studies environme in interested been also had Krupp EDF. of Graff 1980s, the of beginning the At 2011). (Pooley n trade supported by the US US the by supported trade n r o h pltcl etr and center political the to er terms of emission rates rather rather rates emission of terms trade, they had to go back to back go to had they trade, hired Fred Krupp as the CEO the as Krupp Fred hired e U.S., there had already been already e had there U.S., e facility’s emission rates with rates emission facility’s e ed this problem by proposing proposing by problem this ed ental organization to promote to organization ental n bt t a Gaf n the and Graff was it but an, reet Journal (Pooley 2011, p. 2011, (Pooley Journal reet e its position within the U.S. U.S. the within position its e idea on how emission trade trade emission how on idea ress reductions in tonnes of of tonnes in reductions ress n corporations but it wanted it but corporations n ey 2011). Krupp wrote that that wrote Krupp 2011). ey f h polm fcd by faced problems the of growth. The message sent sent message The growth. papers. Environmentalism Environmentalism papers. eriments never really took really never eriments live in Krupp’s head. Later head. Krupp’s in live cnmc rwh o the on growth, economic ie t te D’ New EDF’s the to hired ntal economics since his his since economics ntal n new paths to policy policy to paths new n rket-based solutions a a solutions rket-based o te Tid Stage” “Third the of l leftist in its political political its in leftist eod Stage Second 96 CEU eTD Collection rtc te Environment the Protect at warming global put EDF mid-1980s, the in Already As Pooley (2011) points out, “the piece ended with with ended piece “the out, points (2011) Pooley As Wirth from Colorado and John Heinzfrom Pennsylvani and fromColorado Wirth so market-based with report called was It a problems. environmental prepared EDF 1988, In by persuaded be could action. environmental who Republicans of fractions prob environmental in interested more could It traditionally scene. political the within position EDF’s environmental to solutions market Promoting 2011). interest getting were who Fund Brothers Rockefeller Ger the from funding new attracted This priorities. From the Bush Administration to the Kyotothe to Protocol Administration FromBush the 2011). (Pooley scheme” theto central notices, environmenta market-driven EDF’s and Reagan, Ronald briefly (2011) Pooley pla a hatching was Bush President “Vice approaching As lunch. for i House and idea the in interested got Bush, W. cou H. George the Gray, Boyden C. but movement, The environmental 70). (p. cost”’ economic and social lower a at environ ‘greater achieve could incentives’ oriented

and you have a lasting cure. (Krupp after (Krupp cure. Pooley20 you have a lasting and u the s Answer again. and only again surface treating will problems are we ways Otherwise, needs. alternative underlying finding in lie solutions long-term n underlying those meet to ways alternative long-term finding that and – needs social legitimate always harm, environmental major threaten that pesticides and dams and dumps waste the behind that recognize Sais 98 ad a cmisoe b Sntr Tim Senator by commissioned was and 1988) (Stavins Project 88: Harnessing Market Forces to to Forces Market Harnessing 88: Project mental and economic benefits benefits economic and mental

a vague promise that ‘market- that promise vague a a Mrhl Fn ad the and Fund Marshall man ed in climate change (Pooley change climate in ed the top of the organization’sthe of top the pel oh o Democrats to both appeal n to distinguish himself from himself distinguish to n problems could also change also could problems esg otae te U.S. the outraged message a. Robert Stavins fromEDF, Robert Stavins a. vtd rp t te White the to Krupp nvited es s el s o some to as well as lems 11, p. 70)p. 11, lism would turn out to be to out turn would lism sl o ie President Vive to nsel power plants and plants power since elections were were elections since hr ae nearly are there o et those meet to nderlying needs, needs, nderlying ouin le in lie solutions eeds – and that that and – eeds h mre lgc of logic market the uin fr various for lutions mtm; the ymptoms; 97

CEU eTD Collection York, the Richard King Mellon Foundation, the Rocke the Foundation, Mellon King Richard the York, rjc 88Project itr i te rsdnil lcin, D md its made EDF elections, presidential the in victory y aig h polm f cd an n or i his strateg perfect in a like board seemed approach market-based on rain acid of problem the taking by a Bush’s enhanced and well very resonated It 1982). Lat and Callon 1987, Latour see devices inscription c the transporting for device inscription an called ewe polm ra woe betvs emd incom seemed objectives whose areas problem between wor it concerns environmental and economic together earlier.two years Krupp byJournal Street Wall Stat Third the of announcement the to refer authors large at world the and Americansface which hazards approaches new cost-effective, most best, the find of goal The them. achieve to measures practical but n does report the Consequently, wast ix). (p. resources” that conduct the change to and pollution deter ingenu the and marketplace the of forces the enlist ar there environment, clear have to ways many among H and Wirth Senators report, the to foreword the In report. the governmentand contrib organizations, environmental figure fifty than More viii). p. 1988, (seeStavins Envi the and Associates Center/Madison Keystone and Car the sources: multiple from financed was project Harv exper the at coordinated Government, of policy School Kennedy public of professor and economist an trying to advance their positions in various power power various in positions their advance to trying environment, the for economy, the for opportunities inpolitica promoted and public theto presented be acto various enrolling for tool important an became making. aacs ewe invtvns ad rdto, and tradition, and innovativeness between balances s from academia, private industry, private fromacademia, s to the mounting environmental environmental mounting the to ot discuss environmental goals environmental discuss ot l circles as being ripe withnew ripe being l circlesas rs into emission trade. It could It trade. emission into rs net f msin rd (on trade emission of oncept a t te etr f policy- of center the to way but also for particular actors particular for also but ” (Project 1988, p. 1) and the the and 1) p. 1988, (Project ” ity of entrepreneurs to help help to entrepreneurs of ity spiration to promote himself promote to spiration feller Family and Associates, Associates, and Family feller circles. the report sounds bold: “to bold: sounds report the uted to or reviewed drafts of drafts reviewed or to uted y for Bush and with Bush’s with and Bush for y u 18, aln n Law and Callon 1981, our Evrnetls i the in Environmentalism e negie Corporation of New New of Corporation negie iz 18) on ot that out point (1988) einz t work on this report. The The report. this on work t s n dgae nature's degrades and es lcin apin EDF’s campaign. election e “innovative measures to measures “innovative e Institute Policy ronmental r Uiest’ Jh F. John University’s ard s s budr object boundary a as ks mensurable. mensurable. rjc 88Project y bringing by rjc 88Project ol be could 98

CEU eTD Collection As the acid rain problem matured in the policy agen policy the in matured problem rain acid the As

eeoig ol, n lt h dvlpn ntos of nations developing the de let the and parts, world, two developing in world the split mandate Berlin emission targ an to reduction committed China, binding as such countries, on agreeing from Senate U.S. Poole as – economy vs. climate – opposition alleged fo harmful being as action climate frame to managed glo a of opponents U.S., the in however, time, same negotiatio Kyoto theof deal-breaker a became trade EDF into “bought Administration Clinton the Slowly, continents. both optionon a discredited was Kyo the of time the By 2009). have Braun 2008, to MacKenzie difficult it made Community European the in unanimi of requirement The issue. tax carbon the on t in intervention state of much too meant It cases. idea the But Gore. Al by favored was it U.S. the in th by proposed was it Europe In Europe. in and U.S. propo of decade a was Nineties The 1997). (December Climate on Convention Framework Nations United the of ahead years two almost – trade carbon promote to wa it – challenge In bigger. be to had action of scale tougher the Therefore, much a was warming Global b warming. global a for trade emission promote to object’ su ‘boundary U.S. The world. the to show to trade emission of its had comp EDF importantly, more But dollars). in billion dollars billion (3 expected than cost lower emissio dioxide sulfur of percent 5 dioxi Around success. sulfur The system. the in present and defined maximum the – ‘cap’ the that sure made He trading. the of architect main the became and t Agency by Policy appointed got EDF, from economist an Goffmann, the Spring of 1996 EDF set out out set EDF 1996 of Spring the he U.S. and Europe was divided was Europe and U.S. he positive and practical example practical and positive y (2011) puts it, prevented the prevented it, puts (2011) y ns (Pooley 2011, p. 89). At the At 89). p. 2011, (Pooley ns f abn a fie i both in failed tax carbon of bal deal to reduce emissions reduce to deal bal ty in voting on fiscal matters fiscal on voting in ty e European Commission and and Commission European e the important conference of of conference important the s ee eue a a much a at reduced were ns well was – emissions of level da of Bush’s Administration, Bush’s of da de trade turned out a big big a out turned trade de arison to the expected 10 10 expected the to arison s prah ad cap-and- and approach” ’s another became trade lfur a a wl. n 95 “the 1995, In well. as cap the in both tax carbon sing f the hook for mandatory mandatory for hook the f igger cause – for fighting fighting for – cause igger to conference, carbon tax carbon conference, to Change in Kyoto in Japan Japan in Kyoto in Change ytm o slu dioxide sulfur for system r the U.S. economy. The The economy. U.S. the r eoe ntos n the and nations veloped abn a pse (see passed tax carbon he U.S. Environmental Environmental U.S. he t uls developing unless ets s a global problem. problem. global a s 99 CEU eTD Collection A major U.S. opposition to emission reductions by a by reductions emission to opposition U.S. major A Americans agreed to defer the question to later tal later to question the defer to agreed Americans motn ast fr netet ak ad e risk- new and banks investment for assets important GHG. only the not is dioxide carbon as commodities – dioxide carbon – commodity new a with market new i trade emission establishing for lobbied EDF which consti funds hedge in people and people Street Wall g „new”finance economytheservices ofand action, well. as tax combustion a fuel fossil was on based economy this industrial all, in all that, was trade fossil the by raised counter-arguments main the of r a as warming global of certainty the about doubts anthrop campai about media manifestos, theories publications, Conferences, oppose to willing scientists f the how describes (2011) Pooley sectors. coal and 2011, 92framework”p.(Pooley cap-and-trade global ial, uig h Koo eoitos “o vi b avoid “to negotiations, Kyoto the during Finally, C letting not of but completely, Protocol Kyoto the U.S. the time, that At Protocol. Kyoto the signing una to Senate U.S. the for structure opportunity an 1 the of end the At change. climate toward and them to and countries, ‘developing’ and ‘developed’ the d important another be to proved mandate Berlin The pro (2011) Pooley 90). p. fact: this commentaryto 2011, (Pooley reductions” to hate Kyoto, an excuse not to get on board. (Pool on anexcuse board. Kyoto, get to nothate to t competitorgave a global as wasemerging China as the should nor fab the into refusal their weaving but time, to, expected the at cuts India and mandatory China accepted negotiations. climate global the of beca this politicians, American many of eyes the In Senate did not think of ‘killing’ ‘killing’ of think not did Senate ks (…). In return America got a got America return In (…). ks ot interested in carbon trade. in interested ot hina get away from the deal. deal. the from away get hina 990s, in the U.S. it worked as as worked it the U.S. in 990s, ). eal, man-made problem. One problem. man-made eal, organized to oppose climate climate oppose to organized ny means came from the oil oil the from came means ny tuted the main target group target main the tuted However, while the “old” “old” the while However, te .. hs ol b a be would This U.S. the n ul lc aant emission against block fuel ossil fuel sectors mobilized mobilized sectors fuel ossil and in the future even more more even futurethe in and iosy oe gis U.S. against vote nimously ncie eain between relations inscribe egn pout cud be could products hedging n – l amd t raising at aimed all – gns evice to define the roles of of roles the define to evice ey90)p. 2011, ric of the system just just system the of ric oig p h da, the deal, the up lowing GHGs could become new new become could GHGs gnc lbl warming. global ogenic me the original sin original the me he Senate a reason a Senate he olnt have wouldn’t ie a insightful an vides y have been been have y 100 CEU eTD Collection America. In 2001 America – alone in the industriali the in alone – America 2001 In America. As Tomasz Żylicz, the Warsaw Ecological Economics C Economics Ecological Warsaw the Żylicz, Tomasz As Transitionfor in anEconomyTrade Emission with targets reduction Change Climate since. on ever Convention Framework binding to committed not has participation the without trade emission for system world the way, This Administration. Clinton the by no did Administration Junior Bush The Protocol. the wi Pr however, 2005; February the 16 on Japan force into Kyoto, entered in 1997 December 11 on Finally, to economicotherbusiness actors. profitable infras companies service emitting in action environmental of costs a w only Not needed future. the in grow market could infrastructure new A t opportunities. emission banks, brokers, trade consultancies, for glob the on emissions in trade who those to offered transition. transition. environment the to rationality governmental exch liberal knowledge of a as here discussed briefly case be will it researched, curious this Although 1990s. emi of concept the with Poland approached it UNFCC, emi promoting campaign its launched EDF before Even the neo-liberal aspirations of Polish economic and and economic Polish of aspirations neo-liberal the p the from appealing was it as forums political and at cost-e trading emission of idea the The 141). (p. improve policies” to trading emission of “stron advantage has (ME) Environment of Ministry the of (ED) tradab domestic beginning the From policies. environmental Poland’s implementing on of launch the marked 1989 protection, environmental OECD of publication

case of a failed transfer of neo- of transfer failed a of case tracted interest from academic academic from interest tracted al emission market. Moreover, market. emission al t want to pursue the path trod path the pursue to want t gained a global cap-and-trade global a gained olitical point of view. It fitted It view. of point olitical of its main author. The U.S. U.S. The author. main its of zed world – refused to ratify ratify to refused – world zed al agenda of an economy in in economy an of agenda al , the Economics Department Department Economics the , , but it could also become a become also could it but , ud msin rd reduce trade emission ould rade offered new business business new offered rade a comprehensive reform of of reform comprehensive a hu te ntd tts of States United the thout political reformers. Żylicz Żylicz reformers. political enter, points out in a 1999 a in out points enter, l rcmedd taking recommended gly ffectiveness of the new new the of ffectiveness so tae n h early the in trade ssion in the United Nations’ Nations’ United the in otocol was adopted. It It adopted. was otocol so tae ihn the within trade ssion ne s tl under- still is ange rcue n this and tructure e emt for permits le 101 CEU eTD Collection sa the At 148). (p. Poland” constructin for bases institutional/infrastructural in eroded severely been “t 1980s, late the in that out points (1999) Żylicz economy. central-planned co to also had it Poland In 1980s. the in Poland in command-and-co existing already the confront to had the and U.S. the in like Poland, In 148). p. 1999, cert with comply to allowed were polluter high-cost low-cost one least at if achieved, be could savings hardly-exis or thin in even that, was argument main Po democratic new the to recommended be to took promoted workshop Polish-American a 1989 of fall the In trade. emissionof all Poland’s were Americans 2000s. the of beginning em European a lea consider seriously to began and trade started Europe analysis, this in t later shown shows be This Eu ambiguous. Eur the Western than sooner much trade emission ethically considering the as as TPPs Poland, perceived for choice policy stress obvious also He passed. been never has bill 1991 the 19 environmental of process early the soon but the bright seemed in that comments (1999) Żylicz option. also it – drafted was Act Ecologica Protection National Environmental the into (TPP) Permits Pollution approved officially Parliament Polish the 1991, In 147). bureaucracies”(p. of power “le of that economists dissident the the for was (TPPs) of advantage political potential the that clear ho research, more need still place took development Th 147). (p. 1989” to prior economists dissident by pol environmental for “ideas that out points (1999) he central planning ideology has ideology planning central he g an emission market were very very were market emission an g West of Europe, emission trade emission Europe, of West nfront decades of the socialist, the of decades nfront icy reform were (…) developed developed (…) were reform icy tting the market constrain the constrain market the tting ain regulations jointly” (Żylicz jointly” regulations ain e circumstances in which this this which in circumstances e ting markets, substantial cost substantial markets, ting wever, Żylicz (1999) makes it makes (1999) Żylicz wever, ies in developing the concept the developing in ies the introduction of Tradable Tradable of introduction the rdbe olto Permits Pollution Tradable oltr n a neighboring a and polluter ission trading scheme at the at scheme trading ission nn mr aot emission about more rning opean Community. As it will it As Community. opean ntrol approach put in place in put approach ntrol reforms slowed down and down slowed reforms policy a as TPPs included s ht Ps ee o an not were TPPs that es lc, hr TP were TPPs where place, new a 1991 In Policy. l 0, rset fr TPPs for prospects 90s, ih oenet “The government. lish ropean counterparts counterparts ropean a Pln started Poland hat me time, however, however, time, me 102 CEU eTD Collection the and countries OECD overview wide a gave which 1989), (OECD, Protection policies Instr Economic on environmental publication a was This of economies. understanding the widel enhance and Polish into translated were reports major cha pollution existing the to alternative preferred Poland in circumstances particular the under that, poli persuade to rather but approaches, and-control much so not seemed thus challenge main “The 1980s. in been had charges pollution of system a Moreover, 148).p. 1999, (Żylicz trade emission implementing for obstacles main two e and structures market well-established of absence Consequently 148). p. 1999, (Żylicz administration” “ex the to used were managers Industrial generated. le produced, they goods for markets free at operate had managers industrial as overcome, be to barriers certain were there that clear became also It weak. ees Fn (D) o onl dvlp plt proje pilot a develop Eco The trade. emission of viability and usefulness jointly to (EDF) Fund Defense agreement an reached Department Economics the 1990, spec policy environmental of number a from interest Econ the of plans The experiment. trading emissions g a specify to tried Department Economics the 1990, t had it missing, was proof empirical an such Since Failed Experiments of a TooAction Early a ofExperiments Failed 150)p. (Żylicz1999, generate savings and behavior st could trade emission economies, market weak” and emiss to officials Po convince would which missing was proof empirical and economists Polish bound that rjc 88Project report. These were two ‘boundary objects’ objects’ ‘boundary two were These report.

rges” (Żylicz 1999, p. 148). Two 148). p. 1999, (Żylicz rges” nomic Department and EDF set set EDF and Department nomic . ialists, mainly from the US. In In US. fromthemainly ialists, ood demonstration site for an for site demonstration ood Żlc (99 pit t the to points (1999) Żylicz , in Poland in the early 1990s early the in Poland in ymkr ad stakeholders and cy-makers b cetd Satn from Starting created. be o lish actors that even in “thin in even that actors lish omics Department met with with met Department omics cessive paternalism of state of paternalism cessive cognitive and psychological psychological and cognitive ternuil eair as behavior ntrepreneurial to how learning problems of policy experience in the in experience policy of t alone for emissions they they emissions for alone t t h tm, Ps ee a were TPPs time, the at ill unleash entrepreneurial unleash ill lc i Pln fo the from Poland in place uments for Environmental Environmental for uments dsrbtd i odr to order in distributed, y to depart from command- from depart to o tae Hwvr an However, trade. ion with the Environmental Environmental the with ct to demonstrate the the demonstrate to ct in modern market market modern in 103 CEU eTD Collection Action for the Restructuring of the Economy (PHARE (PHARE Economy the of Restructuring the for Action Jadwisin workshop organized by the Polish Ministry Ministry Polish the by organized workshop Jadwisin cr reduction pollution conditionsexchanging for legal explains “emission recognize not did law to Polish actually trading” “emissions real no out, points C in launched was projects demonstration the of One (Żylicz1999, 151). p. initiative administr regional the time, that At administrator. les fro of co-operate to willingness were the and site understanding a of characteristics technological became it Soon, locations. possible for look to out The third project to demonstrate the effectiveness effectiveness the demonstrate to project third The (Żylicz 1999be todeveloped” needed that mechanism se simulations computer of series a implementation, redesig was project the “Consequently, legislation. app an for chance no be would there reforms, i policy marginally only being establishment political the i However, exercise. implementation an as conceived Opo The Environment. addressing of Ministry projects the for importance research full-scale few finance c it and Opole in E The period. pre-accession EU the of opportunities out carried was project other The the Harvard Institute for International Development Institute International forHarvard the xeiet a b lbld s “rdbe emt pro 151)p.(Żylicz 1999, sense. metaphorical permit “tradable a as labeled be can experiment Consequ commodity. a become formally could credits” “e no so abandoned, eventually was Act The permit”. who authority the of approval the to subject plant o fully (either transferred be can permit pollution dra th stated was which 45, Article Act included It Protection Government. Environmental new a 1991, In permits inPoland: permits ator gave out permits for such such for permits out gave ator in June 1996. Its goal was:1996. goal June Its in uropean Poland and Hungary: and Poland uropean of Environment together with with together Environment of la ta te hscl and physical the that clear k lc i Cozw since Chorzów, in place ok t became apparent that with that apparent became t m a regional environmental environmental regional a m trse i environmental in nterested e ad ised f actual of instead and, ned , p. 154).p. , rved as a test of the legal legal the of test a as rved f msin rd ws the was trade emission of ropriate amendment of the the of amendment ropriate e iprac ta the than importance ser r in part) to another to part) in r edits” (p. 151). He also also He 151). (p. edits” ozw A Żlc (1999) Żylicz As horzów. problems of practical practical of problems le project was originally originally was project le sud h original the issued m wt nw funding new with ame at “the terms of a a of terms “the at rgam) fee to offered Programme) mission reduction mission ently, the whole whole the ently, ject” only in a a in only ject” td y the by fted 104 CEU eTD Collection

hie ewe te .. n Erpa mdl o envi of models European and U.S. the between choice transitio early its in that shows also account This inmarginalfield. policy national the relatively progressi their ( with – 1989 experts in policy Environmental than lower 18% ti was that (GDP) Product at Domestic condition economic Poland’s mind in bear privati policy, fiscal e.g. – important more seemed e the in Additionally, policy. environmental Polish tra emission of concept new a with through break to from Poland in out carried been t already had control that at weak too were trade emission implementing cent of legisla ideology institutional, However, the anymore. acceptable when 1989 after also appealing market-bas to transition economic Poland’s Polish-W for tool within w Poland It 1990s. early the in in and 1989 around economists developed TPPs of concept important some provides Żylicz, by account 1999 The thatpolicy-makers site-specificconditions and/or could trade emission that i p said was not it Directive did Nevertheless, it IPPC but sources, the pollution that on requirements clear it made Environment transpose to preparation Poland’s of context the in mos emission theTherefore, policy. environmental was European (IPPC) tha Control Prevention At and meeting. Pollution that at issues” “European presented the of Environment) (DG Directorate Environment The legal framework. (Żylicz 1999, p. 155)(Żylicz framework. p. 1999, legal experience, practical US both of view of point the emi introduce to plans Polish assess to opportunity o Works tradability The (…) issues. legislative between European emerging relationship the elucidate to in Europe were likely to retain. wereto inlikely Europe zation policies, etc. One should should One etc. policies, zation n years, Poland had to make a make to had Poland years, n ry 90, te plc areas policy other 1990s, arly IPPC to Polish legislation. DG legislation. Polish to IPPC the 1980s and it was difficult was it and 1980s the ie n cgiie ae for bases cognitive and tive e da ad ocps were concepts and ideas ve de to the mainstream of the of mainstream the to de trade was largely discussed largely was trade d cnm ad hs was thus and economy ed o oe-ue n source- any over-rule not as perceived as a potential a as perceived as reclude emission trading. trading. emission reclude nomto. isl, the Firstly, information. ime. Moreover, pollution pollution Moreover, ime. me. In 1991, the Gross Gross the 1991, In me. ssions trading from trading ssions omna plc. n the In policy. ronmental t important act of the the of act important t uoen Commission European and the European European the and tm, h Integrated the time, t a pann ws not was planning ral o poie an provided hop e Jnosi 1991). Jankowski see mposed some extra extra some mposed sen ewrs of networks estern f permits and and permits f 105 CEU eTD Collection command-and-controlwith existing bydealt been had a distinct a as States Member European the for came sho will chapter following the as Secondly, agenda. re dioxide carbon putting from away far quite still Firstly, things. two indicates dioxi This 1999). sulfur (Żylicz monoxide, carbon on put was focus main not did 1990s early the in trade emission introduce r in s be should It emissions. dioxide interested carbon particular getting started Europe Western when beginnin the that shows paper this of part next The (see savings var of apure cost-benefit calculation overshadowed substantial cultura political, general, brought more some Consequently, have could gasses t fact the despite (NOx), oxides nitrogen and (SO2) emissio implement to not decided club, European the Pol Therefore, turn. policy a such of signs no were However Directive. ETS 2003 the with Scheme Trading t established and trade emission toward turn policy Membe 2000s, the the in and upon 1990s late imposed the in Only never Community. fact in was and failed tax ‘carbon of decade a was 1990s The 1990s. the in U the towards hostile was Germany, particularly and furthe shown be will it As Germany. and EU the from command-and-c various discovered also Poland 1990s, DC Washington 9, No. Paper, Discussion (RFF Poland” Desi Economy: Transition a in Policy “Environmental and Stavins Rober by publication the is economists staf EDF’s between cooperation us close a trade of indicator emission the discovered Poland 1990s early n h ery 90, oad was Poland 1990s, early the in tressed that Polish attempts to attempts Polish that tressed duction onto its environmental its onto duction ious policy ious instruments. policy and, with its aspiration to join to aspiration its with and, Tomasz Żylicz (1995) entitled entitled (1995) Żylicz Tomasz w, carbon dioxide reductions dioxide carbon w, he European Union Emission Emission Union European he include carbon dioxide. The dioxide. carbon include hat emission trade for these these for trade emission hat .S. concept of emission trade trade emission of concept .S. g of the 1990s was the time time the was 1990s the of g policy instruments. policy n trading for sulfur dioxides dioxides sulfur for trading n l and economic aspirations aspirations economic and l f and Polish environmental environmental Polish and f nn Taal Pris for Permits Tradable gning r in the this paper, the EU, the paper, this the in r ir pollution problem, which problem, pollution ir h E md a dramatic a made EU the ’ in the EU, which finally finally which EU, the in ’ ). At the beginning of the of beginning the At ). , in the early 1990s there 1990s early the in , e n ntoe dioxide nitrogen and de d n h US A good A U.S. the in ed ontrol solutions coming coming solutions ontrol educing GHGs, and in in and GHGs, educing rs of the European European the of rs akwk 2006). Jankowski 106 CEU eTD Collection s arn 19) ons u, atog pr nt of unit per “although out, points (1993) Warren As Reductions Emission ItselfCommitsGHG to Europe own reduction goals corresponding to their lower le lower their to corresponding goals reduction own all would that approach sharing” “burden a demanded S – countries cohesion three century the However, 2007:20). the of turn the joint by levels its 1990 at stabilize emissions seek “would Community European Envir the and Energy of Ministers European the 1990 l Community the to up taken soon were efforts These 2007, 32). p. Tiberghien 198to compared emissions its of reductions percent co other three the followed government Austrian The rel in percent 20 by emission dioxide carbon reduce go Danish the year same the In 2005. by levels 1987 in reduction percent 30 to 25 of target a announced th 1990, June In 2000. until 1990 and 1989 of level for emissions dioxide carbon stabilizing for called reduction Environmental National First emission its issued of government policies and targets domestic count several time that At 1990s. the of beginnings emissio dioxide carbon reduce to attempts first The eco an emission into reductions translate to how of Sch Trading of Emission decades two almost from stems Union 2005, in operating European the that notice de of more become will States philosophy Member old and new between general more Commun Europe’s and and domestic policies into weaved were warming global to warming globalapproach in terms their of Europe emissions.beginning 199The theof carbon reducing ta was Europe Western government, Polish the in and up its experienced trade emission of idea the While the Netherlands at an average average an at Netherlands the nomic opportunity. opportunity. nomic s and downs in the U.S. Senate Senate U.S. inthe downs and s

ns in Europe date back to the to back date Europe in ns 8 levels by 2005 (Schreus and and (Schreus 2005 by levels 8 vel of economic development. development. economic of vel vernment stated that it would would it that stated vernment . At thattime,At concerns about . ation to 1988 levels by 2005. by levels 1988 to ation 0s was formative for Western Western for formative was 0s ries came up with their own their with up came ries e West German government German West e evel and as early as October as early as and evel pain, Portugal and Greece – – Greece and Portugal pain, Western Europe’s thinking Europe’s Western its emissions compared to to compared emissions its ” (Schreus and Tiberghien Tiberghien and (Schreus ” king on a slow turn toward toward turn slow a on king oiy ln NP) which (NEPP), Plan Policy nre wt a ol f 20 of goal a with untries onment declared that the the that declared onment ow them to declare their their declare to them ow understandable when we when understandable s. In 1989, the Dutch Dutch the 1989, In s. D te aray rank already they GDP eomn. Differences velopment. abn ixd (CO2) dioxide carbon m, hc started which eme, t-ie economic ity-wide 107 CEU eTD Collection Tiberghienp.37). 2007, and (Schreus agg an and tariffs feed-in special through energies a an plan, phase-out nuclear a consumption), energy w on burden tax the (reducing reform tax ecological resulte elections, 1998 after coalition the join to invited Party, Green German the of position strong car in reductions windfall huge noted f country of whole East the in industries many of collapse the to am an into coined were conditions economic changing exam good a provides co Germany 32). economic (p. States Member underlying changing the to point (2007) the of beginning the at targets reduction emission States Member some why examine to worthwhile is It system. a as image its up build and 2007) Tiberghien 1983; entreprene political and 20002) 2000; Manners 2005, 200 Opp and Hechter 2001, (Ellickson norm a leader, oppor an provided it EU the for However, emissions. the for stroke big a was 2000s of beginning the at t of out Stepping 2012. and 2008 between period the 8 cutting to itself committed EU the negotiations, 2007, Tiberghien and (Schreus Ireland)” and Sweden, growing were they which at rate the reduce to work emi their stabilize to pledged either States Member Austria emissions: their the and Netherlands, the Luxemburg, reduce Italy, Germany, to expected were MS t national in differentiation for need a recognized communi ambitious an for pushed Commission European g It Conference. Kyoto the at negotiations 1997 the the by adopted also was approach sharing burden The their lower le polluterssmallgiven relatively are Community the in efficient energy least the amongst vels of affluence” (p. 7). 7). (p.affluence”of vels percent of its 1990 emissions in in emissions 1990 its of percent argets. As a result, “only seven “only result, a As argets. 1990s. Schreus and Tiberghien Tiberghien and Schreus 1990s. i a ucsfl uh o an for push successful a in d by the Social Democratic Party DemocraticParty Social the by global guardian of the climate climate the of guardian global ressive climate change policy change climate ressive ssions (Finland, France) or to or France) (Finland, ssions uaranteed success. When the When success. uaranteed orkers, while increasing it on it increasing while orkers, tunity to take up the role of a of role the up take to tunity carbon curb to efforts global ctive promotion of renewable renewable of promotion ctive ehy nfe Gray the Germany, unified reshly he U.S. Bush administration administration Bush U.S. he , on a per capita basis they basis capita per a on , United Kingdom. Other EU Other Kingdom. United o eiso. ae o, a on, Later emission. bon Due policy. climate bitious ur (Downs 1957; Kingdon Kingdon 1957; (Downs ur p. 33). During the Kyoto Kyoto the During 33). p. 1, Lightfoot and Burchell Burchell and Lightfoot 1, San Gec, Portugal, Greece, (Spain, uoen omnt in Community European ple of how the country’s country’s the how of ple elrd uh ambitious such declared dtos n h biggest the in nditions Blim Denmark, Belgium, , ywd tre i also it target ty-wide 108 CEU eTD Collection Austria, on the other hand, had a strong environmen strong a had hand, other the on Austria, s cru ad iegin 20) on ot Europea out, point (2007) Tiberghien and Schreus As lo rsdn Cia sie uo ciae hne as change climate upon seized Chirac President Also 20 till (2007), Tiberghien and Schreus to According the government for action. action. for government the Tiberghi and (Schreus energies renewable developing The cuts. emission of advocate strong particularly Netherlands The action. change climate for pushing to F occasions many on managed Denmark, Sweden and Netherlands Belgium, Austria, like countries Smaller issue. entrepreneurial oeeain line ht cetd h ne fr ac fossil for European first the of one was (BP) Petroleum need Association the Energy accepted that Wind Alliance Cogeneration European the Future, Energy Busines the like groups joined have companies “many busines US the than goals reduction accept to eager a nuclear the in strengths their up playing elites, buttr to serve can “Kyoto that realized bureaucracy How negotiations. climate international the in role Tibe and (Schreus France by boasted autonomy energy fo account and electricity country’s the nucl of percent fifty-nine Today, imports. energy on 1970 its dependent to Ger due of mainly level half emission this than achieved less emits currently which France, 2007, Tiberghien p.38). and war(Schreus Iraqi suppor th of independent politician big a as image his a improve as himself established Minister, Prime coal from switching started it when action climate turne 1990s, early the in reductions emission about reduc emission ambitious to conducive were policies good provide hand, other the on France, and UK The latter soon became a pioneer in pioneer a became soon latter fuel companies, which in 1997 in which companies, fuel d uooie etr” (p.39). sectors” automobile nd e U.S. around the time of the the of time the around U.S. e r the bulk of the 50 percent percent 50 the of bulk the r tion goals. The UK, skeptical UK, The goals. tion tal movement, which pushed which movement, tal it a tog upre of supporter strong a into d o a. oy li, h then the Blair, Tony gas. to 5 Fac pae a limited a played France 05, vr a a eti pit its point certain a at ever, s te oe f technocratic of role the ess s. Despite some opposition, some Despite s. s Council for a Sustainable a for Council s n Dnak ae en a been have Denmark and dcso t bcm less become to decision s ear reactors produce 78 78 produce reactors ear xmls f o existing how of examples e o ciae cin to action climate of ter tion” (p.28). The British British The (p.28). tion” nad Lxmug the Luxemburg, inland, n industries were more more were industries n n 07 p 3, more). 39, p. 2007, en ays abn dioxide, carbon many’s form a strong coalition strong a form gin 07 p 39). p. 2007, rghien a major political political major a , the International International the , 109 CEU eTD Collection f the TaxSearch Carbon and European theof Failure ap efficientas industry energy of development the Ge the where Germany, in observed be could approach Acco 1993). Warren (see world-wide them selling and laid been develo the into moving by also achieved be to advantage” has emphasis D much Europe, Royal In energy, (p.28). solar into Austrian and energy, move wind and solar of development BP’s as such to areas, potential the saw industry (2 European the Tiberghien general, and Schreus supported (p.28). OMV target” Austrian reduction firm oil the Protocol, Kyoto necessary. was action precautionary that recognized true believers (p. 8) and puts some flesh on the ne theputs someon and flesh8) (p. believers true t carbon/energy the calls (1993) introdu Warren tax. to carbon proposed Commission European the 1992 In ins policy (seetaxMac Community-widecarbon also a introduce climate regional own its as 2000s the of actually c changed proposedand itsEU mind the why (200 Braun to According invention. U.S. a was trade abo little very knew U.S., the unlike Europe, 1990s A p more). 2006, Lohmann and 2009, Braun measures 2007, Tiberghien domestic through emissions reduce to trade. emission and mechanisms flexibility maximum ag stood Europe time, th long a by For 1994). interventions (Liberatore ‘manageable‘ into translated be fi climatological issues, policy become to order In t h ed f h ls Evrnet oni o Minis of Council Environment last the of end the At Reuters that his Government will simply not ratify ratify not at that clear made is it ’unless Convention Change simply will Government his that Reuters Klaus Minister Environment long-standing Germany’s ndings on global warming had to had warming global on ndings gotiations this aroundissue: gotiations otentialexport good. Also “prior to EU signing the signing EU to “prior Also or a New Policy ToolPolicy aNew or pment of green technologies technologies green of pment arbon trade in the beginningtrade the in arbon t msin rd. Emission trade. emission ut rding to Warren (1993), this (1993), Warren to rding OMV’s embrace of biofuels” of embrace OMV’s 9), one of the main reasons main the of one 9), Kenzie2009). rmn ws h fiue to failure the was trument Europe demanded the right the demanded Europe ax a macho-symbol for the the for macho-symbol a ax is te .. rpsl of proposal U.S. the ainst oe no e business new into move the same time the EC- the time same the rman government viewed viewed government rman 007) point out that “in “in that out point 007) e European Community Community European e upon the “first mover mover “first the upon dtoal, n h early the in dditionally, h E’ 1 percent 15 EU’s the es n ue 28th, June on ters ce a Community-wide Community-wide a ce Topfar was telling telling was Topfar olicies (Schreus and and (Schreus olicies h U Climate UN the th hl Group’s Shell utch

110 CEU eTD Collection ahs col f uies n emr, eerd o t to referred Denmark, in Business of School Aarhus

ih ie t lwy tre mlig on I hs 19 his In down. melting Depa fromthe Svendsen, Tinggaard Gert Environment, started slowly it time with emissio towards distrust of lot a was there 1999 In European 473).(p. the it in interested Protocol, Kyoto the implement to “a lever Co as majority. qualified (1), a required 175 only Art. it measure”, the to according but unanimity, e that out points (2009) Braun it 473). that (p. relevance” watered-down so “was but EU, the in 1997 in The 473). (p. fail” to had proposal the that rates insi Germany by particular in “hampered was it that effect into come not did 1995 from proposal revised Stat Member several by undermined was It ministers. procedure unanimity the to due failed proposal The proposal of emission trade during the UN negotiatioUNduringtradetheemissionof proposal potnt fr usa n ms o te post-sociali the of most and Russia for opportunity Trading industries. their of collapse the with came t in reductions emission for name the was politically air” “Hot as system “hot the from benefited have thecould who participants perceived (1999) Svendsen the current President of the EC, Belgium.1 (Warren EC, theofcurrentPresident the L by quietly, more and -Dutchthe and Danes the by vie This crucial’. is carbon and energy on tax wide environmental problems. (Svendsen 1999, p. 232) 1999, p. (Svendsen problems. environmental so can which control wi cost-effective world of means the making provide may market CO2 global it a that cheat, so designed is market a such that provided with situation the to compared However, market. CO2 fo a earn to wanting for criticized been has US The carbon tax was finally introduced finally was tax carbon “hot air” was perceived as an as perceived was air” “hot either. Braun (2009) confirms confirms (2009) Braun either. ns: within the Council of Finance of Council the within air” distributions of permits. permits. of distributions air” n trade in Europe. However, Europe. in trade n sting on such demanding tax demanding such on sting sqety sacig o a for searching nsequently, iso tae i nt need not did trade mission e ak f rs i te U.S. the in trust of lack he st countries as they could could they as countries st es and industry lobbyists. A lobbyists. industry and es ransition economies, which which economies, ransition rtment of Economics at the Economicsat rtmentof ipc hrl hd any had hardly impact s w is overtly endorsed overtly is w 993, p. 8) p. 993, omsin ial got finally Commission uxembourg, Italy and uxembourg, Italy 99 article in European European in article 99 evrnetl policy environmental n tn o a global a on rtune v ftr global future lve attractive to some some to attractive os o py to pay not does u tae and trade out h n epoch- an th 111 CEU eTD Collection very strong words: morally objectionable, aloophol objectionable, morally words: strong very for DG ENV. ENV. DG for Develo gases. greenhouse in Scheme Trading Emission Change” Climate for Objectives Sector trade could be made operational under Article ofmade17operational under could be trade an meant really accord Kyoto the what understand to in Parties the of Conference Kyoto the after debate de European the in insights phases three interesting between distinguish some provide they both and were creation They established. been has trade emission lmt plc. e a be ivle i te Commiss the in t over for team ETS EU Environment’s DG coordinated involved been has He policy. climate sev For sessions. negotiation climate UN several in stakeholders involved in climate policy. Directed a Directed policy. climate in involved stakeholders wor (ECCP) Programme Change Climate European all to 16 15 EDF – upwithLobbies Missed Opportunities Catching 326).(p.them” renewing when permits pos is it future, the in required are levels target al He periodically. renewed were permits that way a ca global a designing on tha reached be could agreement all that conclusion a drew He 232). (p. gasses” inte suggest they (…) when villains or “heroes were appropriate it found (1999) Svendsen like academics t for unknown largely remained system cap-and-trade (Sven polluting” continue to CO2 of emitter biggest Environ the for cri and Americans, Minister the with negotiations “suspended Danish The trade. the emission during out, enr points were countries European some of representatives (1999) Svendsen as However, industries. rundown their investmentsin finance selling from transfers financial important receive Peter Zapfel Peter From 1998 to 2001, as Policy officer in Economic A Economic in officer Policy as 2001, to 1998 From ha He Environment. DG for worked has he 2000 Since 15 and Matti Vainio Matti and

wih nepne te CP n te omsin pro Commission the and ECCP the underpinned which , 16 (2002) give an account about the way European way the about account an give (2002) eral years he was responsible for the economic asse economic the for responsible was he years eral 3-year long multi-sectoral study study multi-sectoral long 3-year nalysis Unit (Acting Head of Unit in 1998) he contr he 1998) in Unit of Head (Acting Unit nalysis woyears ping the methodologies to carry out cost-benefit an cost-benefit out carry to methodologies the ping ion’s work on emissions trading since 1998. He has has He 1998. since trading emissions on work ion’s s represented the Commission as a delegation member delegation a as Commission the represented s king groups and thus worked with all DGs and main main and DGs all with worked thus and groups king emission quotas and in this way this in and quotas emission sible to reduce the number of of number the reduce to sible e designed to allow the world’sthe allow to designed e 1997 chiefly focused on trying on focused chiefly 1997 the Kyoto Protocol.Kyoto the rnational trade in greenhouse greenhouse in trade rnational dsen 1999, p. 232). While the While 232). p. 1999, dsen so added that “if tighter CO2 tighter “if that added so d whether and how emission how and whether d rbon dioxide market in such in market dioxide rbon BP ticized their proposal using proposal their ticized t depended on whether an an whether on depended t to ask whether Americans Americans whether ask to aged about the proposal of proposal the about aged ae n abn rd. The trade. carbon on bate into the process. They They process. the into e uoen politicians, European he

closely involved in its its in involved closely et Sed Auken, Svend ment, Kyoto negotiations negotiations Kyoto “Economic Evaluation of Evaluation “Economic oa fr EU for posal ssment of of ssment ibuted alysis alysis 112

CEU eTD Collection At that time the knowledge about emission trade in in trade emission about knowledge the time that At t ht ie US eprs tre gtig involved getting started experts U.S. time, that At

evc poies adtn cmais consultants companies, auditing Vainio and (Zapfel conferenceorganizers commercial – providers intermedia service market by opportunity business good a as m new a Moreover, 6-7). p. 2002, Vainio and (Zapfel preconditi a as trade carbon put U.S. The Protocol. regar with trade emission on decisions further make feelin a by alive kept was debate the 1990s, the in trade emission of purpose the about misconceptions Desp trade. emission of critical were debate the in very was industries, European among and Commission xeietn wt eiso tae o e be o imp to able be s trading emissions gas to greenhouse company-internal trade 1997) emission (Browne with change experimenting climate of threat the publicly internat major first the becomethus and emissions, would BP that announced He University. Stanford at Pe British the of CEO the Browne, John 1997, May In ma toemission on accumulate trade, expertise began t In 2002). Vainio and Zapfel (see own their on one b was it maybe or scheme UN a for waiting worth was Europe in actors many and down slowed significantly resource 7).Aft p. and 2002, Vainio and (Zapfel time debate” European of lot a invested etc.) Institute academics Massachusetts the at researchers tan Policy, think the Defense, Environmental group pressure trading emissions in experience, real-life also but 2009 confere Kyoto the after “immediately recall, (2002) Braun 2002, Vainio and Zapfel (see 1997 before emission promote to failed having for – Conference made it mistake strategic a for up making was U.S. Eu in it initiated fact in have they – trade carbon rope. At the end of the 1990s, the the 1990s, the of end the At rope. EA tf, h environmental the staff, (EPA he same time, European actors European time, same he interest, an with actors US nce ional oil company to recognize to company oil ional g of inevitability of having to having of inevitability of g Europe, both in the European the in both Europe, d to the still negotiated Kyoto negotiated still the to d ite this skepticism and some some and skepticism this ite (see Zapfel and Vainio 2002), Vainio and Zapfel (see n h Erpa dbt on debate European the in er 1997 the UN negotiations UN the 1997 er inly from U.S. experts. based inly n o rtfig h Protocol the ratifying for on 2002, p. 7).p. 2002, arket was quickly perceived quickly was arket troleum (BP), gave a speech a gave (BP), troleum rd sfiinl i Europe in sufficiently trade started thinking whether it it whether thinking started ystem in January 2000 with 2000 January in ystem n h rn p o h Kyoto the to up run the in reduce its greenhouse gas gas greenhouse its reduce f ehooy n other and Technology of poor and European voices European and poor i priiaig n the in participating in s is n ohr potential other and ries te t sat developing start to etter k Center for Clean Air Air Clean for Center k . s afl n Vainio and Zapfel As ). , lawyers, academics, academics, lawyers, , . In 1998 BP started started BP 1998 In . eet large-scale a lement 113 CEU eTD Collection to role launch an experime BP in major persuading a ye many for States United the in side environmental of supporter active most the Defense, envi US Environmental the by BP of lobbying the was route this on fa major “a that out point (2002) Vainio and Zapfel als (see 2010 by 10% by emissions cutting of goal a method for the European Emission Trading Emission Schemebet European thefor method als will “Grandfathering” 2103). p. 2006, House and r with year recent most the was it as year base the histor of basis the on permits approach—“allocating options, allocation reviewedvarious Having 2102). ‘‘expense and ‘‘income’’ trading-related report did physica not would “money purposes, tax for However, to(BU) unit another. business be could they where database, central a in held be bids. place would sellers and buyers which through the used who traders, oil 21 by developed p. was platform 2006, House and (Victor 1996” and GH 1995, inventoried 1994, had 1997 of end the “by and 1997 May emiss gas greenhouse reporting for The standard 2102). uniform p. 2006, House and (Victor system” trade founda the forms that data emissions the collecting for infrastructure the install to was step next The teto t tpc sc a mntrn sses tra systems, monitoring 2102)Housep. 2005, and (Victor enforcement. as such topics to familiarity attention gain managers BP t BP for trading on workshops leading by instrument key helped EDF choice, ro a played Having system. trade and cap a adopt to lo President, EDF’s Krupp, Fred hand, at instrument having and BP, at inside position privileged a With trading, “especially a system for system a “especially trading, s’’” (Victor and House 2006, p. p. 2006, House and (Victor s’’” BPchose‘‘grandfathering’’ the ctor in the decision to embark to decision the in ctor electronically moved from one from moved electronically ars” (p. 8). Fred Krupp played Krupp Fred 8). (p. ars” eliable emission data” (Victor (Victor data” emission eliable ntal emission trade scheme: trade emission ntal o become the main allocation allocation main the become o in f n ceil cp and cap credible any of tion ical emissions, with 1998 as 1998 with emissions, ical All emissions permits would would permits emissions All BP intranet as the medium the as intranet BP o Victor and House 2006). 2006). House and Victor o msin taig n the on trading emissions lly change hands, but BUs but hands, change lly ween 2005 and 2012. and 2005 ween omna pesr group pressure ronmental o wih t eeoe in developed it which ion opn as lce a lacked also company hat gave particular gave hat bbied John Browne John bbied 02). The actual trading trading actual The 02). le in securing that securing in le fvrd policy favored a G emissions for 1990, 1990, for emissions G ig ue and rules ding ih the with 114 CEU eTD Collection commit public BP’s on delivery “prompt a namely and t of one that satisfied Hous were Managers and it. regretted Victor to according 2002, in enable closed would system trade emission and units business own emission reduce to way a find to therefore hoped It re emission of costs marginal varying of aware also operationally and geographically a As go 2006). House taxing the to firm the from revenues shift would compan the of because taxes carbon of afraid was BP ( tax” anresponsesemissions as suchpolicy costly wou trading emissions of demonstration successful a House(2006)and Victor costals much. not did this a boast issu environmental to on debates in image partner legitimate green a had It level. European the its BP which system, a operating in experience hand to tell to trade emission of story successful a had g BP years, four within time, short relatively a In to2100).willing(p. tolerate” was company of cost the until function market the let managers va ‘‘safety a like rather but scheme, cap-and-trade n did it that conclude they and system trading BP’s explained ever has study no that argue (2005) House gui a as experience pioneering BP’s to point “often the otherconsidered countriesand which firms and emissi firm’s the to success ascribe to BP, outside le has program controlemission BP’s of performance redu 10% (200 House of and Victor 2010. date set the attainment of advance the for another company gave his Browne praising 2002 March In 2006). House and Zap 2009, Braun (see world-wide units business BP’s trading emission global first the fact in was This ained a first-mover advantage. It advantage. first-mover a ained system, as it encompassed all of all encompassed it as system, p. 2101). p. ding star” (p. 2100). Victor and 2100).Victor (p. star” ding o point out that BP “hoped that“hoped thatBP out point o h ohr. t a sm first- some had It others. the ons trading system” (p. 2100) 2100) (p. system” trading ons adoption of a trading systems, aoftrading adoption ductions in its different units. units. different its in ductions s reduction costs within their their within costs reduction s e an ol ws achieved, was goals main he on s srasd ht the what surpassed so doing elf could later on lobby for at at for lobby on later could elf es. And at the same time, all time, same the at And es. v’ taig ytm “where system, trading lve’’ diverse organization, BP was BP organization, diverse d many observers, inside and inside observers, many d ot operate like a ‘‘textbook’’ a like operate ot ld forestall alternative, more alternative, forestall ld the operation and impact of impact and operation the 5) point out that “the stellar “the that out point 5) fel and Vainio 2002, Victor Victor 2002, Vainio and fel vernments (see Victor and and Victor (see vernments y’s large emissions. Taxes Taxes emissions. large y’s ot wih ae P a BP made which bout, (06, ooy really nobody (2006), e t Hwvr we the when However, it. ctions seven years in in years seven ctions ment to control its its control to ment peh t Stanford at speech 115 CEU eTD Collection a Soon, eye. public the from away far simulations, exclusiv within expert-circles in mostly place took shown be will it this chapter Furtherin it. about administratio national took it and it understand to governme national the of many for instrument policy has trade emission that analysis his in out points li companies and tank think EDF the as such actors, policie new installing for experience and expertise governm in crafted and debated been solely not have th shows also It actors. economic by imposed powers co to point tax carbon European failed the of story EDF’s Certainly, governments? than rather companies Was businesses. European through and EDF tank think largely Europe to came trade emission Consequently, discussion”emissions(B EU’sin the trading driver constitu (…) particular in scheme “BP’s that argues trad carbon European EU-wide an out work Commission experience, European theoretical and practical with ( well as scheme trading own its R introduced Denmark 2105). (p. system” trading a deploy to he government experience BP’s “indeed, that state (2006) House participant active an been has BP 2009). Braun (see tra carbon nation-wide first world’s the introduced (GETS) Simulations Trading Emissions Gas Greenhouse flexible a on based programme exercises “simulation prac EURELECTRIC example, For experience. practical ef economic its for it welcomed They 473). (p. tax” catheto muchmoreopen was industry “the that out 200 Tiberghien and (Schreus scheme Group trading emission Shell Dutch Royal the 2002, and 2000 Between that so debate taxor regulatory approache than rather instruments public the adjusting while emissions that the debate on emission trade trade emission on debate the that e workshop meetings, trainings, meetings, workshop e long remained a rather obscure rather a remained long raun 2009: 480). raun nstraints for states’ regulatory regulatory states’ for nstraints s has often come from private private from come often has s ke BP and Shell. Braun (2009) Braun Shell. and BP ke s” (p. 2105-2107).(p. s” e msin taig scheme trading emissions de nts. It was simply too difficult difficult too simply was It nts. rbon trade than to the carbonthethanto trade rbon ns much time to learn more more learn to time much ns ted an increasingly powerful increasingly an ted in the UK’s ETS. Victor and Victor ETS. UK’s the in ental circles, but knowledge, knowledge, but circles, ental ficiency and set out to gain gain to out set and ficiency , scenario-based model: the model: scenario-based , see Braun 2009). Equipped Equipped 2009). Braun see at particular policy options policy particular at lobbying strategy and the and strategy lobbying 7:28). Braun (2007) points points (2007) Braun 7:28). it easier for EDF to lobby to EDF for easier it e Erpa ‘etr of ‘center European new ” (p. 473). In 2002 the UK the 2002 In 473). (p. ” lped to convince the UK UK the convince to lped uhy t h sm time same the at oughly hog te .. based U.S. the through ticed emission trade on a a on trade emission ticed opne hle the helped companies t oue o trading on focused it e scheme. Braun (2009) (2009) Braun scheme. e nrdcd n internal an introduced 116 CEU eTD Collection According to Zapfel and Vainio (2002), the second p second the (2002), Vainio and Zapfel to According Vainio 2002 and see also Schreus and Tiberghien 200 Tiberghien and Schreus also see and 2002 Vainio tool for the European foreign policy, because in th in because policy, foreign European the for tool Instal to Way the on EUthe Schemein – Trade Emission Europeanizing Commission. European the from actors several by created was calculation’ cee eae eonzd s srtg fr European for strategy a as Eur recognized became a scheme and trade, emission of dimension European the thi the in Thus future. the in connected be towere incompatibility and fragmentation to lead possibly carbon domestic of set a However, 2002). Vainio and domestic own their create would States Member that botto a to paid mainly was attention phase, this In instrument” coming the( and newin interest German was development rule the influence and stages early “po the that argue (2002) Vainio and Zapfel system. emission about skeptical still Germany, persuade to countries. European other for instances convincing c Danish the and trade the emission UK business-led the scheme, schemes, domestic new actors, European los programme, RECLAIM Californian the and schemes, No AllowanceTrading, Sulphur EPA as emi such examples, about thinking in impetus its lost and U.S. the c about hesitant more became Administration Clinton Vainio and Zapfel (see U.S. the from Commission coming advice the from officials result, a As States. adminis and legal cultural, institutional, specific would that system a trade for emission looked Commission European European a if trade to how and what Europe when time a also was This Europeanized. more

rd phase, the debate focused on focusedon debate the phase, rd trative nature of the Member Member the of nature trative e future, the system developed developed system the future, e For example, they served well well served they example, For -papoc, hc meant which approach, m-up hase of the debate was much was debate the of hase ssibility to be involved in the in involved be to ssibility a major engine to power the power to engine major a a such of pros the of trade, 2002). At the same time, the time, same the At 2002). of different schemes if they they if schemes different of p. 10). p. ietrt Gnrl n the in General Directorate BP pilot scheme constituted constituted scheme pilot BP U.S. the While trade. ssion ceased being interested in in interested being ceased reating a carbon market in market carbon a reating rth-Eastern state-level NOx NOx state-level rth-Eastern 7). It could also become a a become also could It 7). an actors started debating started actors an akt i Erp could Europe in markets emission markets (Zapfel (Zapfel markets emission nerto (afl and (Zapfel integration opean emission trading trading emission opean et orsod o the to correspond best t its usefulness for the the for usefulness its t s o e ntle. The installed. be to is ig msin Trading Emission ling ro doie quota dioxide arbon 117 CEU eTD Collection do The 2000). Commission, (European like look could ide firstthe sketching wasissued, Union” European em gas “Greenhouse on Paper Green the 2000 March In Member States yearsofby earlier couple a rejected becau reasons, political f in would mosteffective, economically as regarded for it did It methodology. a grandfathering have to Environment DG recommended tradi emissions on consultant main Environment’s DG Dev and Law Environmental for Foundation about The trade. learn to issue-speci necessity an establishing for the basis a constituted was it that out points on knowledge its share to NGOs and centers research s Environmen DG the EDF. with cooperation their in to thanks trained well been had They debate. focused B (see Zapfel Peter also on E 2000 from and Vis Peter DG from entrepreneurs policy of couple a 2000, In Commission. European the u this to power gave This Environment. DG in people ETS EU of project the and EU the in poor still was know Moreover, development. EU’s about strategizing of core the to more Environment DG moveto enabled with position organizational an advance to strategy E of case in like again, once So 2010). Bitter (see th of head the nominated was economist, an Delbeke, Analy Economic and unit Negotiations (International En DG 2010). Kyoto, after when, opportunity an as Bitter trade emission (see idealists environmental of marginaliz been has which Commission, theof part a oppor entrepreneurial an proved also trade Emission Z (see regions other Tiberghien2007). and Schreus to expanded be could EU the in DF, emission trading became a became trading emission DF, fic policy network on emission emission on network policy fic became a “child” of a couple of couple a of “child” a became act equal a carbon tax strongly strongly carbontax a equal act and European andindustries. as of what a European scheme European a what of as raun 2009) pushed for a more more a for pushed 2009) raun two units of DG Environment Environment DG of units two in a particular policy field. It field. policy particular a in nit in relation to other DGs in in DGs otherto relation in nit ed for years as a leftist groupleftist a as years for ed tunity for DG Environment – – Environment DG for tunity policy making in the EU – of of – EU the in making policy carbon trade. Braun (2009) Braun trade. carbon e new Climate Change unit Change Climate new e se full auctions, although although auctions, full se t invited other think tanks, tanks, think other invited t i ui) egd n Jos and merged unit) sis elopment (FIELD) became (FIELD) elopment nvironment: Jos Delbeke, Delbeke, Jos nvironment: ubject of emission trade trade emission of ubject issions trading within the within trading issions FIELD 2009). (Braun ng ledge on emission trade trade emission on ledge msin rd, which trade, emission vironment seized upon upon seized vironment pe ad ano 2002, Vainio and apfel te an allocation main the s uet eie the defined cument 118 CEU eTD Collection Comm The 11). (p. countries” industrialised between carb of tonne per Euros 58 to Euros 5 from “ranging esti Such reflections. Commission’s onl the guide could were There priced. not still was carbon 2000 In fluo the of 10).(p.carbonofsinks” byThe dioxide absorption emissions the surrounding uncertainties there2000,of beginning the at However, term. long em all encompassing and sinks, and gases greenhouse Membe different though across Commission scheme The trading comprehensive one. obvious an not was GHGs, c trade to choice a that mention to important is It reducethe cost schemethe European-level would and requ effects transboundary of case clearest “the as this and development, Th 4). (p. markets” new creating when consideration recent EU’s the behind forces marke internal the of “development that out pointed integrati strong a suggested Commission the by made emis carbon for signal price common a to lead would uncoordina of set Commissio the to According 4). (p. schemes” trading a smoot to compared a as for market guarantee emissions best the provide would States tr emissions implementing for framework coordinated be it that underlined Commission The Co States. Member the Commission, European the of roles respective ixd (O) msin cnttt apoiaey 80 approximately constitute (Commission emissions. 2 gas greenhouse Community’s emissions (CO2) fe more is dioxide system the of supervision carb and of monitoring sources point fixed large to itself confine i trading, emissions of development the in approach p a follow to wishes Communitythe if Consequently, Commission concluded that: concluded Commission mates showed a large variety, large a showed mates were still some “considerable “considerable some still were iring concerted action” (p. 4) (p. action” concerted iring ro doie ad o other not and dioxide, arbon e climate change was defined was change climate e n, a Community-wide scheme Community-wide a n, t has been one of the driving the of one been has t on dioxide equivalent traded equivalent dioxide on of such action. action. suchof on agenda. The Commission The agenda. on sions in Europe. This move This Europe. in sions lieved that “a coherent and and coherent “a that lieved ading covering all Member all covering ading y empirical estimates that that estimates empirical y ission sources” (p. 10) in a a in 10) (p. sources” ission mnt i gnrl and general in mmunity rudent step-by-step rudent iae gss n the and gases rinated sin lo rpsd a proposed also ission n ixd, where dioxide, on should be taken into into taken be should Sae cvrn al 6 all covering States r e ntoa emissions national ted fntoig internal functioning h sol initially should t 000, p. 10-11) p. 000, o etbihn “a establishing of t sbe Carbon asible. o the of % 119 CEU eTD Collection possibly some choice in the key implementing rules. implementing key whthe in choice some possibly choice of degree some with States Member leaving 1. eal o te msin loain eiin w decisions allocation emission the of Details 11). (Za 2005” of as States Member EU all in permits GHG i mandatory “the foresaw proposal The COM(2001)581. with trading emissions gas greenhouse for Directive a presented Commission European the 2001 October In ensure that the environment is placed at the heart heart the at Commissio European the from funding receive placed members is environment the that ensure the Commission, European the - institutions making WWF (IFN), Nature of Friends Alliance, (E International Europe, Environment Bureau and Health Environmental (T&E), Environment European Network, Bankwatch ih ny iie rgltr dsrto. “middle” A discretion. regulatory limited only with Stat Member and level, Community at agreed be would whic in scheme Community-wide harmonised a be could Com with progress monitor to and law Community with main to limited be would role Community’s the where The intervention. Community of degrees varying with 18 17 scheme States Member and Community the roles of definition raiain. h Gen 0 osss f h tn lea ten the leve EU (NGOs) active at organisations governmental of consists 10 Green The organizations. ch climate on working network NGO leading a Europe, Now, 479). p. 2009, (Braun certificates emission of States Member allowing compromise a in resulted and Europ the from came auctioning partial for lobbying is this on expertise considerable generated and ETS environmen increase to solutions on work to started organ Environment DG when 1998 January in stage the that notices (2009) Braun E community. NGOs DG European 2002). Vainio and (Zapfel practicable” as soon permits GHG in trading European that recommendation conclu group stakeholder the becom 2001 May to In promotion. it allowed which Programme, Change Climate wo multi-stakeholder a created Commission the Soon, urging to adopt more radical reduction targets and and reductiontargets moreradical adopt to urging BirdLife International (European Community Office) Community (European International BirdLife Europea the within trading emissions Conceptually, 17 . .

make sure that “polluters pay” (interview informati (interview pay” “polluters that sure make (Commission 2000, p. 12) p. 2000, (Commission n Union could be organised at a number of different of number a at organised be could nUnion pin ol b t dvlp Cmuiy cee but scheme, Community a develop to be would option se levels could range from a Member State driven sc driven State Member a from range could levels se taining oversight of national schemes to ensure con ensure to schemes national of oversight taining f oiyaig Ecp fr repae te re 1 Green the Greenpeace, for Except policymaking. of uoen alaet n te oni o Mnses - Ministers of Council the and Parliament European uoen oiy fie Te wr wt te U law- EU the with work They Office. Policy European , Climate Action Network Europe (CAN Europe), CEE CEE Europe), (CAN Europe Network Action Climate , es would implement the scheme in a consistent manne consistent a in scheme the implement would es n. Currently they are very useful for the Commissio the for useful very are they Currently n. munity commitments. At the other end of the spectru the of end other the At commitments. munity h the design and regulation of all the essential el essential the all of regulation and design the h te o nt ad o ht xet te participate, they extent, what to and not, or ether Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE), Greenpeace Greenpeace (FoEE), Europe Earth the of Friends EB), European Federation of Transport and and Transport of Federation European EB), in the European Community - Community European the in h lmt Ato Network Action Climate the r lf t Mme States. Member to left ere l rking group in the European European the in group rking 18 tal effectiveness of the EU EU the of effectiveness tal sue (p. 479). For example, example, For 479). (p. sue ean Parliament and NGOs NGOs and Parliament ean to voluntarily auction part auction voluntarily to Proposal for a framework framework a for Proposal . . e is ok ih clear a with work its ded ized a meeting. Then they Then meeting. a ized “as established be should vrnet lo involved also nvironment ig niomna non- environmental ding ntroduction of trading in trading of ntroduction pfel and Vainio 2002, p. 2002, Vainio and pfel hud ly n h new the in play should uoen Gs entered NGOs European ange, has 129 member member 129 has ange, e more active in its its in active more e on). on). formity formity levels, levels, ements ements heme, heme, and and 120 n in in n to to m 0 r r

CEU eTD Collection three years before the Kyoto international trading international Kyotothe before threeyears wa ETS EU The installation. each of operator the to greenhouse gas listed in Annex II with an equivalen an with II tonn Annex in listed gas metric greenhouse one means equivalent’ dioxide carbon of diox carbon of tonne one emit to allowance an means in Annex I of the Directive. theDirective. of I Annex in listed and 3) (p. installation” an in sources from ‘greenho ‘emissions’ defined (…) also It Directive; 3). p. 2003, this (Commssion of provisions the with requirem the meeting of purposes the for only valid 8). (p. transferability” all are Policy Agricultural Common the under quotas ca fish totally the Protocol, Montreal the not under Substances was allowances tradable of concept the stan technical of application the for “particularly 20 19 quantity corresponding a emit o to holder that the is entitle concept second carbo of tonnes The metric in denominated “allowances”, scheme. the by covered b will that “permit”, gas greenhouse the of that is it of center the in concepts two put Commission The 2005-2007.period trading first Alloca National prepare to obliged were Governments ) Mme Sae wr gvn h rgt o eie up the and period that decide for allocate will it allowances to right the given were States Member 3). regi electronic an through done be would allowances The them. on imposed Should be would emissions. sanctions allowances, actual their to correspond would n a cancellation for submit to have would companies the if companies between traded be could allowances would authorities, relevant their or States, Member emissi of reporting and monitoring adequate require e actual the to equal allowances hold to obligation inst industrial an to permit gas greenhouse re a grant their or States, Member 3). p. 2001, (Commission which, as I mentioned before, was still a controver a still was before, mentioned I as which, The Directive elaborated more on the concepts of a of concepts the on more elaborated Directive The explai Commission the as ‘permits’, of concept The

dards in the field of waste, water and air pollutio air and water waste, of field the in dards ‘greenhouse gases’. The Commission also relied on t on relied also Commission The gases’. ‘greenhouse sial issue in scientific circles. The Directive sta Directive The circles. scientific in issue sial tch quotas under the Common Fisheries Policy, and t and Policy, Fisheries Common the under quotas tch ents of this Directive and shall be transferable in transferable be shall and Directive this of ents t global-warming potential (p. 23). It also listed listed also It 23). (p. potential global-warming t n emission allowance and an emission permit: “‘allo permit: emission an and allowance nemission s te ees o genos gss no h atmos the into gases greenhouse of release “the as naiir n h E. Te uts o Ooe Depleti Ozone for quotas “The EU. the in unfamiliar practical examples of allowances with some degree degree some with allowances of examples practical ide equivalent during a specified period, which sha which period, specified a during equivalent ide o cro doie C2 o a aon o ay other any of amount an or (CO2) dioxide carbon of e use gas emissions permit’ means the permit issued” issued” permit the means permit’ emissions gas use ned, has been well established in environmental pol environmental in established well been has ned, allocation of those allowancesthose of allocation scheme started operating. e required by all installations all by required e s proposal. “The first of these these “Theof first proposal. s s launched in January 2005, January in launched s allocate allowances. These These allowances. allocate y chose to do so. Each year, Each so. do to chose y missions, as well as would would as well as missions, ons. In addition to permits, to addition In ons. n dioxide equivalent, which equivalent, dioxide n lain ht ol st an set would that allation ster (Commission 2003, p. 2003, (Commission ster me o alwne that allowances of umber tion Plans (NAPs) for the the for (NAPs) Plans tion f rehue gases greenhouse of odn ad rcig of tracking and holding eat uhrte would authorities levant n h ttl uniy of quantity total the on they have not enough enough not have they genos gas greenhouse f n” (p. 8). Also Also 8). (p. n” tes that ‘tonne ‘tonne that tes installations installations accordance accordance he GWP GWP he he milk milk he wance’ wance’ phere 19 ll be be ll 121 20 icy ng ng ” of

CEU eTD Collection in the fact that Germany had its rich, well-develop rich, its had Germany that fact the in However, G country. whole the Eastern to reductions the emission of collapse the where Germany in that si The 1988). of (66.8% Mt 317.8 was it 2001 in and dioxide carbon Poland’s 1988 In Kyoto. in committed reduction emission Poland’s 2001, as early as fact, c in reductions dramatic meant also This collapsed. many economy, market to transition Poland’s to Due community international the 393).(p. prevailed” of efforts the support sums (2006) Jankowski as However, Poland. dependent rais this and tax” “carbon proposing was Commission 3 (p. consumption” fuel in domination coal hard its muchb too impose not would emission dioxide carbon whe discussion and hesitation of lot a after Poland t out, points (2006) Jankowski As 2006). (Jankowski commitmen compar the 2008-2012 period the within making % 6 by 2002, emissions 13, December on Protocol 199 July 26 on Convention Climate the signed Poland Solution’ as an ETSEU‘Imposed – EUinthe Poland (Schreus Tiberghien globally and as well as EU the too potential a therefore, was, trade Carbon world. cou leader, global a as EU the which instrument, an into EU the of incorporation better a of instrument trad Carbon carbon. – commodity constructed newly a i them involve and market common a to States Member 2007)Tiberghien and (seeSchreus building institu identity an as a understood became both Scheme integration, European Trading Emission Union European The s reached ten times the amount amount the times ten reached s 93). At that time, the European the time, that At 93). l for a better integration within integration better a for l global economies. It would be be would It economies. global 2007).

ed Western part, which could which part, Western ed . Carbon trade would bring all bring would trade Carbon . hese decisions were taken in in taken were decisions hese ther “the policy of reducing reducing of policy “the ther arbon dioxide emissions. In In emissions. dioxide arbon urden on Poland, because of because Poland, on urden the main difference resided resided difference main the tuation was a bit similar to similar bit a was tuation e was also perceived as an an as perceived also was e emissions were 476.6 Mt Mt 476.6 were emissions ld offer to the rest of the the of rest the to offer ld inl rcs a wl as well as process tional d ot ocrs n coal- in concerns most ed f h ntoa industries national the of n practices of exchanging exchanging of practices n d o h 18 emissions 1988 the to ed ad aiid h Kyoto the ratified and 4 p “h pltcl il to will political “the up, ra idsr brought industry erman n lmt protection climate on t to reduce GHG GHG reduce to t e srtg of strategy new 122 CEU eTD Collection further:even goes 2006 (Jankowski system” this of regardin efficiency economic “doubts in resulted This 397). (p. ETS” EU consid not were members EU new of features specific arg also (2006) Jankowski 397). p. 2006, (Jankowski en an to scheme Community the adapt to ‘how outline wa Commission the 30 Article under that fact the of members new the to extended automatically was EU15 The 397). (p. way” simplest the in made “was ETS EU integration view, of (2006)point Jankowski’s From 2006). (seeJankowski relative started NAP Polish the on work The gr period. be would company each (EUAs) E allowances the emission in participating companies the all list Alloc would National the prepare to had government Polish about st was to period trading first The Directive. E the in installed ETS) (EU Scheme Trading Emission th and Union European the joined Poland 2004 May In emissions. carbondioxide increasing th has It Europe. Western with up catch to goal the pat a onto out set Poland 2000s, the in transition, fi the in dramatically emissions its reduced having J (see emissions dioxide carbon in increase an also th of consumption energy in increase an implied GDP and 20% was rate unemployment the 2003, in example, emission windfall the of also thus and transition, the and part’ Western ‘rich its have not did Poland country. theof parts Eastern resourc provide and up economy German East the pull msin rdn cud ae eiu ngtv conseq negative serious have curren could the trading emission perspective, States’ Member new the From art in 2005 and end in 2007. The The 2007. in end and 2005 in art h of a faster development – with – development faster a of h reductions, was very high. For high. very was reductions, of the new EU members within within membersEU new the of us also set out onto a path of path a onto out set also us ankowski 2006). As a result, result, a As 2006). ankowski social cost of the economic economic the of cost social s dcd o te economic the of decade rst s obliged to consider and to and consider to obliged s p 37. akwk’ critic Jankowski’s 397). p. , ly late – in December 2003 2003 December in – late ly U ETS and the amount of of amount the and ETS U e ta “h stain and situation “the that ues e Polish economy, and thus and economy, Polish e us also the European Union European the also us lgl udmnas and fundamentals legal g rd uig h dsg of design the during ered U with the 2003 EU ETS ETS EU 2003 the with U each strategy to increase increase to strategy each es for investments in the the in investments for es ytm eind o the for designed system to Pa (A) which (NAP), Plan ation agd uoen Union’” European larged and it was done “in spite spite “in done was it and ne fr hs trading this for anted ecs o their for uences vrin of version t 123 CEU eTD Collection As a result, the Polish National Allocation Plan wa Plan Allocation National Polish the result, a As

Polish NAP creation” (Jankowski 2006, p. 398).p. 2006, creation” NAP (Jankowski Polish inf significant had system whole the of NAP; assessments (2 in Jankowski (cap). allowances limits Kyoto of on not number projection, total the on influence further for base a as level emission current taking with particular in raised were Concerns countries. participat the without established were rules These Na constructing of process the to applied rules the rai also circles business and government Polish The thosecountries. reductions emission for tool flexible a as ETS, the the within targets faced were targets Kyoto meeting Kyoto with Difficulties the with justif compliance no ensure behind simply rationale only was the if ETS, there in participation Therefore, 30%. by Kyoto decade first emi the its exceeding still of was Poland mid growth, economic the in that fact the to due adminis an as ETS wa ETS economy. national costtheto administrative perceived Poland short, it put To Poland put a lot of effort earlier, considerably re considerably earlier, effort of lot a put Poland ETS EU disadvantageous to adaptation of legitimacy que Most 398). p. 2006, (Jankowski situation social a EC the by accepted rules the both of account take Kyoto target. (Jankowski 2006, p. 397)p. (Jankowski2006, target. Kyoto does Poland ETS the cu it as programme restriction of carbon any implement absence the in that fact the eco the for benefits cost-saving nor planning direct neither strategy accounti planning, in operational changes behaviour, monitoring, (emission companies impleme significant creates ETS EU The development. ducing the emissions of CO2” (p. (p. CO2” of emissions the ducing s designed in such a way as to as way a such in designed s by the old Member States, and States, Member old the by stions emerged regarding “the regarding emerged stions tional Allocation Plans (NAPs). Plans Allocation tional n h E,ws eeiil for beneficial was EU, the in sed concerns about fairness of fairness about concerns sed allocations; no early action’s action’s early no allocations; regard to the following rules: following the to regard s also perceived as redundant redundant perceivedas also s 006) concludes that “critical “critical that concludes 006) to was ETS the establishing luence on the process of the the of process the on luence ssion reduction targets from targets reduction ssion ion of the newly accessed accessed newly the of ion of the 2000s, despite its its despite 2000s, the of ue, n stain where situation a in rules, nd Poland’s economic and and economic Poland’s nd nomy. This is due to due is This nomy. trative burden and an an and burden trative EU Member States. States. Member EU rrently meets the the meets rrently loain ae on based allocation ntation costs for for costs ntation ication for Poland’s Poland’s for ication t) u gives but etc) o ne to need not g market ng, 124 CEU eTD Collection 21 t million 239 of level average an at allocation the Comm European the 2005 March 8 On 2005-2007. period ave of tonnes million 286.2 for allowances allocate Septembe governmental 22 on other Commission European the by to submitted accepted was document NAP The 400). (p. action” or Environmen in projections of emission Ministry above the bonuses additional work, the of phase early Jankow to According Environment. of Ministry the by companies Polish for allocation emission of aspects (Jankowsk Poland” for not countries, EU old the for emissio CO2 that conviction common “a however, was, c was This role. important less a played Economy of (2 Jankowski (consultants). experts independent and Allocation industr of representatives National Environment, of Ministry the preparing in role main The 399). p. (Jankowski2006, targets.” the rea individual of situation on the to compared economy work for guideline worse not should Poland in ETS EU of implementation fundamental a as accepted Ther limits. Protocol Kyoto the met having and 398) trading sector’s carbon dioxide emissions in the to in the emissions dioxide carbon sector’s trading 2005-2007 in theperiod Poland of emissions dioxide then and averagin 2007, and 2006 2005, years theof growth GDP projected by Poland of emissions dioxide 2002 between % 20 by increasing as Poland in growth b % 4.8 by decreasing as GDP, unit of per emissions domes gross of intensity emissions thetotal CO2eq, car theactual records information additional ‘This es hn h Pls pooa. h Pls Governmen Polish The proposal. Polish the than less monitoring made possible emission increase above BL above increase emission possible made monitoring uncertainty (iii) scenario, BLN to according % 70.3 in tot sectors share ETS of (ii) 2002), to compared wh 2001) to compared % (99.1 production electricity that consideration into take not did decision ‘This comments that: (2006) Jankowski 401) p. 2006, (Jankowski CO2eq.’ trading the of emissions annual maximumaverage the The Commission used the following arguments: arguments: thefollowing used Commission The

: (i) the year 2002 was characterised by a temporal a by was characterised 2002 year the (i) : bon dioxide emissions of Poland in 2000 as being30 as in 2000 Poland of emissions dioxide bon al CO2 emission in years 2005-2007 was expected to to wasexpected 2005-2007 years in emission CO2 al tal carbon dioxide emissions as provided in thepla provided as emissions dioxide carbon tal related to GDP growth and effects of changes in em in changes of effects growth and GDP to related tic product (GDP), expressed in units of carbon dio carbon in unitsof expressed (GDP), product tic g the results, means that the average annual total total annual average the means that gtheresults, etween 2002 and the period 2005-2007, and thetotal and 2005-2007, theperiod and 2002 etween would be 351.6 Mt CO2eq. Applying the share of the of share Applyingthe CO2eq. Mt 351.6 wouldbe ile the next year showed dynamic growth (105.2 % in % (105.2 growth dynamic yearshowed next the ile sector during the same period should be 239.1 Mt Mt 239.1 be should period same during the sector and the period 2005-2007. Multiplying the 2002 car 2002 Multiplyingthe 2005-2007. the and period and projected emissions intensity improvements for improvements intensity emissions projected and N projection.’ (Jankowski 2006, p. 401) p. 401) 2006, (Jankowski projection.’ N onnes per year per onnes were therefore taken care of of care taken therefore were y sectors covered by the ETS the by covered sectors y 006) notices that the Ministry Ministry the that notices 006) ae nul msin i the in emissions annual rage lisation of the Kyoto Protocol Kyoto the of lisation riticized by industries. There industries. by riticized efore, the following rule was rule following the efore, n the situation of the Polish the of situation the n t, after a lot of hesitation, hesitation, of lot a after t, i 2006, p. 399). Economic Economic 399). p. 2006, i e t akolde early acknowledge to der relatively a “at (2006), ski ns and ETS are a big issue big a are ETS and ns ln a pae b the by played was Plan ission decided to assign to decided ission 20. t rpsd to proposed It 2005. r dcdd o propose to decided t oih A: “the NAP: Polish eatet and departments 21 , about 16.5 % 16.5 about , drop in drop n (68 %), %), n(68 carbon carbon 8.3 Mt Mt 8.3 xide xide ission ission reach reach GDP GDP 2003 2003 bon

each each 125 CEU eTD Collection volumes in several sectors, including the steel and steel the including sectors, several in volumes Also the National Registry of Allowances was put in put was Allowances of Registry National the Also December 27on government Polish theof introduced and Commission European the by accepted Na new The installations. Polish between allowances restructure it However, Commission. European the by accepted government Polish the Poland, by proposed f in arguments sufficient of lack a to due Finally, t 412-413)p. 2006, (Jankowski that fact the to before EC the with conflicts creating in interested related was and nature political le assumed the than lower be to proved they as role modifications. the accept Poland making in crucial EC the 2006).After Jankowski (see EC the by NAP imposed the on work to began and appeal to not decided n eebr 22 December On emission trade already in 2005. The collapse of ETS of collapse The 2005. in already trade emission fo gains financial of opportunities early lost many Regulski As time. that till trades emission actual resourcessufficientand lacked training t auditing provi hand, other the On services. their using from price high extremely at services their offered time on scarce very companies auditing the out, (2008) points Regulski still were 2005/2006 in emi who auditors yearly reporting in delays co Verification verification. its and installations huge also were There efficiency inemissioof a low resulted techniques, and officials local of incompetence the as well as 2 2005, in late relatively came allowances emission regulating acts legislative the of Most reductions. econ the emphasized which Poland, in trade emission nd 20, h Pls Primn aotd eilto r legislation adopted Parliament Polish the 2004, , th , 2005 (see Regulski 2008). 2005(seeRegulski , uld only be carried out by certified by out carried be only uld (2008) points out, this resulted in resulted this out, (2008) points avour of the emission reductions emission the of avour n trade in Poland. trade n inadequate emissions measuring emissions inadequate emission trade and allocation of allocation and trade emission o carry out this task. this out carry o of new parliamentary elections. parliamentary new of r companies that couldn’t start couldn’t that companies r power industries, played a key a played industries, power ncial officials entitled to do the do to entitled officials ncial s deterring smaller businesses businesses smaller deterring s that operated in Poland at that at Poland in operated that to being in July 2006, delaying delaying 2006, July in being to 006 and even 2007. This fact This 2007. even and 006 oe pae i production in updates Some vels. Another reason was of of was reason Another vels. in 2007, when the price of price the when 2007, in emission limits put forward forward put limits emission decision, two factors were were factors two decision, omic efficiency of emission of efficiency omic inl loain ln was Plan Allocation tional e oenet a not was government he in Poland by a regulation a by Poland in te hr o emission of share the d adjustments to the limit limit the to adjustments h Pls mre. As market. Polish the sos y particular by ssions egulating 126 CEU eTD Collection Another battle between the Polish government and th and government Polish the between battle Another loain ln rprd y h nw iitr f Env of Minister new the by prepared Plan Allocation opne (e Wlzk 08. hrfr, h nw go new the Therefore, 2008). Walczak al (see dioxide companies carbon of tonnes million 208,5 allocated incompetenceofficials. of legislat slow with struggling were companies Polish Kyoto other use to we how and system companies the from benefit many While 2008-2012. phase coming the know gained have could t they which practical during companies, for period shorter a in resulted emis Poland setting in delays huge addition, In 2005-2007. duri ETS on earn to chances any of companies Polish cents 3 of price lowest the hit Allowances European A. n ac 26 March On NAP. Com European the 16%, about by emissions industry’s Eur forecast the government’s Polish and the mainly government concerning Polish the between afte arguments out, points (2008) Regulski As year. a dioxide em would installations Polish 2012 and 2008 between Commission. European the to approval govern for Polish submitted the by prepared was NAP second the of fo Plan Allocation National secondthe about fought change in Poland, the new government issued a regul a issued government new the Poland, in change J as early as Interesting, What’s companies. Polish t Commission European the of decision the overruled of position the supported 2009, September in which, Cour European the to appealed government Polish The entrants.–onesnew newthe the of also o emission the only covernot to supposed was quota between period trading the for installations Polish an of tonnes million 208,5 allocate to proposed and th 20, h Erpa Cmiso rjce te Polish the rejected Commission European the 2007, , 2008 and 2012. This allocation This 2012. and 2008 r 2008-2012. The basic version basic The2008-2012. r l 20, fe a government a after 2008, uly f the existing installations but installations existing the f in December 2007, deprived deprived 2007, December in v poess n a general a and processes ive ul msin loacs to allowances emission nual e European Commission was was Commission European e o allocate less allowances to to allowances less allocate o ann aalbe o Polish for available raining a itnie xhne of exchange intensive an r the Polish government and government Polish the it 284,6 ml tones of carbon carbon of tones ml 284,6 it ation to adopt the National National the adopt to ation mechanisms (CDM and JI), and (CDM mechanisms mission rejected the Polish Polish the rejected mission ng the first trading period trading first the ng lowance a year to Polish Polish to year a lowance in rd it mto in motion into trade sion The project assumed that, that, assumed project The t of Justice in Luxemburg, Luxemburg, in Justice of t f h ices i Polish in increase the of rnet Ti nw NAP new This ironment. ledge and experience for for experience and ledge ment in June 2006 and and 2006 June in ment e erig o to how learning re vernment acted in in acted vernment pa Commission opean NAP 127 CEU eTD Collection Another big battle was still to come. In January 20 January In come. to still was battle big Another Conclusions furtherthesis theof discussed in chapters be will coal- amendments tothe around unfolded that expensive Events Poland. more all, above and centralized, Th targets. reduction new and ETS the for rules new installations.industrial and lines n built that companies for emissions allo dioxide carbon emission of pool reserve Additio a tonnes. Poland to ml allocated 208,5 be Afte to agreed crises. was companies financial allocated of amount 2008/2009 yearly final the negotiations, the of an consequence from resulted 2008 in emissions carbon low Such Poland for proposed Commission the what than lower for emissions the considered Commission the result, Allocat National new the about deciding when Poland da available latest the use to Commission the urged of round new a opened decision Court’s the However, governprevioustheby Court,initiated the in case Commission the of decision 2007 the with congruence it is always limited by local conditions. alwayslocal by limited is it gove neoliberal of power unifying the and actors by environm in logic neoliberal the of spread the that process. differ bit a automatic took idea this an context, organizational being from far also was trade Imp examples. such of one is Poland 1990s early The implementation cases, many In conditions. political intere actors’ on circumstances, many on contingent ‘histo a of process linear a not was This practice. transf trade emission the how examined chapter This

. . ent shape. This point to the fact the to point This shape. ent ment, was still pending. stillpending. was ment, ental governance is carried out carried is governance ental emission allowance for Polish Polish for allowance emission ia ncsiy bt process a but necessity’ rical 08, the Commission proposed Commission the 08, of the emission trade failed. trade emission the of rnmentality is never total but total never is rnmentality e new system would be more more be would system new e ew, less emitting production production emitting less ew, acs f 3 l ons of tonnes ml 13 of wances t ad n cnmc legal, economic, on and sts lementation of the emission the of lementation 2009, which were in fact fact in were which 2009, ta on carbon emissions in in emissions carbon on ta in 2007 – 204,1 ml tonnes. tonnes. ml 204,1 – 2007 in to the 2003 ETS Directive ETS 2003 the to dependant countries like like countries dependant o Pa fr oad A a As Poland. for Plan ion despite the fact that the the that fact the despite ormed from an idea into into idea an from ormed eoitos nwy It anyway. negotiations In each economic and and economic each In cnmc onun a – downturn economic nally, the Commission Commission the nally, r some additional additional some r 128 CEU eTD Collection visible and publicly less negotiable. Taxes and mar and Taxes negotiable. less publicly and visible t h sm tm, h eiso tae nrdcs cha introduces trade emission the time, same the At i ad ol (avy n Cok, 09. hr i a is Europ the e.g. like Europe, in exchanges specialist There 2009). Crooks, and (Harvey coal” and oil tradin energy larger banks’ the of part integral an “emissio Moreover, brokerages. and banks attracting a as perceived is carbon (2009), Crooks and Harvey to up mounted it 2008 in and City London the in out change climate against battle the in line frontthe t but it, look not may They (…) screens. the across scanning restlessly eyes mouse, on hand computers, traders of “rows out point (2009) Crooks and Harvey d reductions emission pin to difficult is it Today, bureaucracies State make economicproliferate. actors taxes while Thus, agenda. e cap), emission necessari not are which actors, various by mediated the (e.g. efficiency trade emission environmental into interfere may it regulator a as so not is trade Emission interface’. business ‘thin S the t between interface’ bureaucratic ‘thick a between involves relations in involved actors of scope n evrnetl akt. hl txs r explicit are wh of spaces are markets taxes economy, into interference While markets. environmental and b made distinction pointed most the perhaps is This cap-and-tradesystem.” a of machinery easier also is It public. the to invisible largely Unlike expediency. political of those are ar however, persuasive most the “Perhaps wrote: they tax” or At dioxide. carbon in trading far so market biggest Emissio Union European of functioning the discussed article the Times Financial in published Crooks Ed Novembe In emissions. GHG to relate governments and

to repeal a tax than dismantle the dismantle than tax a repeal to lely in State’s capacity. Although capacity. State’s in lely .” Carbon trade is mainly carried mainly is trade Carbon .” own to a particular location. As location. particular a to own he State and the economy and a and economythe and State he g portfolios, which started with started which portfolios, g ean Climate Exchange (ECX), a a (ECX), Exchange Climate ean kets also differ in terms of the of terms in differ also kets the end of the section “Trade section the of end the ly driven by an environmental environmental an by driven ly hese men and women are on are women and men hese etween: environmental taxes taxes environmental etween: Udr cod wee they where cloud” a “Under 125bn dollars. According to According dollars. 125bn sit staring at their banks of banks their at staring sit ns are now being treated as treated being now are ns a tax, a trading scheme is is scheme trading a tax, a gs o h wy companies way the to nges n re t gaate its guarantee to order in ich boundaries are not less less not are boundaries ich promising new asset class class asset new promising ae n eooy A tax A economy. and tate s a rwn nme of number growing a lso uet o governments, for gument h nmes ht stutter that numbers the r 2009, Fiona Harvey and Harvey Fiona 2009, r Taig cee the – Scheme Trading n mission reductions are are reductions mission tools of the State’s State’s the of tools rw mres make markets grow, 129 CEU eTD Collection c their borders. within country’s business deter will allowances emission buying of cost the Mo governments. for issue vital a rarely is markets tra carbon by raised those from different radically so of concerns And talks. global the during account ra are States Member EU particular by carried Costs transition costly a into them drives which trolley, EU the within States Member particular Russia, and players main the at looking is world the while But commitments.seriousmake to any want not does 2013 from allowances emission of auctions European third the for preparing is Union European the while memorable less even was Mexico in Cancun in parties 2010 The process. UNFCCC the within negotiated not is it as COP the by 'noted' only was it but China, approximately bywas accord' negotiated 'political act post-Kyoto a and commitments binding legally of Copenhagen in negotiations 2009 December the about poli where point the is this And regions. other and with quality new gain would trade carbon ‘mature’, c European the Although future. the about uncertain p But fast. growing thus is sector trade carbon The 95m traded contracts.” ECX 2005, of cen per 100 roughly up tonnes, 20m than more little Europea in volume trading daily “average out, point them on contracts futures as well as credits carbon They group. Exchange Climate UK-listed the of unit considered an external document external an considered 25 parties including the andUS including parties 25 tics come into play. High hopes High play. into come tics ders. The liquidity of the GHG the of liquidity The ders. . As Harvey and Crooks (2009) Crooks and Harvey As . like the U.S., EU, China, India China, EU, U.S., the like trading period with open pan- open with period trading re often they are worried that worried are they often re no lw abn economy. carbon low a into t on a year ago. In the whole the In ago. year a on t rely articulated or taken into taken or articulated rely n emissions allowances is a a is allowances emissions n are offering spot trading in trading spot offering are arbon market is considered is market arbon e U ebr tts are States Member EU me still are traders rofessional are on the ride in the same the in ride the on are U.S. the onto expansion its mais rm on their doing from ompanies than the previous one. And one. previous the than conference of the UNFCCC UNFCCC the of conference disappeared soon. Instead Instead soon. disappeared ion plan, a 13-paragraph 13-paragraph a plan, ion on, the rest of the world world the of rest the on, 130 CEU eTD Collection goig elzto ta cro doie a a str a has dioxide carbon that realization growing A 23 22 Introduction Frame Economic an and Challenges to Accou Metaphors: and Calculation Between 3. Chapter land use such as deforestation.”as such use land manufac cement and fuels fossil of burning the from incl which activity, human to due emissions dioxide countr includes list Wiki’s everywhere. be to seems B makers. policy and scientists of call the is this atmosphere the in dioxide carbon much too is There dioxide emitters in 2007 in emitters dioxide the like lists, top-ten new constructing for basis I actors. and processes places, between hierarchies ne of part defining a become may Carbon intensive’. e our to appearing start things and visible becomes becomi is molecule non-hu and human various in participant troublesome simple This dioxide. carbon with prom civilization human of future the about concern electricity market. However, the use of the PRIMES PRIMES the of use the However, market. electricity European of impact the calculate to used was model Univer Technical National the from experts of group PRIM the by provided was framing This way. economic Eur framing to challenges the examines chapter This weu act wanttodioxide choosecarbon theus makes act that realize to start we importantly, more but, and the United Kingdom. Poland takes21 Kingdom.thePoland United and Russi India, Union, European the States, United the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_c http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_c

22

. On the top of that list, we can see China followe China see can we list, that of top the On . 23 We may not be satisfied with this narrow scope narrow this with satisfied be not may We arbon_dioxide_emissions arbon_dioxide_emissions st place. place. Wiki’s list of the biggest carbon biggest the of list Wiki’s ut which carbon to reduce? It It reduce? to carbon which ut ude “carbon dioxide emissions dioxide “carbon ude t may for example become the the become example for may t yes as ‘low carbon’ or ‘carbon or carbon’ ‘low as yes ing to reduce carbon dioxide dioxide carbon reduce to ing ies and territories by carbon carbon by territories and ies pt us to re-cognize the world world the re-cognize to us pt pon. ture, but not emissions from from emissions not but ture, n ipc o Erh n a and Earth on impact ong sity in Athens. The PRIMES The Athens. in sity climate policies on the EU’s EU’s the on policies climate , aa, emn, Canada Germany, Japan, a, man activities. The invisible invisible The activities. man opean carbon dioxide in an in dioxide carbon opean and it should be reduced – reduced be should it and iette, eain and relations identities, w ES model developed by a by developed model ES oe hs asd many raised has model

g cnpcos and conspicuous a ng tn fr Carbon for nting d by d 131 CEU eTD Collection Directiv ETS new theof proposal the Whenpreparing parti a auctions. only and EUAs of allocation free possible. for as fought ETS new the to emissions their little c their over control keep to want that plants power particular in and, companies Consequently, markets. commod a as dioxide carbon of movement the physics, governe is molecule a as dioxide carbon of movement an (Callon it produced that ones the from wande different may it a market the then on and put Once goods infrastructure. other many from singularized first order in that, out point (2002) Muniesa and Callon in 2013-202 ETS economically toon for account have carbo Polish strategi over boundaries technical technical and temporal and discursive with out set They aucti of rule the under plants power from emissions opp and free for dioxide carbon of quantities large the dioxide carbon all for (EUAs) allowances buy to chapte This industria p Polish concernthat expressed actors governmental Polish ETS. which on during 2008, traded in negotiations be should dioxide PRIMES-based carbon the from stemming controversy main The expertise. private the whether to as doubts raises EU the in policies im The generates. it calculations the and model the difficult it makes analysis an such with Commission NTUA of exclusiveness The scrutiny. electri public Universi escapes Technical National European the from group research the States Member individual that in differences for account assumes who the for calculation makes it areinterconnected, It controversies. osed putting all carbon dioxide carbon all putting osed y emitted. They wanted to emitto wanted They emitted. y le EU, and therefore it fails to fails it therefore and EU, le to become tradable, a good is good a tradable, become to pact of the PRIMES model on model PRIMES the of pact arbon, struggled to attach as attach to struggled arbon, . As a private property of the the of property private a As . ower plants would be obliged be would plants ower 0. 0. to examine the premises of of premises the examine to d Muniesa 2002). While the the While 2002). Muniesa d e, the European Commission Commission European the e, n dioxide, which they would would they which dioxide, n l uy f uig Us on EUAs buying of duty al n te wrs companies words, other In omsin hud ey on rely should Commission oning emission allowances. allowances. emission oning d by laws of chemistry and chemistry of laws by d es to re-negotiate spatial, spatial, re-negotiate to es ad oe scos and sectors, power and l , industries and coal-fired coal-fired and industries , ity is governed by laws of laws by governed is ity to provide the European European the provide to r away moved by forces forces by moved away r y n tes NU) it (NTUA), Athens in ty ttached to the market market the to ttached aclto i what is calculation r focuses on ETS ETS on focuses r iy markets city 132 CEU eTD Collection The PRIMES Model for an Average EU EconomyAverage ModelEU an for PRIMES The especially and various States, in Member objections chapter, this in further shown be will it as This, Eu the on variou on than impacts rather flows, free ETS of space economic the of speak to chose experts the Interestingly, Directive. ETS the for proposal the entitled report in these of results and calculations The model. PRIMES I economies. European on impact its assess to tried The optr ytm o NU (CSNU) Dprmn of Department (ICCS/NTUA), Engineering. Computer NTUA of Systems Computer Instit the within operating is E3MLab The (E3MLab). Resear Laboratory Modelling Environment – Economics devel was model by The supported programmes. been research Commission has and 1993 in (NTUA) Athens in t in initiated was it on Work long. quite is EU the sys energy PRIMES the is model the of name full The Theirinquiries byfigure. concealed this cleverly c indi on impact legislation’s this new the in how differences inquiring started actors Polish percent, Commission electricit Union’s European the European in increase average the When Poland. in controversy Ene and Change Climate the of proposals legislative mat Assessment Impact rjcin ad nls cmlx sus eurn sy requiring issues complex analyse and projections us are models Such Environment. the and Economy the are the covering models computerised scale large of E 3 MLab is a laboratory that specializes in the specializesconstrin laboratory that is a MLab mat Assessment Impact , which accompanied the ETS Directive and other other and Directive ETS the accompanied which , n peetd oehr ih the with together presented and

led them to thethemto model. PRIMES led he National Technical University University Technical National he has raised serious concerns and concerns serious raised has vidual Member States were so were States Member vidual y prices in would be around 22 around be would in prices y t based its assessments on the on assessments its based t in Poland. omsin n te Athens the and Commission s Member States separately. States Member s assessments were gathered were assessments tem model and its history in history its and model tem t o Cmuiain and Communication of ute g Pcae rie much raised Package, rgy ud ae apnd that happened have ould h n Plc Analysis Policy and ch oen no a one as Union ropean oped at the Energy – – Energy the at oped uction and use and uction a series of European European of series a none ta the that announced as of Energy, of as ed to make make to ed stem-wide lcrcl and Electrical 133 CEU eTD Collection nerts h ntoa eeg sses ihn h m the within systems energy national the integrates techno energy innovative and policies environmental regard with market energy European complex the very on a processes is model PRIMES the short, it put To h Erpa eeg mre. mr dtie descrip websiteE3Mlab.theof official the on found detailed more A market. energy European the assum it and analyses market policy energy for tool on focus to ( market” the in penetration dema technology for context “was energy of PRIMES evolution the developing influencing mechanisms of aim The 1998. Eur the by reviewed peer successfully was model The ovrtks V Pns L Mnzs P Cpo, Demo Capros, P. Mantzos, Source: ETRES). L. Panos, V. Kouvaritakis, co-generators industrial example for as suppliers, in nine transport, commercial, (residential, demand an supply, biomass production, heat and electricity convers production energy by organised is (7) model The forms, fuels, electri regarding alternative issues policy (8) liberalisation, (6) demand-side, the envir and technologies (2) new (4) etc., technologies, on costsstandards following strategy, the supply, in of analysis security policy support a can agent, model representative) (or specific a of behavior su in organized is model The relationships. dynamic pe time each (within static is equilibrium The use. to best find producers quantity the that such form equilib the determines model The demand. and supply projects&Itemid=61&lang=en mate-change-policies-for-post-2012-regime&catid=40% 26 25 24 and EuroCARE GmbH Bonn.GmbH EuroCARE and Appl for Institute International were: E for Environment” regime, post-2012 for policies Change Climate as based “Model the in partners example, For basis. which NTUA, by undertaken projects consultancy for t sold not is and NTUA by owned is model PRIMES The The PRIMES model is a modeling system that simulate that system modeling a is model PRIMES The http://www.e3mlab.ntua.gr/e3mlab/index.php?option=c http://www.e3mlab.ntua.gr/e3mlab/ support. policy to given is emphasis Special consideration. http://www.e3mlab.ntua.gr/e3mlab/ 24

25

city generation, gas distribution and new energy energy new and distribution gas generation, city riod) but repeated in a time-forward path, under under path, time-forward a in repeated but riod) of electricity and steam. (ppt presentation by N. N. by presentation (ppt steam. and electricity of supply matches the quantity consumers wish to to wish consumers quantity the matches supply d others) for supply and by end-use sectors for for sectors end-use by and supply for others) d dustrial sectors). Some demanders may be also also be may demanders Some sectors). dustrial onmental issues, (3) pricing policy, taxation, taxation, policy, pricing (3) issues, onmental b-models (modules), each one representing the the representing one each (modules), b-models 26 demander and/or a supplier of energy. The The energy. of supplier a and/or demander renewable sources, (5) energy efficiency in in efficiency energy (5) sources, renewable

sub-system (oil products, natural gas, coal, coal, gas, natural products, (oil sub-system fields: (1) standard energy policy issues: issues: policy energy standard (1) fields: 3Aenvironmental-policy- rium by finding the prices of each energy energy each of prices the finding by rium s a market equilibrium solution for energy energy for solution equilibrium market a s ion decentralisation, electricity market market electricity decentralisation, ion om_content&view=article&id=143%3Acli nstration of PRIMES-ELMAS Models in in Models PRIMES-ELMAS of nstration p. 3). It has been designed as a as designed been has It3). p. e ytm Aayi (IIASA) Analysis Systems ied es complete liberalization of liberalization complete es invites partners on a project project a on partners invites sessment of EU energy and energy EU of sessment ois Temdl lo fully also model The logies. opean Commission in 1997- in Commission opean uropean Commission, DG DG Commission, uropean o third parties. It is used is It parties. third o ultinational ones for oil oil for ones ultinational ol sd o modeling for used tool in f RMS a be can PRIMES of tion d n spl ad the and supply and nd to the development of of development the to nlss and analysis market-related market-related 134 CEU eTD Collection ected-applications-&catid=35%3Aprimes&Itemid=80&lan http://www.e3mlab.ntua.gr/e3mlab/index.php?option=c Source: "Trends [2004], Drivers" Key on Scenarios Transport 2030 to "Trends [2006], renewables" and efficiency and oil high on "Scenarios [2007], Report" Summary Packa Policy EU U - 2008 2030 to Trends Report: Baseline "Energy [2008], the of Analysis based - "Model Electric Carbon-Neutral to "Pathways [2010], 2009" 27 energypoliciesand environmental for tool invaluable an it made subsystems different comprehensivene Its system. energy country-specific hydrogen) methanol, Fina (biomass, fuels alternative character. and national-specific a abateme generation, power in progress technological hand, other the lig and coal example for supply, energy primary The the through operating mechanism, allocation market depen level, national a Electricit at determined are level. expansion national a at ge evaluated electricity is and demand Europe to supply gas production, (e.g. (e.g. internat in position strong a gained Mantzos L. and Am analysts. NTUA several of authority and fame the PRIME the of importance growing a and usability The Energy and CO and Energy p D. Petrellis and Vouyoukas L. Mantzos, L. Capros, PRIMES was applied to the following studies: "Ener studies: following the to applied was PRIMES nry PolicyEnergy the EU. EU. the govern at used be to started and Environment DG for proje exte also been has It XVII. Analysis DG Commission, European Shared the for Outlook Emissions and Union European the prepare to used been has PRIMES Europ period, 1998-1999 the the During (...) by change. climate envisaged measures c Kyoto the for phase negotiation and the in Commission policies of set evthe 1997in in used been has 1 version model The 2 Emissions Trends to 2020: PRIMES model v.2” in the in v.2” model PRIMES 2020: to Trends Emissions . n 99 bfr te aiiain f h Koo Pr Kyoto the of ratification the before 1999, In ).

: 27 :

pdate 2007" [2008], "The Role of Electricity - - Electricity of "TheRole [2008], 2007" pdate to 2030" [2003]. [2003]. 2030" to - update 2005" [2006], "European Energy & & Energy "European [2006], 2005" update - ity in Europe by 2050 - Final Report" [2010], [2010], Report" Final - 2050 by Europe in ity gy Baseline Report: Trends to 2030 - Update Update - 2030 to Trends Report: Baseline gy gas prices" [2006], "Scenarios on energy energy on "Scenarios [2006], prices" gas om_content&view=article&id=221%3Asel ge on Climate Change and Renewables" Renewables" and Change Climate on ge g=en ublished the articlethe“European ublished

ding, however, on a complex a on however, ding, electricity grid Europe-wide. grid electricity h Cmiso’ wr on work Commission’s the oa eeg plc journals policy energy ional dsacig n capacity and dispatching y S model have contributed to to contributed have model S nt technologies, renewables technologies, nt ie upy uvs hs on has, curves, supply nite r dtrie fr each for determined are ong them were P. Capros Capros P. were them ong s n aiiy o model to ability and ss eain n tae The trade. and neration l, nry savings, energy lly, aluation of theof aluation onference for onference ment level in in level ment eso 2 of 2 version nsively used nsively t f the of ct Energy ean Bulletin of Bulletin tcl P. otocol, 135 CEU eTD Collection aur 20 te uoen omsin rsne a pr a presented Commission European the 2008 January atclry fet h poe ad oe coal-depend the or Czech Republic. Estonia Poland, more and poorer th the of affect problem the particularly became It 15’. old the of t problem 2008 In ETS. Pol to for attitude Poland’s high in very breakthrough be would ETS the in participating each EU country separately?country EU each EU the in prices electricity in increase average an Co European the did Why room:the in heard of be could level a at be to EU-27 the in an prices electricity foresaw Commission The economy. European on ETS econo evaluated Assessment Impact The model. PRIMES the presented also it Poland, in Directive 28 in – coal – fuel fossil ‘carbon-intensive’ most the electri Poland’s because average European the above pric electricity in increase the that assessed They economies. fa had Commission European the claim gaze’, ‘homogenizing They Poland. of behalf on speak quest to government legitimacy the and businesses Polish comfort offices? from homogeneous so look really Europe Does o dependent most those and EU the in regions poorer Commissi the of side the on will bad of bit a there as were representatives governmental and industries Polan in rules ETS new debating for impulse an gave cal to liked they as mistake’, ‘methodological This controv model, PRIMES the of fame the with However, energy-r energyand (EU) European forUnion outlook Society& Technology Science, Project interview, Warsaw, February 2009. 2009. February Warsaw, interview, Project

where they presented the summary of a consistent a of summary the presented they where mat Assessment Impact instead of making forecasts for forecasts making of instead l the Commission’s calculation, calculation, Commission’s the l on to fail to speak on behalf of behalf on speak to fail to on 2 ecn. upie voices Surprised percent. 22 s n oad ol b much be would Poland in es lot 93% almost city generation depended on depended generation city elated emissions till 2020. till emissionselated mmission decide to speak of speak to decide mmission king similar questions: Was Was questions: similar king n coal in power generation? generation? power in coal n d. The Polish power sector, sector, power Polish The d. d ht y atn sc a such casting by that ed iled to represent particular particular represent to iled e T cae t b ‘the be to ceased ETS he ersies also came. When in in When came. also ersies n Mme Sae, like States, Member ent nw U0 ht would that EU10 new e n. hs a a crucial a was This and. oe te Commission’s the ioned psl o te e ETS new the for oposal mic impact of the new new the of impact mic be et i Brussels in seats able vrg ices in increase average , which used the the used which , 28 Te ot of cost The . 136 CEU eTD Collection s h Pls gvrmna ofcas n eeg exp energy and officials governmental Polish the As 29 transparen the and model PRIMES frohaveThesemainobjections the been questioned. the of validity The Polish industries: Polish interv my by criticized heavily also was assumption inter an as simulated be can countries European the el “for model PRIMES the in that underlines E3M The DG TREN sent an e-mail in response to Prof. Żmijews to response ane-mail sent Prof. in TREN DG Matthias expertise. their defend to tried officials the of reliability the about argument KrzysztofŻmijewski, Blog 20-06-2008 11:54, 11:54, 20-06-2008 Blog KrzysztofŻmijewski, increase in electricity prices in the EU27.the electricity in in prices increase about talking on insists it Instead, State. Member ele in increase an of speak to refusing consciously d is it what of aware partly be must Commission the assu which model, PRIMES wit exchange of steams all in flows free of percent the - economy European the onsimulationsby proposals policy its supported it aware really not is Commission the that be might It All would be fine and we could speak of an average average an of speak could we and fine be would All edn eetiiy vr uh dsac sml doe simply 2009)February distance Warsaw, sense…(Interview, a such over electricity Sending going we are how But Poland! to it send even can we to energy this send will we and Portugal in panels 100000 construct we assume Let’s electricity. such her mention to want even don’t I EU. the throughout gr of transfer allow would that solutions technical becau least n at exist is doesn’t It market. there electricity But existed. market electricity European

www.wnp.pl mat Assessment Impact 29

Ruete, the General Director of of Director General the Ruete, m Polish experts in 2008:experts in Polish m ki’s doubts:ki’s ee, rpeettv of representative a iewee, an idealized model of model idealized an ctricity prices in each in prices ctricity hin the EU. However, EU. the hin linked system” (ref.). This This (ref.). system” linked ectricity and gas markets, gas and ectricity of its mistake when mistake its of rs o ivle i an in involved got erts oing – because it is is it because – oing se of the lack of lack the of se td, h Commission the study, 22 percent of an an of percent 22 half of the EU, the of half een electricity electricity een cy of its use were were use its of cy e the price of price the e ha of solar solar of ha to send it? send to EU-wide o nt make sn’t U f a if EU mes 100 100 mes 137 CEU eTD Collection Table 1. Differences between the Commission and Ene and Commission the between Differences 1. Table hisinstitout by analysiscarried the and analysis b discrepancies to pointed EnergSys of analyst updated main was Ja 2008. version January from full proposals latest Its Commission’s 2008. September of end 31 30 2020by prices electricity in Increase 2020 power costsgeneration by in Increase e Polish and Directive’s European impact on ETS new ebr tts t h bgnig f 2007 of beginning the at States Member ta reduction emission European of impact the assess commissioned – (PKEE) Energy Electric for Committee sect power Polish of association an 2007 October In ecn ad 2 pret hr o eeg fo renew from energy of share percent 2020. by also Europe in generation 20 a and percent percent 20 by sectors ETS the in emissions dioxide Matthias RUETE, October 10, 2008, source: Green Eff Green source: 2008, 10, October RUETE, Matthias A declaration signed by the Heads of the States, k States, the of Heads the by signed declaration A osqet sg o te oe wie t h sm tim same the coherentassumptions. as such at the at while modeling for ensured was model approach harmonized the of usage consequent includ were comments Such States. Member particular wi especially model, abo the of feedback results and with assumptions Commission the providing by model with prognosis making in part took experts States’ t add to like also Wewould results. good very gave ye last the over improved and tested been has model sc and proposals policy its for model PRIMES the of appro the about convinced however is Commission The in variations some brings usually modeling Complex

30

31 by 2020, an increase in energy efficiency by 20 20 by efficiency energy in increase an 2020, by

Te Rpr 23’ a ray t the at ready was 2030’ ‘Report The . nown as 3x20, assumed reductions of carbon carbon of reductions assumed 3x20, as nown ort Group Report 2008. Report Group ort 26% 26% EU In 33% EU In analysis Commission’s ute: ute: able sources in the final electricity electricity final the in sources able - - rgets agreed upon by the EU the by upon agreed rgets conomies 27 by 19 by 27 23 by 27 r opne – h Polish the – companies or a report from EnergSys to EnergSys from report a nkowski, PhD (2008), the the (2008), PhD nkowski, etween the Commission’s Commission’s the etween rgSys’s assessment of the of assessment rgSys’s hat the Memberthe hat o con fr the for account to h ead to regard th the PRIMES PRIMES the The enarios. - -

r, which ars, priateness prognosis. U level, EU n oad by 60% Poland In 80% 65 by Poland In analysis EnergSys d n the in ed

t the ut a e 138 - CEU eTD Collection akwk (08 age ta fl acin fr the for auctions full that argues (2008) Jankowski „EnergSys Systemowe Polan package: energy and [“Climate Unii?” i Polski energety “Pakiet 2008. Bolesław. Jankowski, Source: 2020by budgets household in costs consumption energy of Proportion 2020 by households consumption power in Increase extremely sketchy description of the PRIMES model model a PRIMES theof description sketchy extremely experts.Furthermore, governmental national the than environment on perspective different a have usually expert energy of list TREN’s DG only covers process t NIAM, the to According communication. information Me the with consultation more for appealed NIAM The pr the and data of use the transparency, its model, assum the regarding mainly concerns, voiced also it “sophisticate its for model PRIMES the praised NIAM Mode Assessment Integrated National for Network the model PRIMES the of usefulness the about questions negotiation ETS 2008 the during Poland in expressed mo PRIMES the of adequacy the about doubts However, 2009). January Warsaw, (Interview, i who Jankowski, one, only is There systems. energy who Poland in analysts many have don’t “We said: He (Interv sense” made that study Polish only “the was conver our during me told UKIE, Serafin, 18). 2008: bigges posit favorable especially an in be will EDF French the enjoy would stations n power that hydroelectric argues Jankowski mix. energy their in energy proportio significant having costs high wi avoid would burdened most be would Poland costs, indirect to Czec Aus France, in extent lesser the much a to and Bulgaria Poland, in harshly most prices electricity

h Sp. z o.o.: Warsaw. Warsaw. zo.o.: Sp. h costs for for costs d's and Union's success or failure?”], Badania Badania failure?”], or success Union's and d's czno klimatyczny porażką czy zwycięstwem zwycięstwem czy porażką klimatyczny czno In Poland 10%Poland In 4.4-6.8% EU In ion in the new ETS” (Jankowski newETS” the in ion ocess of disseminating results. disseminating of ocess tria, Germany and the UK. As UK. the and Germany tria, oe sco wud increase would sector power s f ula, yr o wind or hydro nuclear, of ns sation that the ‘Report 2030’ ‘Report the that sation iew, Warsaw, January 2009). January Warsaw, iew, ptions made in this complex this in made ptions d state of the art.” However, art.” the of state d vailable to theto public:vailable l n eeg plc issues policy energy and al s in each EC country. They country. EC each in s . In 2009 and 2010 serious 2010 and 2009 In . Rpbi, emr and Denmark Republic, h - s very good and that’s it” it” that’s and good very s the NIAM pointed to the the to pointed NIAM the for the EU were raised by raised were EU the for 27 by by 27 bnft o ES “The ETS: on benefits t h hm Mn countries Many them. th mber States and a better better a and States mber and plants power uclear ling (NIAM). In 2009 the the 2009 In (NIAM). ling o ytmc nlss of analyses systemic do e xsig consultation existing he del have not only been been only not have del

In Poland 16%Poland In by 19% Poland In 139

CEU eTD Collection Assessment o te vrg ices i eetiiy rcs f 2 of prices electricity in increase average l the how the to experts Due Polish model, PRIMES Directive. the about information ETS new governme the Polish of the negotiations by made were complaints Similar submissions from members of the NIAM network Collat network NIAM the of members from submissions 32 specific macroeconomic assumptions. macroeconomic specific mad hypotheses explanation understan and to projections needed national are data detailed T more experts. general, energy national by notified if modified, sometim Only data. national from differ often which oblig is team PRIMES the that noticed also NIAM The thro only May2008).modelWarsaw, (Interview, PRIMES the that me t managed officials governmental Polish told connections University, Technical Warsaw en Polish a interviewees, my of One reviewed. be it governme Polish the by bought be neither could NTUA ore IFRAIN EUSE CNENN te PRIME the CONCERNING REQUESTED INFORMATION Source: o nesad RMS n cmet ae edd o hel updates.future to needed are comments and PRIMES understand to countries. within links communication establish to a th DG-TREN, for experts energy national sophisticated via be must most ofquestio future any As review. peer independent more “one way unav remains worldwide” models energy comprehensive This (…) “public”. financi any nor obligation, contractual no is there hc cn e ismntd o 3 to disseminated be can which a limits This copyright. commercial under protected result and information da the and model of PRIMES The procedure. consultation diffusion handles TREN DG was calculated. The PRIMES model, which is a privat a is which model, PRIMES The calculated. was 32

rd esn t smay aa as data summary to persons ed by HelenApSimon. by ed o get access to some parts of parts some to access get o ry xet okn a the at working expert ergy e IM rus ht in that, argues NIAM he es such discrepancies are are discrepancies such es ed to use EUROSTAT data EUROSTAT use to ed nt or businesses nor could could nor businesses or nt e for each country, with with country, each for e ee o al t examine to able not were pret n the in percent 2 d differences between between differences d ng to make data make to ng ack of more detailed detailed more of ack It is important is It nalysis results nalysis t uig h 2008 the during nt ugh some personal personal some ugh ns/comments ere is a need a is ere S MODEL: based on on based MODEL: S tabases are tabases ailable for ailable

e property of the the of property e , and s, with p nd nd Impact Impact 140 CEU eTD Collection soito wo huh te siae o h Europe the for estimate the thought who Association mkn a eeec t te eot y je fo th from Kjaer by report the to reference a making – European energy.” Parr went on with hisaccusations with energy.”on went Parr European infor misleading with public general the and States E3 “the allowing of Commission European the accused au The unrealistic. was model PRIMES the in defined http://www.pwr.co.uk/ 33 t on commented Parr 2010 At of University Technical National the by produced September 17 On Parr. Mike cons and research in active company British a – PWR als PRIMES theof model validity the about Concerns thus, enables policy actions.policyenables thus, p energy and environmental EU’s the develop to used m those on policies shapes also it but way economic EU’ frames only not device This device. inscription the in actors and systems between relations complex inscription powerful a be to seems model PRIMES The Source: Source: Athens Uni and E3M have the capabilities to operate to capabilities the have E3M and Uni Athens you know there are some serious doubts about the Pr the about doubts serious some are there know you model, then answer seems ‘no’.answer then be to model, t failure apparent the given and correct are model) re the to respect (with facts EWEA’s Wo the that answer. basis to difficult so not is question last The olwd y ae hr ay ln t rve te mode the review to plans any there “are by followed projections?”. energy reasonable provide to ability commissioned the the Oettinge commissioned Günther Commissioner Energy m EU in to posed ‘form’ be real have to que of couple a seems are there projections, ‘misleading’ model the that Given http://euractiv.blogactiv.eu/2010/09/17/energy-tren

Energy Trends Energy report). The first could be “did “did be could first The report). 33 ds-to-2030-or-energy-fantasy-2030/

hens - - hens o came from a member of theofmember fromcamea o : : arkets. As an analytical tool analytical an As arkets. ultancy on climate change – – change climate on ultancy mation about the future of of future the about mation eetiiy akt i an in markets electricity s n id nry n 00 as 2030 in energy wind an thors of the EWEA report report EWEA the of thors Erpa Wn Energy Wind European e U I i a performative a is It EU. lce i lgtmzs and legitimizes, it olicies eie wih us up sums which device, M Lab to feed Member Member feed to Lab M stions that could could that stions Energy Trends to 2030to Trends Energy liability of the of liability the model?”. model?”. the t ol be could It kn o the on rking rve the review o imes model’s imes l?” and “do “do and l?” he recent report report recent he (who r aking , , 141

CEU eTD Collection codn t Lw tig md o mr drbe mater durable more of made things Law, to According As I have already mentioned, PRIMES is not only an an only not is PRIMES mentioned, already have I As fields. market policy EU and national the – fields various between ma the shows it also but EU t the in the processes making about questions raises This review. public to knowledge public of sphere the to expertise private mov by PRIMES legitimized has also TREN DG the with Membe and DGs other NTUA, the by produced knowledge po a TREN DG the makes also It Commission. European of implications discuss to want which States Member DG the passage ‘obligatory an as model PRIMES the position with alliance strong pa third its to Moreover, sold reviewed. be cannot it and NTUA energ the by with owned dealing models its by ensured the also is durability Its among technologies. kind its of one comprehensiven and complexity its use, frequent its from reviews positive its Commission, European the it by assured is model PRIMES the of durability The buil ofprocessineffectthe relational achieved a nature the by given 6) not is materials of durability p. 1992, (Law materials” durable in relations of orde good a thus (…) longer for patterns relational a time same the at but expenditure, energy of terms b a or text a and material, ephemeral most the also thou a which on continuum a imagine to suggests Law f uue osrcin A a eut PIE i a me a polici climate is Union’s European PRIMES the in intermediary result, a As Europ construction. future the of of interconnectivity the whil sector, electricity EU’s the of liberalization EU, the in flows as by example, for them, performs It them. performs sys and actors between relations certain represents e all these things are still a matter a still are things these all e ding networks. ding networks. of things (Law 1992, p. 6), but is is but 6), p. 1992, (Law things of form of ownership –PRIMES is –PRIMES ownership of form ring strategy is to embody a set set a embody to is strategy ring s long lasting association with association lasting long s without making it vulnerable it making without fields, and between various various between and fields, uilding is more expensive in expensive more is uilding es as it does not “transport “transport not does it as es s wih ae t unique a it make which ess point’ (see Latour 1987) for for 1987) Latour (see point’ tems in the EU, but it also also it but EU, the in tems Lw lo rus ht the that argues also Law . suming 100 percent of free free of percent 100 suming asaec o te policy- the of ransparency h Erpa Commission, European the teriality of the work done done work the of teriality ght is the “cheapest”, but “cheapest”, the is ght nry oiis ih the with policies energy RN n D TREN’s DG and TREN werful mediator between mediator werful oe ual material. durable more ing it from the sphere of of sphere the from it ing ncito dvc which device inscription itr n nt mere a not and diator te ad hs publicly thus and rties a pwr rd the grid, power ean r States. The alliance alliance The States. r y, environment and and environment y, as miti their “maintain ials 142 CEU eTD Collection get el f nry s edd o rt sm docu some write to needed is energy of deal great A T weather. storm rapid more by others rising, level struck be may places Some globe. the of place every them manifest not do they global, are emissions GHG the despite time, same the At temperatures. global phenomenon global a becomes It phenomenon. regional revol industrial after intensified combustion, fuel conse its in global it makes and boundaries spatial gas v greenhouse of in experience local the undertaken takes change actions between relations and space c it such as and problem global a is change Climate t Carbon ofto Dioxide: EconomicFraming Challenges model. complete accesstheto the in figure 22% the dif like - produced more even it makes it way this In 39). p. 2005, s are they elements the or meaning the modifies and “tr it but transformation” without force or meaning PRIMES model. PRIMES car Polish over constructed frame economic the undo actor Polish the what is this And them. dismantling questioning in resides challenge great A existence. w actors, of power and energies the accumulate They objecti “true are words powerful Such p.199). 1983, whic techniques instrumental the and theory, atomic to r need institutional and would financial intellectual, he immense this, do to order In words. these the for easy not is “it that powerful so are words that associations varyin create which A words, of attribute (p.200). disparate” and distinct ass are word which simple “when Callon, says case, the always

Impact AssessmentImpact ution in the North, ceases to be a be to ceases North, the in ution sucs eesr t redefine to necessary esources reader to circumvent or ignore or circumvent to reader quences. Consequently, fossil Consequently, quences. r mr o ls sld Some solid. less or more are fact that the consequences of of consequences the that fact ansforms, translates, distorts translates, ansforms, hanges our understanding of understanding our hanges iut o pn lc-oe it black-boxes open to ficult s tried to do – they tried to to tried they – do to tried s he East-WestDividehe ee s lo o equivalence no also is here hich brought the words into into words the brought hich uh ar-cos n in and macro-actors such fied macro-actors” (p.199). (p.199). macro-actors” fied by draughts, some by see see by some draughts, by GG eiso ot f its of out emission (GHG) et ad eot. hs is This reports. and ments upposed to carry” (Latour (Latour carry” to upposed selves in the same way in in way same the in selves cnoiae i” (Callon it” consolidated h g amount of force is an an is force of amount g ae t i dsoa the disposal his at have – given the lack of public public of lack the given – o wt te s o the of use the with bon cain uie elements unite ociations hog is mat on impact its through ros lcs Climate places. arious

143 CEU eTD Collection oue o GG msin ad hi GP. h Europe The GDPs. their and emissions GHG of volumes Assessment criti of phase initial the in enough, Interestingly o instead theCom European by asproposed allowances emission companies sector power the free for a allowances and target reduction lower a demanded Poland result questioned was a approach sharing burden As the debate, GDPs. their also thus and States Member w foreca to difficult the it made separately State Member for calculated prices electricity was in result increase distorted a economy, EU on ETS model of PRIMES impact the used Commission the when However, for targets each reduction emission the setting for a solidarity and sharing burden the as here example basi the on targets reduction emission determine to int these it politi Therefore, trade. emission in makes involved countries and socio-economic What different are regions. complicated and countries between globally, action climate orchestrate to potential a tod trade, emission However, interdependencies. new lo for and at implemented and designed are measures ch climate mitigate to proposed are measures policy eve become localities various between relations The di it makes responsibilities. change climate of experience particular individu in production GHG between relation complex affect much not is emissions, GHG global of percent w Europe, example, For conditions. weather changing p particular in emissions GHG of record the between oe f h Cmiso’ mtoooia msae. D mistake’. ‘methodological suchproposed industries, Polishof representative Commission’ the of core , Polish actors came up with various metaphors whic metaphors various with up came actors Polish , cism of the Commission’s Commission’s the of cism establishes new spatial relations spatial new establishes has become a common practice practice common a become has country. country. aninterpretation: st the indirect costs of ETS in ETS of costs indirect the st pproaches have been adopted been have pproaches oe U n nt o each for not and EU hole hich accounts for around 13 13 around for accounts hich ay the only instrument with with instrument only the ay ed by climate change. This This change. climate by ed al places and these places’ these and places al mr cmlctd when complicated more n mission. mission. cal characteristics of the the of characteristics cal cal scales, they create few create they scales, cal by the Polish government. government. Polish the by o a onr’ absolute country’s a of s laces and their history of of history their and laces ange. As long as climate climate as long As ange. fficult to take on clear clear on take to fficult te ul utoig of auctioning full the f achieved. The average average The achieved. , during the 2008 ETS ETS 2008 the during , loain f emission of allocation rn a itriw a interview, an uring n no i a good a is Union an o cluaig the calculating for reain more errelations h could grasp the grasp could h Impact Impact 144 CEU eTD Collection

EU policies were not only introduced on paper, they paper, on introduced only not were policies EU particular for consequences material and real have o creation artificial this that fact the world. in real problem the in equivalent material and real any ma It reality. in exist not does economy EU average conv to tried interviewee my way, anecdotal this In o, e ant rae oiy ntuet ta impac that instruments policy create cannot we you, January 2009) January Assessment would have at least divided Europe’s reg Europe’s divided least at have would Assessment lgnut u eoe daai cags n enk I condi Pernik. in living changes the dramatic evokes impact but Klagenfurt doesn't which law Now a (…) them! propose between is what know not do We them…? what And mountains. the in lie both True, Bulgaria. and Austria in Klagenfurt compare we is: comparison oth My Right? them. of mean the took and Elbe river the and delta Danube Romanian the took it shortly, (…wholethefor EU. value mean the took Commission t directives, proposed of impact the assessing When atclr ein. f h pol wrig n h Im the on working people polic the proposed If the of regions. impact particular real the i as about job nothing well-done a as study Assessment Impact the right?absurd,we be So outcomeThe will sheepdog! wi and Finn a with Italian an crossbred we if as is ex not does Europe, average an like just construct, probl The construct. statistical this on instrument cann imp the assess constructand statistical artificial We regions. these for specific characteristics accou without regions individual of development and ae h ma o a ru o pol. Poet interv (Project people. of group a of mean the take ofseries numbers a of mean thetake to be able may the of aware were Assessment Impact the on working insigh sh some least At get would It could impacts. potential we directives’ between, in those and poor f European bureaucrats would would bureaucrats European f localities. He pointed out that out pointed He localities. ey an important message: an message: important an ey were introduced in material in introduced were y exist on paper but without but paper on exist y oee, e ecie a perceived he However, act of a real policy real a of act em is that such a such that is em w ht people that ow ist in reality. It reality. in ist but we cannotwe but th an Alsatian an th cannot accept cannot ions into rich, into ions e, Warsaw, iew, mouth of the the of mouth he European European he nting for the for nting ) Or to Or put it) economies t is between between is t ul an build ot fact that we that fact m telling am er favorite favorite er enk in Pernik tls us tells t in in tions ts into into ts e on ies we , pact 145 CEU eTD Collection July 2008, at the time when GEG was taking up shape up taking was GEG when time the at 2008, July new ETS to theto economy. Polish ETS new ou text the breakdown”, a or breakthrough “A titled Power Grid company. company. Grid Power i efficiency energy of promoter a Sector, Power the h pooe aedet t te T Drcie a pu was Directive ETS Th July. the in meeting Warsaw the to before EuropeanVoice amendments proposed the expressed widely P discuss to been article first has The media. international It sector. power the and act Polish of characteristic was argumentation This econom the EU. within development of picture the obscure to decision political sid the on error an as either Warsaw in interpreted 34 the of results The resources. natural and laws unique wasassembl a each and region was diverse EU Accor economies. national of club heterogeneous a – t legitimacy claim could Commission European the so conte be therefore should policies EU of impact The other. each system These systems. economic national of settings Professor at the Warsaw Technical University, Pres University, Technical Warsaw the at Professor nryitnie Ad tid is nry i i bas is mix energy its third, And, i energy-intensive. economy its because states, other than buy allowances to need will Poland Second, states. older EU’s th lower one-third about currently are which costs, ene Polish the increase substantially and price the f That richer. bidding are that w countries be against allowances adjustment will Poland of First, challenges large. particularly the and rights acquiring th states, member EU new other some for and Poland, ( efficient more become to producers force to order fo scarce be will rights emission scheme, the Under

n Poland and former President of the Polish Polish the of President former and Poland n ident of the Social Consultative Council for for Council Consultative Social the of ident oland’s situation in relation to to relation in situation oland’s e of the Commission or as a a as or Commission the of e xtualized, and only by doing by only and xtualized, tlined dangers posed by the by posed dangers tlined . Written by Żmijewski by Written . ding to my interviewee, the interviewee, my to ding o speak on behalf of the EU the of behalf on speak o r rpeetn industries representing ors c nqaiis n uneven and inequalities ic age of people, technologies, of people, age vre sgiiaty from significantly varied s Impact Assessment Assessment Impact atce perd n 4 on appeared article e d o uh on much so ed an those in the the in those an n oih s el as well as Polish in rgy industry’s industry’s rgy r everyone, in everyone, r il up up bump will r emission or …). But for for But …). ay more many sil very still s css of costs e lse i the in blished l be ill 34 were were and 146 th

CEU eTD Collection

uoen nutis atal fr re n re to notemissio anyby bound fromcompanies competition order in free for partially agreed industries CommissionEuropean European The Poland. in t operating on auctions full of impact the concerned argument f against champions sector fo power cap national emission defending higher a of favour in and companies full against argument first the therefore was, This Easternand Central companies Eur outin buy easily Ge like statesmember EU old by, owned or in, based that be would Żmijewski, to according ETS, new ths consequen The market. the on companies sector power would ETS post-2012 the that was Poland, in sector owne the government, the and companies sector power privatization. through comes capital raising of way have may thus and projects new finance to problems elec Polish grows, EUAs purchasing of cost the Once of privatization cheap fostering for instrument an thr EUAs allocating of method The companies. sector exp the of light the in point important an was This sellthemmoreand expensive were they when cheap, (EUAs) allowances i emission of volumes to bigger buying able be would EDF or RWE E.ON, like companies, auct pan-European the on ones bigger against bid to p Polish the e.g. like capital, less with companies on allowances emission purchase to have will Union econ companie existing sector power and industries if perpetuated the him, to According ETS. new the of chall main outlined Żmijewski article short this In heavy costs for a particularly long time.long costsa forparticularly heavy it that – lignite and coal – fuels dirty relatively ower sector companies, will have will companies, sector ower enges faced by Poland because because Poland by faced enges And the fear among the Polish the among fear the And auctions for the power sector sector power the for auctions ope. rmany or France, could more could France, or rmany rich power sector companies companies sector power rich Polish the of value the lower power of privatization ected oih lcrct producers. electricity Polish s from all over the European European the over all from s ough auctions could serve as as serve could auctions ough to look for more capital. One capital. more for look to and more in demand. moreindemand. and rtc te wti global within them protect n reduction targets. targets. reduction n richer and bigger The ions. a common market. Smaller market. common a , while they were relatively relatively were they while , tricity producers may have may producers tricity will be exposed to exposed be will he situation of industries industries of situation he rin aia. h other The capital. oreign mc nqaiis il be will inequalities omic Pln – n argument an – Poland r ce of the introduction of of introduction the of ce nvest more capital into into capital more nvest r of most of the power power the of most of r o loae Us to EUAs allocate to 147 CEU eTD Collection July 2008). July e high relations: of chain the sketched and economy c the to immediately pointed He negative. extremely said he economy Polish the on ETS new the of impact I When 2009). June Brussels (Interview, Polish Parliament the of one by me to explained been has This thePo the for projectwas this – government theof Preserv regions. other prices electricity keeping by advantage competitive to out production their move companies and investors, in for attractive production less become industrial expensive more mean would price electricity coal, on depends primarily the Poland Since be. would electricity of price the companies higher sector power the by ETS the on bought be sta member individual in industries on sector power i indirect the account into represen take not did Commission and officials Polish to according However, h Cmiso. hl te uoen omsin under Commission European the While Commission. the dif totally proposal a with up came Żmijewski Here, that emissions would not be distributed only throug only distributed be not would emissions that a gradually included be should “It scheme. the from sector energy the that proposed he Moreover, field. stat EU all until i EU, the in elsewhere from expanded bidders be gradually could auctions The bidders. l be to and level national the at out carried be to Commis European the by outlined one the to scenario In an article published in in published article an In a population well-educated to next environment. right EU, the in energy cheap that underlined also He unemployment. rdcin costs production ‰ o cmeiiees f h Pls economy Polish the of competitiveness low uoen Voice European , Żmijewski proposed an alternative alternative an proposed Żmijewski , lisheconomy. ferent from the one drafted by drafted one the from ferent es operated on a level playing playing level a on operated es mtd o oal incorporated locally to imited low was one of the objectives objectives the of one was low h auctions” (EuropeanVoice 4 (EuropeanVoice auctions” h mpact of full auctions for the the for auctions full of mpact should, initially, be excluded be initially, should, cud okt p Ad this And up. rocket could s production of electricity in in electricity of production tes. The more EUAs have to have EUAs more The tes. ompetitiveness of the Polish Polish the of ompetitiveness prtn i Pln would Poland in operating d ne rls ht ensure that rules under nd sion. He urged for auctions for urged He sion. is Poland’s main advantage main Poland’s is se hm o vlae the evaluate to him asked Members of the European European the of Members that the impact would be be would impact the that aie o idsre, the industries, of tatives trainly o include to nternationally lectricity prices prices lectricity ing the manufacturers’ manufacturers’ the ing in a given country, the the country, given a in oad Pln would Poland Poland. nd beautiful natural natural beautiful nd ie te ed of need the lined ‰ ‰ high high 148 CEU eTD Collection the Maasais, with up catch to the able not between are “Pygmies race the will how – asks and Żmiejewski the Maasais, are ones big The – ones. smaller three a from like paper, of piece a on figures big three Żmijewsk with interview an on based was article The Europe.” Eastern whole sa the – again almost growing are emissions dioxide Carbon electricity generates “Poland announced: and g abroad made article the but energy-mixes diverse EU new Other coal. on dependent highly are Hungary th Estonia, Poland, only fact, In generation. power hea are they States: Member European Eastern the of senten next The growth.” economic its about anxious threatened is Continent The protection. climate for heading the and 2008) Tenbrock and w (Claas article Pygmies” The Zeit. Die in published was ETS EU new Poland’s concerning article another later, days Six to commercial exchanges. amenable and e.g in produced that and Poland in produced dioxide cha should conditions economic and pass should time carb that hardly are economies message national different in the produced conveyed proposal His States. emis between incompatibility of degree some assumed debat previous the to attention much paying without th only not is proposal, Żmijewski's in interesting emissio of fragmentation future a prevent to scheme Pap Green its in proposed agenda, integration an by rejected was It 2002). Vainio and Zapfel (see 1997 afte emerged trade emission European a when establishing earlier years ten about discussed was markets marke emission national of separation the of favour ( level Community the at system coherent a building cartoon, next to which he drew drew he which to next cartoon, e Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Bulgaria Republic, Czech e e fact that it was clearly made clearly was it that fact e situation in the context of the the of context the in situation small ones are Pygmies – says – Pygmies are ones small ts. The idea of national carbon national of idea The ts. by the Commission which, led which, Commission the by with a rupture as the East is East the as rupture a with eneralization about the region region the eneralization about er (2000) a Community-wide Community-wide a (2000) er East is not able to keep up keep to able not is East oprbe n ta some that and comparable ce pointed to the specificity specificity the to pointed ce me concerns practically the practically concerns me 2008), Żmijewski argued in argued Żmijewski 2008), i who ended it by “drawing by it ended who i tae n h E. ht is What EU. the in trade n s n T, u as ta it that also but ETS, on es Gray commensurable Germany . sions in individual Member individual in sions r the Kyoto Conference in in Conference Kyoto the r Member States have more have States Member iydpnet n ol in coal on dependent vily ed “uoe s fighting is “Europe read: g t mk te carbon the make to nge s ild Te nit of anxiety “The titled as the first thoughts about about thoughts first the ed” n h states: he And end?” m xlsvl fo coal. from exclusively n ixd emissions dioxide on 149 CEU eTD Collection c which EU, the be result thesince would race, same the competein in races different two be to seemed indi economic mere not and characteristics physical differen differenc of these essentialized idea It economies. Western the convey to media foreign the in dr most the been have might Pygmies and Maasais the socio-economic unique states’ member EU the of part cont and politicized become thus has dioxide Carbon West. and carbo of incommensurability the into translate also Europe’s of incompatibility the reconstruct to and energandindustrial Polish the prices, electricity econ European average an of construct statistical a Commissi the while And East. poor the and West rich emphasi to tried Żmijewski article, Zeit Die his In message. was–Żmijewski’s this Maasais? the t tell and this all ignore Commission the could How (se West) the in percent 46 to compared percent (36 of efficiency lower and West) the in tonnes 9,8 to th in capita per emissions carbon lower represented Europ Western in while Euro, 29100 about to amounts incomeper yearly onlythe fornot stood limbs the Eastern the about care to seem not does who Dimas” B the of policy climate ambitious the of and Europe a is Europe “Eastern that statement a made Zeit Die Maasais. withlong-legged the up themcatch let sinc future the for hope little gave also It East”. between division clear a G introduced trick with rhetoric up keep to able not is Poland West, the with e Pygmies’ short legs would never would legs short Pygmies’ e y experts set outset deconstruct experts toit y capita, which in Eastern Europe inEastern which capita, Eastern coal-fired power plants power coal-fired Eastern ze the differences between the the between differences the ze n dioxide emissions in the East East the in emissions dioxide n East and West, and this would this and West, and East omy, of an average increase in in increase average an of omy, “the big West” and “the small “the and West” big “the a foregone conclusion.foregone a russels Commissioner Stavros Commissioner russels es by bringing them down to down them bringing by es cators. Pygmies and Maasais and Pygmies cators. he Pygmies to run as fast as fast as run to Pygmies he e East (7,1 tonnes compared compared tonnes (7,1 East e e Claas and Tenbrock 2008). Tenbrock and Claas e on proposed to operate with operate to proposed on European ‘short limbs’. And limbs’. ‘short European systems. The drawings of drawings The systems. ray” hs imaginative This ermany.” e bten atr and Eastern between ces xulzd I hs become has It extualized. ri bt o te Western the of both fraid amatic rhetoric trick used trick rhetoric amatic 800 uo Te also They Euro. 83000 e ud o b bogt to brought be not ould 150 CEU eTD Collection And this impact would last for years and would be d be would and years for last would impact this And And the moment scientists have become capable of es of capable become have scientists moment the And C Carbon ofto Dioxide: EconomicFraming Challenges out, climate action has to be taken up to save the save to up taken be to has action climate out, N environmental As policies. climate of temporality have warming global and change climate on Theories consequences. lasting long given a in taken emissions GHG concerning decisions tem global in increase an into translate would time em dioxide carbon of amount An temperatures. global im the of function a as – time measuring of way new h the of global the on fates impact humans’ the future about realization the for consequences has also h is It revolution. industrial by caused phenomenon change. climate of aspect important another is Time ocnrto ad h goa tmeaue i i pos SternReviewThe proposes: action. is it temperature, global the and concentration Based 3). (p. system” climate the in inertia the of over warming degree half further a least at to lead half than more by warm to world the caused already that states Report Stern The Revolution. Industrial compared CO2 (ppm) million per parts 430 around to concentratio GHGs of level current the that claimed Summar Executive The action. climate for timeframes e is it temperatures, on impact concentration GHGs’ a world economy in 2050 that may be 3 - 4 times lar times 4 - 3 be may that 2050 in economy world a ma be to have will cuts These levels. current below need would emissions global 2050, By (…) year. per a at fall then and years, 20 - 10 next the in peak gl require would 550ppm below or at CO2 Stabilizing on the relation between GHGs GHGs between relation the on the next few decades, because decades, few next the climate system “right in time.” in “right system climate peratures in the coming years. years. coming the in peratures Climate change is a historical a changeis Climate GOs and many activists point point activists many and GOs n in the atmosphere amounts amounts atmosphere the in n istorical in its genesis and it and genesis its in istorical ifficult to reverse. Therefore, reverse. to ifficult “these concentrations have have concentrations “these climate system introduced a a introduced system climate timating the probabilities of of probabilities the timating arbon asaarbon Thing Historical il t wr ot policy a out work to sible rate of at least 1 - 3% 3% - 1 least at of rate period of time would have would time of period se t gv mr precise more give to asier pact of GHG emissions on on emissions GHG of pact y of the Stern Review has has Review Stern the of y a particular impact on the the on impact particular a dge Clis n will and Celsius degree a te i a ie pro of period given a in itted with 280 ppm before the the before ppm 280 with de in the context of of context the in de ger than today - so - today than ger uman kind. A growing growing A kind. uman to be around 25% around be to obal emissions to to emissions obal 151

CEU eTD Collection

n h nw ebr tts el y 3 ecn compare percent 23 by fell States Member new the in ar He 1990s. the of beginning the at Europe Eastern emi significant of issue the raised Żmijewski blog, (e.g. mediaPolish Cire Die in Zeit article,his In 2020. dividin and constructing when emissions reducing of into take to Commission the asked have They sector. government Polish the for issue critical the become the under em reductions emission past the of for account alloc cap new the total of proposal the the of However, distributed. 10% additional the s get among be would therefore would It capita. per GDP lower sp a enjoy would Poland 2008, accordi January from ETS, proposal the With representatives. sector power Pol by addressed been also has timeof question The howev countries, A Annex transition’. in ‘economy of group the into included (devel B Pr Annex and (developed) A Annex into divided Kyoto the In emissions. GHG reduce to obligation developing the and emissions GHG reduce i to obliged world the divided has and development economic of t account into taken already has Mandate Berlin The in transformations historicaltheof electionsand do of those – times other with confronted soon were scientific proposed action climate of time The the change, climate 2005. to compared 2020 by reductions clima for frame time clear a proposed it time, same Dire ri temperature global the ETS keeping of goal a forward the of proposal the to introduction the In msin pr D ui wud ae o e ut n qu one just be to 2050.Review xi)ES, p. (Stern by currentfigures have would unit GDP per emissions , WNP, Gazeta Prawna), and on his on andGazeta Prawna), WNP, , individual societies.individual ssion reductions in Central and Central in reductions ssion se at 2 degrees Celsius. At the At Celsius. degrees 2 at se ing business, of parliamentary parliamentary of business, ing ish officials and industrial and industrial and officials ish by the European Commission European the by he time, or rather the timing, timing, the rather or time, he consideration the past effort past the consideration Kyoto Protocol. And this has this And Protocol. Kyoto oping) countries. Poland was was Poland countries. oping) g the emission cap for 2013- for cap emission the g gued that in 2004 emissions emissions 2004 in that gued e cin 2% f emission of 20% – action te idsre ad h power the and industries , to o eisos i not did emissions of ation ctive, the Commission put put Commission the ctive, ecial status because of its its of because status ecial ns upne fo the from suspended ones tcl cutis became countries otocol, ng to the Commission’s Commission’s the to ng ally determined time of of time determined ally nto developed countries countries developed nto everal countries, which which countries, everal d to 1990. The Czech Czech The 1990. to d r ctgrzd s an as categorized er, sin loacs re- allowances ission arter of the the of arter 152 CEU eTD Collection Union Workers’ Energy and Mine lead The unions. trade energy and mining Polish the pos the al has idea before This 2008). July year 10 Zeit, (Die meltdown the – 1990 to back – Commission fro reductions emission 2013-2020 for year base the shou of One future. the efforts in and today ETS the on account reduction earlier these that argued He percent 20 percent. 25 Slovakia by and percent around by emissions its reduced Republic conversation in October 2008: in conversation hn h frt ainl loain ln wr const were like States, Plans Member new some 2005, and 2003 Allocation between National first the When 15-16et 2006, al. year1990”p. (Ellerman base the t which collapse economic the is reduction emission action abatement any without even 2012 in emissions Protocol Kyoto country's European Eastern the which coi was air’ ‘hot term the time that At ETS. EU the of beginning the at already debated was issue This t for cap emission new the in count not should 2004 be achieved reductions carbon Polish thus and 2010) account into taken be not should ETS of outside out that argued some and point controversial a was This the same reduction effort. (Interview, Warsaw, Octo Warsaw, effort.(Interview, reduction same the have we again now and done have to supposed were we 500 over reduced we failed, EU The failure. its for th help to made are we targets, reduction Kyoto its d which EU, the accessed Having what? so asking: am decla it what of percent 500 by emissions reduce to th signed Uni had European the joined it time the by and Protocol Poland because especially reductions, to as individually treated be should country Every Solidarność rud o ti sit uig our during shift this for argued ). ). ned to refer to “the amount by amount “the to refer to ned so been strongly promoted by promoted strongly been so the ways to do so was to shift to was so do to ways the within ETS (see e.g. Pearson Pearson e.g. (see ETS within he 2013-2020 trading period. trading 2013-2020 he the 2000s, before developing developing before 2000s, the hese countries suffered after after suffered countries hese m 2005 – as proposed by the by proposed as – 2005 m emission reductions carried reductions emission s. The reason for this excess excess this for reason The s. target exceeds its probable its exceeds target er of the Secretariat of the of Secretariat the of er d ae en ae into taken been have ld fore the EU accession in in accession EU the fore e.g. Hungary, perceived Hungary, e.g. Pln b aon 27 around by Poland , percent of what of percent utd n negotiated and ructed carbon emission carbon -omns economic t-Communist ber 2008) ber managed it on, red. And now I now And red. e EU make up make EU e id not meet not id to make to Kyoto e 153 CEU eTD Collection year. In his Die Zeit article, Andrzej Kassenberg, Kassenberg, Andrzej article, Zeit Die his In year. msin loacs ih te prs f uoe and Europe; of parts other with allowances emission ar countries European Eastern other includ some and would Poland These ETS. the of project Commission’s have actors Polish that show here discussed Debates Conclusion dif and historiesefforts, differentdifferent been fra institutional the within reduced dioxide carbon trans 1990s early the during reduced dioxide carbon Poland when time soc the at emitted the that from different during emitted dioxide carbon The contexts. soci particular in reduced or emitted is it because being not or time of point particular a at emitted thing historical a is dioxide carbon that show ETS carbo reducing for time reference the about Debates coincidence’. historical They market. carbon European non-existent then the pol by driven not were they accident”, “by happened dur reductions emission Kassenberg, For future. the 1 in as high as almost was emissions GHG industrial as rise the on are emissions GHG Polish path, development the while that argued issues, environmental abo agreement no was there actors Polish among Even (see2006). al. et Ellerman idea this rejected target reductions emission down water would cap EU all that argued mak ETS the of efficiency policy environmental However, 332). (p. customers” western to a surplus receiving of possibility the with excited wri (2006) Bart Istvan decade. last the of hardship red emission past the of account taking of fact the

ferent carbons. ferentcarbons. llowances, which could be resold resold be could which llowances, emitted at all. It is also historical historical also It is all. at emitted the leading Polish authority on authority Polish leading the me of the EU ETS. These have These ETS. EU the of me owing for ‘hot air’ in the total total the in air’ ‘hot for owing ition period differed from the the from differed period ition tes that “businesses became became “businesses that tes -cnmc n institutional and o-economic ing the transformation years years transformation the ing was a EU member the. The The the. member EU a was uctions as a reward for the the for reward a as uctions 990 and they would grow in grow would they and 990 icies nor by participation on participation by nor icies tried to put limits onto the the onto limits put to tried not only in terms of being being of terms in only not n dioxide emissions on the the on emissions dioxide n for the whole EU and they and EU whole the for were just the matter of ‘a ‘a of matter the just were well. In 2008 the level of of level the 2008 In well. cnm i bc o the on back is economy eprl iis o that so limits temporal ialism seemed therefore therefore seemed ialism e excluded from trading trading from excluded e r cnend ih the with concerned ers e spatial limits so that that so limits spatial e ut the best-suited base base best-suited the ut 154 CEU eTD Collection aiu reso ot fteeooi transitio economic the of – worth of orders various conceptualized Commission European the while Also, Comme commensurable. made be to have they – measure compara become to have they that means which 2005), c made be to have they goods, calculate to order In priorities. environmental and urgencies development dioxi Carbon up. frame this blow to up spa brought were th about between and States Arguments Member EU sp between inadequate. differences common being a into as EU the questioned of parts various in emitted tha frame The dioxide. carbon European the onto put to attempt an as debate this interpret also can One production. econo their of attractiveness the preserve to tried fo participation costmarket theof h lower to wanted and traded be will what over control have to want competitive negotiating of process collective a in strategic a as Conse perceived be can construction economies. market national and sectors companies, of influenc future the in would market carbon European Allowance Union was carbon around set be would that boundaries temporal European upon – embarked commodity a has constructing Poland process political The separately. parti for concept and economy, to Polish the for tried opportunities actors governmental and industrial th region, economic one as EU the for opportunities emissi limit to and ETS the re-organize to proposed t constructing when agenda integration an by driven t while f And 1990s. early the in account achieved reductions to allowed are countries European Eastern

advantages for themselves. They They themselves.for advantages mies as containers of industrial industrial of containers as mies r their domestic companies and and companies domestic their r challenge the economic frame frame economic the challenge alculable (Callon and Muniesa and (Callon alculable he European Commission was Commission European he n in the East, and of various of and East, the in n

one, whereby actors engage engage actors whereby one, cular regions within the EU EU the within regions cular he ETS in the 2000s, Poland 2000s, the in ETS he dioxide to be applied on the the on applied be to dioxide e EUAs’ price and the value the and price EUAs’ e n rd t ntoa states. national to trade on Pls pwr etr and sector, power Polish e t would put carbon dioxide dioxide carbon put would t w Ntoa governments National ow. ble according to a certain a to according ble de was contextualised in in contextualised was de r hi Koo emission Kyoto their or aie h tras and threats the ualize unl, h atvt of activity the quently, e EU’s West and East East and West EU’s e nsuration can be most be can nsuration c o te T was ETS the of ace EA. pta and Spatial (EUA). also a process of of process a also il n temporal and tial the threats and and threats the 155 CEU eTD Collection au, n o hw iprt-emn ae h entitie the are disparate-seeming how on and value, as it accept people whether on something, of value As Espeland and Stevens (1998) point out, “commensu out, point Stevens (1998) and Espeland As 317).Stevens p.and 1998, (Espeland u is it whether on partly “depends this and process times at may It discipline. and effort organization automatically, happen not does It value. producing area various in articul aofmechanism is Commensuration economics. studied been has it a As classification, world. the of sense make and categorize we how Espela 313). poli and interpretative inherently an as it present p. 1998, Stevens and (Espeland metric” e different of comparison “the as defined generally o cro wud hne h ‘otm ie fr doing for line’ ‘bottom the change would carbon for (2 MacKenzie as because, high were negotiation this was allowances carbon allocating for method new the t this in examined commensuration to challenges The well. as task difficult dio carbon – GHG particular one making that showing greenhous ris various making (20 of a is idea MacKenzie the was challenging while EU So conflicts. the and in controversies localities various from dioxide objectifi The differently. valued is dioxide carbon thes In actions. of fields and orders institutional moralities laws, workers, technologies, like actors entangled uniquely is Carbon carbon. to agency give particula through and in acts it – actor-network an bec is this And opposite. the showed ETS new the of plac another in factory cement a in emitted dioxide a in place compare one in plant power tofired coal a in emitted simple is it that think might We 315). we how and value, we how about, talked be can what cation, singularization of carbon of singularization cation, tical process, which is crucial to crucial is which process, tical be a difficult and controversial controversial and difficult a be . They are embedded in various in embedded are They . Europe with a tonne of carbon of tonne a with Europe e socio-technical assemblages assemblages socio-technical e ntities according to a common a to according ntities r production processes, which which processes, production r e in Europe, but negotiations but Europe, in e ause carbon dioxide is in fact in is dioxide carbon ause sed routinely to express the the express to routinely sed into configurations of other of configurations into 008) points out, accounting out, points 008) ating, and at the same time,same theand at ating, gss h sm, am at aim I same, the gases e hesis became evident when evident became hesis o sca lf, including life, social of s ration changes the terms of terms the changes ration lgtmt epeso of expression legitimate a eoitd Te tks of stakes The negotiated. uies n h E. Any EU. the in business u i rqie a varying a requires it but xide – the same may be a a be may same the – xide on o cro dioxide carbon of tonne s being commensurated” commensurated” being s ra wa w vle (p. value” we what treat 08, 2009) showed how how showed 2009) 08, n underlying process of of process underlying n nd and Stevens (1998) (1998) Stevens and nd y nevr enticing endeavor ky 156 CEU eTD Collection ai hptei fr h cs eaie i ti thes this in examined case the for hypothesis valid ETS.inthe participation t who actors of 333) p. 1998, Stevens and (Espeland a as perceived be thus can incommensurability about th employme other or security reasons energy-supply because example, for production of factor important highly-emitting other or coal, where economies from emissi dioxide carbon of costs the bear to used not to attached co most are that industries carbon from expected to also thus commensuration, carbon-based entrepren are mode particular a of proponents where of mode normal or ideal an as counts what where and val of modes th different where at spheres, institutional occur incommensurability about m claims “the durable that hypothesize (1998) Stevens and Espeland incomm in themwithbyplac carbon otherproduced produced to pointed actors some as economies European centra and interests passionate revealed ETS EU the N 327). (p. them” breach to required it effort much rol our defining in centrality their on them, about depends categories incommensurable of salience The defi Such 326).a (p. formspecialvaluing” of a is thems so “defining that argue exclude (1998) Stevens and Espeland to actors some enable that strategies resistance trigger may which 330), p. 1998, Stevens of technology “a as seen be also can Commensuration in their start to accountingcarbon for have which a processes production companies, EU: the in places comm in results assemblages production various from The carbon. emitting of cost the for account to has i involved industries European of activity business nition signifies somethingsignifies unique. nition business business activities. egotiations of the new rules of of rules new the of egotiations how on and identities, and es uing overlap and conflict (…) (…) conflict and overlap uing n trading carbon on the ETS ETS the on carbon trading n carbon and at the same time same the at and carbon is. Most of the resistance to to resistance the of Most is. commensuration of carbons carbons of commensuration n. t a as b expected be also can It ons. lity of carbon in some of the of some in carbon of lity mething as incommensurate incommensurate as mething es. es. kind of bargaining strategy bargaining of kind ried to reduce their cost of cost their reduce to ried fossil fuels, constitutes an an constitutes fuels, fossil eurial” (p. 332). It is also a also is It 332). (p. eurial” feel we passionate “how on manifesting itself through through itself manifesting ensuration of these various these of ensuration d vn hl economies, whole even nd inclusion” (Esepeland and (Esepeland inclusion” valuing is uncertain, and uncertain, is valuing t osdrtos Claims considerations. nt elves from the process. process. the from elves an environmental – for for – environmental an brelns between borderlands e s feun ad most and frequent ost mmoditization, can be be can mmoditization, nuaiiy f carbon of ensurability 157 CEU eTD Collection visible and explicit they seem, how institutionaliz how seem, they explicit and visible assump on based is thetopublic. European transparent which model, PRIMES economic the the in produced ‘carbons’ various of commensuration been always not has process the however, time, same o allowances carbon of methods allocation different pro the in reflected is This pro task. elaborate highly EU the in dioxide carbon of Commensuration are. technologica how on depend They of dimensions. several forms that out point (1998) Stevens and Espeland esta and 323). p.and 1998, Stevens entities,(Espeland frameworks” political new creates authority, “ as political, becomes commensuration carbon-based monitoring and ETS Stevens controlling Commission and European (Espeland fateful and real increasingly variou in carbon for accounting rules, 323). bureaucratic (p. institutions” powerful of weight the with societies socia new creating by world the transform radically whole for arg (1998) Stevens costs and Espeland As competitiveness. higher to introduct leads the production, currency energy in coal on the relying like them, of some for as states member all for Ho technologies. market low-carbon in invest to incentives carbon of goal ultimate the is This how. and to what about investors the to signal economic new betwee relations of changes to leads ultimately EU, it, from results comparing what and technologies, for processes, currency new a as carbon Establishing invest we how alter and value we what to relations (1998) Stevens and Espeland 331). p. 1998, Stevens co and change of mechanism a also is Commensuration ed they are and who their agents their who and are they ed duction of expert knowledge on knowledge expert of duction whole economic regions in the the in regions economic whole wever, this process is not easy not is process this wever, in things and people” (p. 318). (p. people” and things in l categories and backing them backing and categories l n these places and conveys a conveys and places these n invest, where to invest, when when invest, to where invest, n the 2013-2020 ETS. At the At ETS. 2013-2020 the n claim that it “can change our change “can it that claim s places in the EU becomes becomes EU the in places s ne ncie i lw or laws in inscribed Once EU has been done by using by done been has EU countries most intensively intensively most countries blishes new interpretative interpretative new blishes it reconstructs relations of of relations reconstructs it lly elaborate they are, how are, they elaborate lly ue “[c]ommensuration can can “[c]ommensuration ue – o eeae economic generate to – s o o cro a a new a as carbon of ion omnuain ay in vary commensuration 98 p35. ih the With p.325). 1998, transparent because the the because transparent ordination (Espeland and (Espeland ordination abn rd i te EU, the in trade carbon ved to be a technically technically a be to ved opne, production companies, and lower economic economic lower and in ta ae not are that tions 158 CEU eTD Collection ona willtraded ETS be carbonofdioxide kind what the in endeavor abou in collective a and process market political idea carbon good Union’s a European give the constructing sector, power the in sect power auctions Polish of appearances media the a However, emission allocate to methods alternative what and proposa Commission’s the against lobbying organized chapte further In strategies. discursive these with account into taken be should dioxide carbon of kind Uni European theof thefor shape battle Polish The answered be should investigation. empirical question This EU. the composing m a for and heterogeneity Europe’s of understanding (see hope some given values, also question has box Pandora’s the opening interests, And demands. concerns, various and of inequalities full box see ETS EU Pandora’s the to amendments 2008 The 2005). obje Latour non-living a being stopped it – visible became flo effortlessly so which entity, The citizens. and gover companies, for also but environmentalists for conce of matter a into – thing’ ‘hot a into C dioxide European the by initiated ETS EU the of Revisions ws out of industrial installations industrial of out ws rn (see Latour 2005) – not only only not – 2005) Latour (see rn course of which it was decided decided was it which of course rs I examine how Polish actors Polish how examine I rs on carbon market and for whatforcarbonmarket and on nd what will not be traded.notndwhatwill be nments, trade unions, media unions, trade nments, on that market did not end not did market that on ore concerted process of re- of process concerted ore t n bcm atv (see active became and ct l of the new ETS Directive ETS new the of l Latour 1999) for a better better a for 1999) Latour llowances they proposed. proposed. they llowances miso tre carbon turned ommission ean oe, whether open, remains r xet aant full against experts or 08 I ws highly a was It 2008. inferiority complexes, complexes, inferiority te rcs o re- of process the t n h cus o an of course the in m to be a European European a be to m 159 CEU eTD Collection examined in the last part of this paper to paper topoint this of lastinpartthe examined ETS EU structureof The Poland. in emissions CO2 reducing the for methodology alternative an proposed Pol the on rules reduction emission proposed the of havin after actors Polish the by launched was which the called campaign lobbying a compose events These Dir ETS eve EU the of se of proposal the power announced and Commission consists industry network Polish the the of representatives of component second The Confederation. Union e for as such organizations, other and institutions tanks, think NGOs, environmental industry, European of state gathered officials Commission European the Dire ETS EU new the of proposal the on stakeholders (EC) Commission European theby organized meetings The components. main two has events of network The fie various activitiesove dynamicsthe and lobbying of network from coming actors of heterogeneity the lobby the all of relati of network the of analysis The participants. documentation diligent a is report officials, and on an official report of the lobbyin the of report official an on and officials, Po interviews with on is based This analysis arena. activiti lobbying of course the in established were exa chapter This it. against lobbying for resources set had they legislation, actors proposed Polish the of once consequences However, response. late this tries chapter the This 2008. July in – late relatively to reacted businesses and government Polish The Introduction Networ theChapter in Mobilizing New ETS: 4. Poland

to look for various explanations of explanations various for look to g project g the central actors and events. events. central theand actors ons provides a good overview of overview good a provides ons lish lobbyists and governmental and lobbyists lish r time. r mines networks of actors that that actors of networks mines g realized the negative impact negative the realized g this combined network will be will network combined this ficials, representatives of the the of representatives ficials, s n oad n i te EU the in and Poland in es ape h Erpa Trade European the xample ctive. During these meetings these During ctive. out to mobilize actors and and actors mobilize to out s eooy Pls actors Polish economy. ish Green Effort Group (GEG), Group Effort Green indifferent2007consult to lds, the structure of this this of structure the lds, ctor after the European European the after ctor eerh n academic and research n meig ad their and meetings ing is oe osss f four of consists one first Commission’s proposal proposal Commission’s Green Effort GroupEffort Green cie n aur 2008. January in ective elzd h possible the realized ks Across Fields ks Across to lower the costs of of costs the lower to t ognzd by organized nts . The . 160 CEU eTD Collection the 2007 works on the new ETS:new the on 2007theworks officia level high Poland knowledge, his a to according that, confirmed interviewees, my of One 2009). (I issue side a gre as markets put carbon leaving Environment problems, of Minister Polish the 2007, In written:not is text legi European on work any in participating for time governmental Polish of One forum. open this within proposa the of content the influence t to In opportunity economy. Polish the on auctions full of impact r not did representatives Polish the by discussed, was alloca attended of method the also when However, t were representatives. meetings think a These NGOs, by institutions. attended industries, and governments, held were representing meetings Four 2007. in Pro Change Climate European the within stakeholders c Commission European the 2008, January in proposal anno the to Prior 2007. whole the throughout the agenda on already were Directive ETS new the on Works LobbyingPolish Organizing (Interview, Warsaw, January 2009) January Warsaw, (Interview, consequence material with debate pragmatic serious, fact in while warming, global of theories different theoretic a just was it it took thought Poland Everyone in seriously. nobody that view, my Ma in was, between that that impression The an matter. this in done was nothing 2007 December national have serve I best And that interests. solutions secure to try to prob particular about talk to time best the is This

slation is before the directive directive the before is slation officials claimed that the best the that claimed officials was not much present during during present much not was aise any concerns about the the about concerns any aise triw Wra, February Warsaw, nterview, o te e ES Directive ETS new the of l his way Poland missed the the missed Poland way his gramme (ECCP) in Brussels in (ECCP) gramme uncement of the Directive Directive the of uncement ig msin allowances emission ting nutd wd rne of range wide a onsulted l from DG Environment Environment DG from l t mhss n forestry on emphasis at lems, interests and interests lems, European Commission’s Commission’s European i ws totally a was it , al debate about about debate al ns n academic and anks oih governmental Polish main reason for reason main s for all of us. us. of all for s ES A.L.] – [ETS r business or number of actors actors of number c and rch 161 CEU eTD Collection At the same time, the year 2008 was conducive to ta to conducive was 2008 year the time, same the At lbl lmt ngtain – h 14 the – negotiations the climate to global host played Poznań 2008, December In Poland. etr a a ta tm msl cnend bu the co fromindustrial with pollution dealing Directive about concerned mostly time that at ei was Directive sector ETS proposed the about much cared have Polis the 2008, of beginning the at government, new o one to According 2010). October interview, (Phone learning to little attention paid governments both companies Polish for allowances emission of quotas w negotiating on focused was attention government’s tra the for companies Polish to allowances emission s was government new the 2008, in that, out pointed coll that government the in Economy of Minister The

funds (Interview, Warsaw May 2009). May Warsaw (Interview, funds climate on to decisions government’s the establishin influence of purpose main The Greenpeace. and WWF Coalition Climate The (PKE). Club Ecological Polish Eco for Institute the NGOs: Polish well-established in active organizations main Two Poland. in action established NGOs of group a – Coalition Climate the funding. more attract and Poland in change climate visi more become (UNF to NGOs Polish the Change for opportunity Climate on Convention Framework Nations July 2009) July presen much not were they knowledge my to According oig rm oih fiil ta te omsin wa (Inter transparent. totally was Commission the that Commission the Howeve process. consultation that the during transparent officials Polish from a were coming There (…) elections. prese Parliamentary was the proposal after The Warsaw… in change government this because Maybe why... say to hard It’s process. th Conference of the Parties to the United United the to Parties the of Conference mpanies. more about the new ETS themoreprojectabout ETS new h power sector seemed not to to not seemed sector power h the Climate Coalition are old, are Coalition Climate the in 2002 to undertake climate undertake to 2002 in lking about climate change in change climate about lking lo nlds oih nt of units Polish includes also This opportunity was used by used was opportunity This ig eid 0821. The 2008-2012. period ding Dvlpet IE ad the and (InE) -Development policies and to attract more more attract to and policies till occupied with allocating with occupied till o 20-02 A a result, a As 2008-2012. for f my interviewees from the the from interviewees my f ble, promote the problem of problem the promote ble, ith the Commission higher higher Commission the ith apsed at the end of 2007 2007 of end the at apsed IPPC Directive – another another – Directive IPPC igs yal eet of event yearly biggest ther. The Polish power power Polish The ther. was the time of time the was te olto ws to was Coalition the g view, Brussels, view, C) Ti ws an was This CCC). , e think we r, ccusations ccusations t in this this in t not s nted 162 CEU eTD Collection years and has developed a good understanding of the of understanding good a developed has and years wi active been has Chruszczow Operator. PSE company President the been also has and years for Poland in bee has He circles. industrial and sector power the is He effort. lobbying common a into industries and to bring to positioned well himself found Żmijewski vic became Chruszczow,Tomaszand Forum CO2 the GEG app was Żmijewski Krzysztof project. lobbying t (GEG) established Consumers Gas and Energy the of Forum platf program industrial two and Tauron, and Energa power the meeting, that le After Commission. the e European to respect and with leaders situation Poland’s union discussed trade officials, government and dur place, took Warsaw in meeting a 2008 July 11 On the way from away problems. pushed ETS the slightly this In COP-14. the for care take to aside Ministry The (UKIE). Committee Integration European Economy of Ministry the to Environment of Ministry amendments for responsibility the shifted Minister However, scene. political Polish the of center the has Coalition Climate The NGOs. with relations good a has Environment of Minister 2008 The Environment. NGOs Polish brought COP-14 the of organization The act on different fronts but to make sure that ‘all ‘all that sure Chr 2008).As (GEGwere thesame’ the ETS regarding make to but fronts different on act t of strategy The platforms. industrial two the and shared were project the of costs The industries. on at bt f e mlmn al h plc instrument policy the t all implement we if have but fact, “We glob because said: emissions reduce to want we We emissions, controversial. anything propose lines similar along spoke greens our even fact, In gether the Polish power sector sector power Polish the gether among the four power groups power four the among in mid 2008 the Polish Prime Prime Polish the 2008 mid in n promoting energy efficiency energy promoting n to the ETS Directive from the the from Directive ETS the to e obig apin a to was campaign lobbying he a well-known figure both in both figure well-known a impact climate policies have have policies climate impact voices coming from Poland Poland from coming voices f h ntoa pwr grid power national the of orms: FORUM CO2 and the and CO2 FORUM orms: uszczownoticed: lmt Caiin a also was Coalition Climate therefore moved closer to to closer moved therefore ilto pooe b the by proposed gislation ing which business people people business which ing itd oriao o the of coordinator ointed of Environment was put put was Environment of n t te fie f the of Office the to and closer to the Ministry of of Ministry the to closer because we did not did we because thin the Forum CO2 for for CO2 Forum the thin reputation for keeping keeping for reputation s proposed by the the by proposed s e-coordinator. e-coordinator. Enea, PGE, companies: he Green Effort Group Group Effort Green he vrnetl activists nvironmental al warming is a a is warming al o reduce reduce o

163 CEU eTD Collection According to his view, it was neither obvious nor e nor obvious neither was it view, his to According had to put aside oldto animosities. put aside had p the that out pointed Chruszczow Poland. in prices preven to ways possible the about talked They well. m Polish P the on operating – RWE and Vattenfall EDF, and Poland in pri the of companies representatives recall, could Chruszczow sector power biggest four i an organized Żmijewski 2008, of summer the During

allocation plan for emission allowances (2008-2012) allowances f emission for to plan allocation time compan was “It utility claimed: Chruszczow Poland, As from customers. out moved industries If electricity in rise excessive convin Poland their factoriesin closing industries an of threat the But common cause. a for sec power the and industries bring to difficult was almo c the by in Therefore, 2008. Poland par in continued for negotiations and quota harsh, overall the exceptionally cut were Commission ETS the on period quotas EUAs of negotiation The 2008-2012. and 2007 for allowances emission of share the between over producers competition fierce been has there Moreover, 2009). February too dependence this exploit cannot they Therefore, t other each need They dependence. mutual strong is ‘natur no have producers electricity and Industries doe sector power f demand the lower they because measures efficiency the consumption, electricity their indus while And industries. to supplies electricity as make to try always producers Power sector. power the Polish economy, collapsed”. (Interview,collapsed”. economy, Warsaw, Polish the economy, European the have will we then Commission ced both sides to work together.to sides work both ced tor companies together to fight fight to together companies tor reducing in interested are tries vate power sector companies – – companies sector power vate al’ common interest but there there but interest common al’ asy to ally industries with the with industries ally to asy net f hs srgls it struggles, these of ontext and move on to secure our our secure to on move and t high increase in electricity in increase high t or their product – electricity. electricity. – product their or arket joined that meeting as meeting that joined arket much money as possible on possible as money much o carry on their businesses. businesses. their on carry o h taig eid 2005- periods trading the wr etr n industries and sector ower prices and the threat of of threat the and prices uh Itriw Warsaw, (Interview, much for the 2008-2012 trading trading 2008-2012 the for nformal meeting with the the with meeting nformal re aot h second the about orget February 2009).February s not welcome energy energy welcome not s industries and power power and industries ies would loose their their loose would ies t 0 ecn. These percent. 30 st and in particular in and iual, hn the when ticularly, ls idsre. As industries. olish 164 CEU eTD Collection All of these actors were important in defining the in defining important weretheseofactors All oa i ter rtcs o te loain ehd a method allocation the of criticism their in vocal years 2007–2013. years lhuh te lmt Caiin upre te alloc the supported Coalition Climate the Although, decentralized energy Poland. energy sources in decentralized development and measures efficiency energy for need nentoa mda te uoen alaet te E the Parliament, European the media, international sector, power the industries, between it mediating for Research and Development, a multi-billion euro multi-billion a Development, and Research for delegation for relations with the countries of Cent of countries the with relations for delegation Committee, Cooperation Parliamentary EU–Ukraine the and Health Public Environment, the on Committee the 35 th in active was he committees Parliament European the of term Network- Action Climate the to Earth the of Friends fro – Brussels in met I whom movement environmental door many opened familiar MEP Polish only the was Buzek Chruszczow. 2011), - (2009 Parliament European M Polish a Buzek, Jerzy Parliament. European the of Jerzy by assisted also was project lobbying GEG The economic ‘Polish affecting interests’. as E new the by posed threat common the focusedon was sec power the and industries between Tension 2009). (I ETS” the on phase trading third the in interests aware of the future costs for the Polish economy. C economy. Polish the for costs future the of aware E the by proposed as sector, power the for auctions opportuni its emphasizing ETS, the on view of point meetin GEG’s the of some Th in participated campaign. Kassenberg lobbying the to ideas their contribute The Buzek. and Chruszczow Żmijewski, with touch in Coalition, Climate theof organizations biggest The He was a member of the Committee on Industry, Rese Industry, on Committee the of member a was He 35 . He served as a rapporteur on the EU's 7th Framewo 7th EU's the on rapporteur a as served He .

ral America. America. ral Food Safety, a member of the Delegation to to Delegation the of member a Safety, Food and an alternate delegate for the for delegate alternate an and arch and Energy, an alternate member of of member alternate an Energy, and arch ‘Polish economic interest’ and in economicand interest’ ‘Polish InE, PKE and WWF also stayed and PKE stayed WWF InE, also the government, the Polish and Polish the government, the d ad oe teto t the to attention more paid nd onsequently, they became less less became they onsequently, triw Wra, February Warsaw, nterview, spending programme for the the for programme spending Buzek, at that time Member time that at Buzek, uropean Commission, it also it Commission, uropean to people from the European European fromthe people to ties for the Polish economy. Polish the for ties EP and the President of the of President the and EP ation method through full full through method ation TS. The threat was framed framed was threat The TS. Europe. In the 2004–2009 2004–2009 the In Europe. rpa Cmiso, and Commission, uropean gs to represent the green green the represent to gs e leader of InE, Andrzej Andrzej InE, of leader e lmt Caiin re to tried Coalition Climate tor eased once attention attention once eased tor m Greenpeace, WWF, the WWF, Greenpeace, m f eeal, oa and local renewable, of Primn’ many Parliament’s e t Żiesi and Żmijewski to s rk Programme rk 165 CEU eTD Collection one with voice: speak shouldPoland ETS, to sect power industries, – t came – unionists trade and officials governmental actors different those how act non-governmental and governments European other er! Ad o xli ta tee a a ifrn g different a was there that explain to And year?!” in Brussels: “Yes, we should reduce emissions! Of c Of emissions! reduce should we “Yes, Brussels: in economi im very was it reliable thought also We fromexpertise. technical going knowledge was our what drew exactly we knew because we that but on”, going th In som of “sense identified. a had only not we that show to wanted precisely been have threats these p legislative new the by threatened felt whole a as the that show to way a finding of thinking started th we ne And something be would do? This one. as all to lobby should what So it. that’s and repaired be shopping- The protests. unions’ to used is Brussels home back come would and noise of lot a make would to go would they unions... trade And Euro development!” the the of paradigm changing whole the are changing are We economy! We chimneys! your b through of out habit bad coal accessible your easily your of change quantities gigantic to have will you because you course “Of say: would They either. them to talk n alone, Brussels to went sector power the If care. silly look would that – different were instructions th but President same the Minister, Prime different by the Commission: “Dear government, where have you have where government, “Dear Commission: the by would it own its on lobbying started government the the in changes for co the to came We EU. the in legislation of lobbying Package start to had – Poland – deci government the and sector power the both 2008, w situation situation”! the „dramatic a was it that is in of ourselves description euphemistic most The o a conclusion that with regard with that conclusion a o ors. Chruszczow unveiled unveiled Chruszczow ors. In the middle of middle the In r opne, experts, companies, or roposal and that and roposal n fltig it letting of and N oe would one No . Polish economy Polish windows would windows nclusion that if if that nclusion are protesting protesting are ourse we have have we ourse be laughed at laughed be portant to say to portant Brussels, they Brussels, w. And so we so And w. vrmn, a overnment, ething wrong wrong ething negotiation e bd would obody ded that we we that ded s a we way is proposed to Poland. Poland. to been last last been uh we ought economic e found found e urning wrong c and and c pean 166 CEU eTD Collection

the whole Central and Eastern Europe by surprise:byEurope Eastern and Central whole the Po p climate European among the that argued he directives conversation, proposed the in involved stakes disappointe was he time that At Brussels. in Poland Off Representation the and Warsaw between Directive Europ coordto Minister thePrime the by assigned was (UKIE), of Office the Serafin, Piotr 2008 July In economy Polish thecompetitivenessofthe for stood And choice. strategic good a be to seemed interest’ that at and framing good required mobilization and inter economic Polish ‘the and society’ Polish ‘the acto of network heterogeneous and larger a mobilize r actors governmental and businesses moment that In pointed out, with a bit of sarcasm, that Polish act Polish that sarcasm, of bit a with out, pointed gl the whether debate to wanted still du elites Polish and 2008), (December Poznań in COP-14 the during ir expressed also he 2009, January in me to Talking January 2009) January eae bu ciae oiis n u cuty (Inte country. our in policies nev climate had about there debate because hesitations without it signed that in said been had policy, climate European the was that t everything fact in 2007… of March in Council conclusions the signing was President our When at a much lower economic cost. (Interview, Warsaw, Warsaw, 2009) (Interview, cost. economic lower much a at reduc allow would that proposal alternative an have n we one, possible only the was Commission European propos system the that our said destroy ever not had will nobody that Because way a in it do to have we emissions! more reduce to ways of think even can We En and Change Climate the of targets the achieve to est’ in the EU. Problematization Problematization EU. the in est’ obe was warming up or not. He He not. or up warming was obe ors ‘more advanced in climate climate in advanced ‘more ors and low electricity low prices. and the ‘Polish economic interest’ interest’ economic ‘Polish the inate negotiations of the ETS ETS the of negotiations inate d with low awareness of the of awareness low with d ean Integration Committee Committee Integration ean iain bu te at that, fact the about ritation olicy seems to have caught have to seems olicy ealized that they needed to needed they that ealized s ht ol sad p for up stand could that rs ie h ‘oih economic ‘Polish the time ih lts Drn our During elites. lish c o te eulc of Republic the of ice document. And he And document. ig T negotiations, ETS ring ergy Package! ergy to be said about said be to ve, Warsaw, rview, ing emissions emissions ing economy!” r en any been er European he However, ed by the the by ed February ee to eeded 167 CEU eTD Collection s rsl, fe a og eid f goig h pl the ignoring of period long a after result, a As of accusations under Union European the of Justice July 2008, Serafin also started closer cooperation cooperation closer started also Serafin 2008, July behin far been have to seemed Poland 2009). January (see Snow et al. 1986) of the ‘Polish economic inte economic ‘Polish the of 1986) al. et Snow (see mobili They auctions. full of mobilized proposal Commission’s representatives governmental and business opne. n eea css gvrmns ud h C the sued governments cases, several In companies. a government emission of quotas national ample allocated when and industries ETS the on periods trading s extent large a to was conviction This reductions. further any from them exempt could effort this that begi the at far by targets Kyoto their exceeded had Easte and Central targets. Kyoto the with comply to of – Europe Western the of problem the been chiefly a reductions Emission policies. climate to approach abou written been has what to testifies opinion His consultingcenterfor research only and Poland’s – national governments’ interventions, into an active into interventions, governments’ national coul which intermediary, s passive bigger a much from a transformed on place take to was trade Emission for begun have to seemed game real the – industries sec power the for auctions full proposed Commission allowance of allocation the by sectors of treatment Warsaw. Warsaw. 36 (Interview, 2008 in negotiations ETS the approached vario how on influence great a had also Serafin, to societ economics and politics, of area an as change deb those with over been already to had Europe seemed Western Poles that claimed He not. or warming phenomenon global whether asking were debates’ change rsac isiue n ytmc nlss f enviro of analysis systemic on institute research A

nmental policies and the power sector in in sector power the and policies nmental with Jankowski from EnergSys from Jankowski with the power sector. power the mediator (see Latour 2005). mediator(see Latour al changes. And this, according this, And changes. al t Central and Eastern Europe’s Eastern and Central t rest’. In the following chapters following the In rest’. s. However, in 2008 when the the when 2008 in However, s. zed under the common frame common the under zed ustained during the first two two first the during ustained which countries, European rn nning of the 1990s, assumed assumed 1990s, the of nning us European interest groups groups interest European us the old fifteen, which strove strove which fifteen, old the the new EU Member States. Member EU new the d h ES emd o have to seemed ETS the nd ans for amending the ETS, ETS, the amending for ans lwne t ter domestic their to llowances Warsaw, January 2009). In In 2009). January Warsaw, tor and partial auctions for auctions partial and tor commitments to emission emission to commitments miso i te or of Court the in ommission hv be pcfe by pacified been have d ates (Interview, Warsaw, Warsaw, (Interview, ates o ob aant the against lobby to d in discussing climate climate discussing in d ae Te T became ETS The cale. ae o raie that realized not have a a anthropogenic an was unfair or groundless groundless or unfair s took care of their their of care took s 168 36

CEU eTD Collection June 2007) and the Green Effort Group lobbying camp lobbying Green the Group Effort 2007)and June N O TE ONI aedn Drcie 038/C so 2003/87/EC Directive amending COUNCIL THE OF AND Netwo Lobbying Polish theof Structure and Dynamics economy. national the competitivenessofof def have actors Polish The rationalities. political withi out carried is Problematization expertise. of wit them to solutions finding and problems defining act problematizing a primarily is government modern c Mill and mediate Rose’s to points This could Brussels. and Warsaw which expertise, produce to experts Therefo i 2009). EU January the Warsaw, in (Interview, position anyone persuade not would they numbers” “withou that knew also actors Polish Interestingly, particula a of Polish ‘the society’. represent behalf on not organized was lobbying had which arena, EU the from actors approaching for I sufficed. it mobilization domestic the for being, ver been always not has frame this that see will we X. An event-actor network of the EC’s consultation consultation EC’s the of network event-actor An X. redcircles. the squaresand by actors blue the below compone graph the On ‘EU actors. Polish an by dominated considred be can component first the participated who actors through linked are network two These GEG. the by organized events at gathered (bottom part second the and Commission European the cons four at gathered actors of consists (top-left) tra allowance part distinct two has network The 2008). Directive, emission gas greenhouse EU the extend EU THE OF DIRECTIVE a for Proposal the negotiate to events of structure the examine I section, this In that took place in 2007 and 2008 and 2007 in place took that ined their problem as a problem a as problem their ined t was also a good starting point starting good a also was t n discursive frames and certain certain and frames discursive n ultation meetings organized by organized meetings ultation s. The first part of the network network the of part first The s. meetings (March, April, May, April, (March, meetings hin heterogeneous networks networks heterogeneous hin fgrs wtot aa and data without figures, t er’s (1992) observation that that observation (1992) er’s aign (June-December aign 2008). rk efcet u fr h time the for but efficient y in both components. While While components. both in vns r rpeetd by represented are events re, they mobilized Polish Polish mobilized they re, o eprudd ht the that persuaded be to

vt. oenn i about is Governing ivity. itrs gop u to but group interest r an opnns f the of components main rgt cmrss actors comprises -right) muiain between ommunication ROPEAN PARLIAMENT PARLIAMENT ROPEAN ig ytm E ETS (EU system ding t, h ohr n is one other the nt’, t spotn their supporting nto s o mrv and improve to as 169

CEU eTD Collection uhrt ad TC. ah etn ws ed n h f the in held was meeting Each ETUC). and Authority Report (2008). (2008). Report 37 website Commission’s European the on found be full A presentations. twenty ca. and panels several organiz and institutions other Öko-Institut), CEPS, academia CAN-Europe), T&E, Greenpeace, FIELD, (WWF, (inclu industry Area, Economic European the States, representati ENTR), DG TREN, DG ECOFIN, DG COMP, DG E the of Directorates different Commissio representing actors European the by participati organized events four of The basis the on created http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/rev Network Source: served as a platform for debating concrete issues r issues concrete four debating for platform the a as served of one than more in participated often who extensive. quite therefore was Commission European http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/rev

iew_en.htm iew_en.htm n o te re Efr Gop Final Group Effort Green the of and

37 ations (EEA, EFTA Surveillance Surveillance EFTA (EEA, ations uropean Commission (DG ENV, ENV, (DG Commission uropean report from each meeting can can meeting each from report Te ewr cetd y the by created network The . elated to the European Union European the to elated ding the power sector), NGOs sector), powerthe ding on lists issued by the EU EU the by issued lists on t novd aiu actors various involved It orm of a conference with with conference a of orm etns Ec meeting Each meetings. , ahrd bu 210 about gathered n, and think tanks (IEEP, tanks think and e o te Member the of ves 170

CEU eTD Collection journalists. This network is therefore less dense a dense less therefore is network This journalists. the finally, and, Commission final the to recommendations of form the in institutionalized and instit debates an in inscribed was network the s of a component resembling way a in lobbyists Polish by created Commission’s compo European first the of the process institutional of mobilization the While proposal. l to actors of mosaic a into together put gradually meetin four of course the in place wide one in a interests gathered Commission European The mobilized. di quite therefore are network the of parts two The the EU. and and expertise journalism, making, policy of fields communic public Brussels-based a from experts int NGOs, and Polish the of members governments, Presidenc national French the of representatives Commission, leve high representatives, business th and union trade of Members foreign and Polish government, Polish al were there GEG the by us created network these the Within both represent to legitimate and sector as power recognized the by both man’ ‘our as perceived company Preside former 1993), Ansell and Pagett (see Żmij actor’ Krzysztof Prof. GEG, the of organizer main and actors 151 Around out. spread loosely more much is campaign lobbying Polish the by created network The eff globally making it withcountriesand other ETS p discussed participants June, in held meeting last predictabi increased and harmonization further with and ETS EU the of enforcement and compliance robust Th ETS. con EU the reviewing March of ways possible the discussed During (ETS). Scheme Trading Emission ( { PSE) } and a strong promoter of energy efficiency. He was was He efficiency. energy of promoter strong a and nd it spreads out across various across out spreads it nd obby for changing the new ETS new the changing for obby various market fields in Poland Poland in fields market various ective. ective. stinct as to the way they were they way the to as stinct ossibilities of linking the EU EU the linking of ossibilities l officials from the European European the from officials l gs, while Polish actors were were actors Polish while gs, met at 44 events. The leader The events. 44 at met t f h Pls Pwr Grid Power Polish the of nt reports from the meetings, meetings, the from reports iy f h E ES A the At ETS. EU the of lity – the Green Effort Group – Group Effort Green the –

ok te opnn was component the work, concerned meeting April e ca mvmn. h first The movement. ocial mat Assessment Impact wk, a a ‘Sphinx-like a was ewski, utional process of expert expert of process utional the meeting in May dealt May in meeting the al cmeig sectors. competing ually so representatives of the the of representatives so rainl environmental ernational et a a at f an of part a was nent i te U n other and EU the in y Erpa Parliament, European e h idsr, n also and industry, the ag o vie and voices of range ference, participants participants ference, to cmay and company ation therefore study, study, 171 CEU eTD Collection xhne I lo ok o eet, hc bogt sim brought which events, for look also I exchange. i of continuity some providing by network whole the im be may actors these that assume I meetings. same groups larger for look I blocks into them modeling who those for look I actors, correlating By blocks. t of each of pairs correlating by events and actors at aims paper this in analysis my of part other The know moments extensive ofalso wereevents bridging legiti to had actors and challenged was – interest’ Polish of frame mobilization the where places also the and objectives policy Polish bridgi between mediators the or actors bridging The network. br interest as served organized processes and consultation network institutionalized the of components main two w actors for look will I therefore, analysis, my In ra or new transmit theof network. parts separated to able be may bridge a as chasm There overlapping. than rather additive degree some netw provide actors two which of result a as buffer puts (1995) Burt As network. the of parts distanced actor for look I (1995) Burt and (1983) Granovetter a with events of pairs and actors of pairs – other wh those and – events and actors central most the – n the of elements 2-mode for look to actors 366 and events reconstructed the examine I section this In 2007.Commission in European the prese actors some reach to tried December2008, and thei mobilizing actors, Polish interests’. economic to failed it actors, Polish to according as, Poland The document. Direct ETS EU the of proposal the accompanied which mat AssessmentImpact report triggered mobilization of interest in in interest of mobilization triggered report ho are central in relation to the to relation in central are ho met at the same events, and by and events, same the at met mate it or innovate with it. The it. with innovate or it mate etwork which are most distinct distinct most are which etwork on ewr bten June between network own r dqaey ersn ‘Polish represent adequately ork with resources that are in in are that resources with ork e ad oeig hm into them modeling and hem actors – the ‘Polish economic ‘Polish the – actors ih orlto rsl. After result. correlation high s who join distinct and often and distinct join who s identifying the most similar similar most the identifying fore, an actor that spans this spans that actor an fore, it, a hole in a network is a is network a in hole a it, y h E ad h Polish the and EC the by nt in the network created by by created network the in nt ledge exchanges.ledge f cos h atne the attended who actors of uoen ns Te were They ones. European ive as a legitimizing, expert legitimizing, a as ive o are most similar to each each to similar most are o g vns ee important were events ng s gna n knowledge and agenda ts ilar actors together. It is is It together. actors ilar portant for the identity of of identity the for portant network composed of 48 48 of composed network re information between between information re idges between the the between idges 172 CEU eTD Collection Betweenness centrality of eventsof Betweennesscentrality Assessment included meetings, these from report a to According meeting = 0,239, 2 0,239, = meeting etn. xet fo CP, cFs EM wr i fa in were EFMA EcoFys, CEPS, from Experts meeting. dis the of most occupied regions and gases sectors, exp The scheme. global a into ETS ET of transformation of harmonization for called who MEPs Swedish the Ger of representative a Rid, Urban were: Directive” between highest the have Commission European the by net this of events other in participating actors of was s theIt on June. in Commission European the by is measure, centrality betweenness the to according The centrality. betweenness highest the have ac events of paths shortest on occur that Events analysis. ce used commonly most the is centrality Betweenness process. representation i similarities these what analysize will it events, identif with Along strategy. lobbying further a and t order in – campaign lobbying the of beginning the even example, for were, there if see to interesting the ETS, the issue of forestofissue the ETS, protection. the margi a but point, important an addressed only They did actors Polish wi above, meetings four the during ETS the of organization shown was it As impact real Directive. a had have could meetings those during exchangin concerns, voicing result, a As Directive. The authore ETS. Environment DG the the from on officials meetings, int knowledge and of opinions moments of were exchange These fields. market and policy various representing actors gathered meetings Those , the most vocal participants of the first meeting meeting first the of participants vocal most the , nd meeting = 0,211, 3 0,211, = meeting rd meeting = 0,200). 0,200). = meeting work. Other meetings organized meetings Other work. mplied for the whole interest interest whole the for mplied ying similar actors and similar and actors similar ying ts gathering similar people at people similar gathering ts o work out a common position position common a out work o the fourth meeting organized meeting fourth the th the European Commission. Commission. European the th hortest path of over a quarter a overof hortestpath nal one to the organization of organization the to one nal ies pooig solutions proposing ideas, g most central event (0,269), event central most Member States and various and States Member ay n Adr Wijkman, Anders and many os oig ewe other between moving tors cussion during the first EC EC first the during cussion ntrality measure in network in measure ntrality ansion of the ETS to other other to ETS the of ansion s ne 1 o the to 1 Annex as d the proposal of the ETS ETS the of proposal the d ness centrality as well (1 well as centrality ness on the final text of the the of text final the on vor of further inclusions inclusions further of vor o cnrbt t the to contribute not rls n h E and EU the in rules S nie n organized and ensive on “The Scope of the of Scope “The on raies f these of organizers Impact 173 st

CEU eTD Collection ETS.thetheof working improving allocatio EU-wide ETS. the on distortions producing th and allocations organization national criticized a CEPS from experts session, this During Directive. princip organizing the became idea This formulated. EU- on based caps national for wo criteria precise and activities ETS by provided he analysis The feasible. and appropriate differentiated a approach common Harmonisation Öko-Institut, German the Matthes, “Further Felix allowances. regarded debat for crucial was session meeting This Predictability.” third The ma representation’s Commission. European the Polish reforestatio th during ETS the the on discussion the to and contribution was afforestation This through management. pools carbon identified he challenge, main a As goals. reduction contribute would management forest responsible that manageme forest Polish the presented Environment of P “Compl a ETS”, EU the of Expansion to Relation in Issues on session the During procedures. permitting the of improvement technical the on mainly focused Compliance “Robust the concerned meeting second The efficiency. of sake the for ETS expanding of favor in also were fr Speakers ETS. EU the into inclusion for suitable ident He make emissions. must in reductions ETS absolute EU ensuring the to change Clima any the that of emphasised representative a end, the At it. Eura about and EAA CEFIC, – industries of representatives economic its improving of sake the for ETS the into e burden-sharing agreement for agreement burden-sharing e showed that sufficiently robust robust sufficiently that showed ing the allocation of emission emission of allocation the ing efficiency. On the other hand, hand, other the On efficiency. olish official from the Ministry Ministry the from official olish Commission European the om nd the European Commission European the nd e four meetings organized by organized meetings four e le of the ETS in the proposed proposed the in ETS the of le improving its environmental environmental its improving ie ehdlg cud be could methodology wide osrig n increasing and conserving n rules were perceived as as perceived were rules n lie ta a EU-wide an that claimed te Action Network-Europe Network-Europe Action te to the achievement of EU EU of achievement the to ified a number of sectors sectors of number a ified oioig rprig and reporting monitoring, coal – expressed doubts doubts expressed – coal t ytm wee stated where system, nt ac ad Enforcement and iance and Enforcement” and and Enforcement” and ad sustainable and n uld be necessary, necessary, be uld t oe eibe in reliable more it n n strongest and in d Increased nd 174 CEU eTD Collection According to the data available, the Europower Inte Europower the available, data the to According Also, the prospects of offsetting were discussed. ofprospects thediscussed. wereoffsetting Also, ersnaie fo ohr U ebr tts offici States, Member EU other from representatives sec energy and power the brou from representatives It union respects. many in event bridging a was This between them and the officials will be maintained. thebe will officials themand between Commission the by assured was GEG The break. summer official EU of org work the to when September move of beginning strategic a also was It experts. Polish Polish the of representatives officials, EU actors: It meeting. this attended Consumers Gas and Energy an CO2 Forum Enea, Energa, Tauron, PGE, from people efficiency the of expense the at measures reduction targets reduction emission the with agreed GEG The po experts. Polish by identified were which economy, threats about officials DG inform to was meeting (20 Report” “GEG the to According proposals. policy handed the handed representatives meeting, this During (0,185). 2008 be the at Enterprise DG and Environment DG TREN, DG Europ level high the with organized meeting the for between highest the network, interest Polish the In h ohr etn, raie b te ertr o Mi of Solidarność Secretary the by organized meeting, other The th used GEG governmentalinPolish offrontETS the to approach The sector. power Polish the for events of one is This (0,127). centrality betweenness high ea too was it that showed ETS debate the and identified the linking with problems th Particular of discussed. schemes trading emission with ETS the C linking European the by organized meeting last the During Report 2030 Report n aoie n oebr hs ih ewens centra betweennes high has November, in Katowice in over to the EC’s officials and presented their alt their presented and officials EC’s the to over power and industrial sectors andsectors industrial and power of Polish economy. Seventeen economy. Polish of officials and energy experts.and officials energy ean Commission officials from from officials Commission ean rnational Conference also has has also Conference rnational ness centrality was identified identified was centrality ness rly for a fully-fledged linking. fully-fledged a for rly the most important annual annual important most the of the Green Effort Group Group Effort Green the of but did not agree with the with agree not did but nz ti meig t the at meeting this anize s started after the August August the after started s 8, h mi ga o the of goal main the 08), e b ES o h Polish the to ETS by sed h tgte Pls trade Polish together ght os scoa tae union trade sectoral tors, to other schemes were were schemes other to brought together various various together brought r-at cutis were countries ird-party e n Eeg Workers Energy and ne ommission, prospects of of prospects ommission, als from the European European the from als is forum to present its its present to forum is officials that a dialogue a that officials d the Forum of Electric of Forum the d ginning of September September of ginning iy (0,121). lity ernative 175 CEU eTD Collection mn te vns raie b te E, h round-ta the GEG, the by organized events the Among centrali betweennessindicating 2-modenetwork A 5. the supportmobilizecountriestotoother order in frame interest’ economic ‘Polish the when moment a Fren the of representatives also wereThere EU. the Poli with of countries from – embassies representatives Greek and Estonian also were There ETS. the on establi to tried lobbyists and officials Polish and me this of goal The (0,099). centrality betweenness Parliament of Members and unions trade government, the labor within movementcleavages revealed it and ‘Po the for challenging most the of one was meeting debate. ETS the in position unions’ trade on thesis d more in discussed be will meeting this of meaning Com European the of members also were Confederation th of representative the and representative WWF The Office. Policy European Mini the the of from representative officials Polish Confederation, Union Federatio Energyworkers’ and Chemical Metalworkers, Green Effort Group Group Effort Green n a ersnaie f h WWF the of representative a and sh a blocking minority for the vote the for minority blocking a sh ‘pro-coal movement’. ‘pro-coal But it is crucial to say that this that say to crucial is it But ch Embassy. It was, therefore, Itwas, Embassy. ch etail in the last chapter of the of chapter last the in etail eting was political. Bulgarian political. was eting according to sectoral lines. lines. sectoral to according lish economic interest’ frame interest’ economic lish ty of eventsof ty had to become revised again again revised become to had high dependency on coal in coal on dependency high in Sophia in 2008 has high has 2008 in Sophia in n and the European Trade European the and n Erpa Tae Union Trade European e h Hnain German, Hungarian, sh, ty f niomn, a Environment, of stry l meig f industry, of meeting ble iso’ ntok The network. mission’s

176 CEU eTD Collection cos n h sots pts f te atr moving actors other of paths shortest the on Actors actorstheof Betweennesscentrality 7. Events with betweenness centrality above 0,09above centrality with7. Events betweenness

hr Cetn 0,200 0,099 0,211 0,239 0,269 0,127 0,185 0,1 meeting inSophia Round-table Katowice in unions meeting trade International conference International Europower Officialsof Meeting EC September ECmeeting Third meeting EC Second meeting EC First meeting EC Fourth other four actors with high betweenness centrality centrality betweenness high with actors four other ri is Delbeke Jose 0,296. is centrality betweenness pa actors other between paths shortest the on often was Żmijewski Prof. centrality. betweenness highest are: Marina Coey (Żmijewski’s Coey Marina are: the actor who occurred most most occurred who actor the h bhn hm 011. The (0,171). him behind ght rticipating in the events. His events. the in rticipating

between events have the the have events between 21 177

CEU eTD Collection various fields, countries, markets; actors who have who actors markets; countries, fields, various o ebk D niomn,Drco) 0,171 (DG Director) Environment, Delbeke Jos 6. Other actors with betweenness centrality above 0 above centrality betweenness 6. with Other actors 6. A 2-mode network indicating betweenness centrali betweennessindicating 2-modenetwork A 6. i both arg normative political and well as in as knowledge engaged and view of points diverse to access th confront and actors other of front in objectives pr to order in 1987) Latour (see work’ ‘translation between in actors Those identitified. be can fields invo ETS the that fact the despite that, shows This Swedish the and (0,142). (0,149) partner) business and wife rf ryzo mjwk 0,296 Krzysztof Żmijewski Prof. eir objections. Those actors had actors Those objections. eir physically been between those those between been physically uments. have carried out most of the the of most out carried have sn sm atr’ ol and goals actors’ some esent ty of actorsof ty lved representatives from from representatives lved te xhne f expert of exchange the n ,1 MEP, Anders Wijkman Wijkman Anders MEP,

178

CEU eTD Collection nes ika ad h assat f Blain MEP Bulgarian a of assistant the and Wijkman Anders Jerzy Buzek and Tomasz Chruszczow. The three men se men three The Chruszczow. Tomasz and Buzek Jerzy nesWjmn(wds E) 0,142 MEP)(Swedish Wijkman Anders the GEG network. They did not contribute toexp contribute not its Theynetwork. did GEG the not were they but arguments their voiced they where enviro part They GEG. the of work Polish expert the from excluded NGOs. green Polish of representatives those of none And GEG. the of organization founding Representati Polish the in it presenting in and GEG in involved was people of group same the that shows Al experien past their of exclusively. because fields those between fields those of one in them of each i still policy-making, and repre industry energy, actors fields: These Buzek. and Chruszczow Żmijewski, co small a of existence the to point findings These publ Brussels-based anexpert byfrom a accompanied oenet ad rprd h ls o tcncl ques he technical meetings two of Third, later. list days some negotiators the prepared and government, Dir ETS the of negotiator main the Kopczyński, Olaf p same the almost Second, campaign. lobbying Polish duri him here accompanied who interesting partners two quite had Żmijewski seem findings Several pairs. importan these of some present I below table the In events. similar 0,149 or in blocks binary into events of pairs correlated In campaign. lobbying whole the for significant as 0,5 than higher correlation with selectpairs will tho find to order in events of pairs correlating by simil for looking am I analysis, my of part this In events between Similarities Coey Marina and indicated by my interviewees by interviewees my indicated and arities between events. I proceed proceed I events. between arities se attended by the same actors. I I actors. same the by attended se n fact it is difficult to position position to difficult is it fact n der to look for larger groups of groups larger for look to der ert position. re of the lobbying campaign – – campaign lobbying the of re ce and jobs. The analysis also analysis The jobs. and ce t events with their correlated correlated their with events t ective on behalf of the Polish the of behalf on ective l of them were somewhere somewhere were them of l ic communication company.communication ic icipated in several meetings several in icipated crafting the position of the of position the crafting n fie n rses the – Brussels in Office on eople met in July 2008 with 2008 July in met eople h nx se I il model will I step next the meetings was attended by attended was meetings let into the policy core of of core policy the into let d ih h Seih MEP Swedish the with ld em to form the core of the the of core the form to em mnait wr totally were nmentalists Frt Po. Krzysztof Prof. First, . ng the meetings: Prof. Prof. meetings: the ng sented three different different three sented Sea Mnv were Manev, Stefan , tions for the Polish Polish the for tions 179 CEU eTD Collection Meeting w/Anders Wijkman Nov. 2008 Prof. Krzys noiPekeiz Antoni Pietkiewicz Tomasz Chruszczow Tomasz Chruszczow Prof. Krzysztof Żmije Prof. Krzysztof Ż Meeting w/Stefan Manev, Nov. 2008 ______0,815 Press conference, Dec. 2008 Prof. Krzyszt Parliamentary Presentation, Nov. 2008 Participants Event of action. objectivesdomains various between and in and frames encompassing more wider, with actors b mediating in specialize who actors are there that GEG. the by hired company communication public the co was This cause. their of framing ‘international’ GEG the of representatives that shows MEPs foreign consultant communication public the of presence The Correlation na Tomasz Chruszczow Prof. Krzysztof Żmijewski Enea Energa Tauron FOEEiG Prof. Jerzy Buzek Tomasz Zadroga (PGE) Tomasz Chruszczow Enea Energa Tauron Olaf Kopczyński Werkowski Andrzej Dinner Debate Prof. by Buzek, Sept. 2008 Prof. Jerz Tomasz Zadroga (PGE) ______Tomasz Chruszczow 0,709 Working out technical questions, 2008Prof.July Krz Prof. Krzyszto Meeting w/Olaf Kopczyński, 2008July ______0,747

Anders Anders Wijkman Piotr BonisławskiPiotr Stefan Menev Marina Coey it oiłwk BonisławskiPiotr Marina Coey ______y Buzeky ysztof Żmijewski ztof Żmijewski nfirmed by my interviewee from interviewee my by nfirmed of of Żmijewski f f Żmijewski etween fields – in providing providing in – fields etween mijewski during two meetings with with meetings two during helping translate problems translate helping had problems with a more more a with problems had This also points to the fact the to points also This wski

180 CEU eTD Collection he 2008 in and Minister Prime Poland’s been had He fiel policy Polish the field, policy EU the between represent assis usually was Żmijewski meetings, international without second The unions. trade environment or d movement environmental were business interest’ economic homogeneous, ‘Polish the of initial definition the that notice to interesting is inte it diverse, again, more to exposure greater its El to prior of Forum the at network GEG and the of core the was This Consumers. CO2 Forum Energa, Enea, Tauron, Żmij by attended events of consists block first The Event –7 meetingsExpert in Bussels, 2008July Event – 16 Bilateral talks: Prof. andBuzek Prof. Ż Event – 29 Hearing in the House Lords, of Oct. 2008 BlockII. 2008 p negotiation Polish the of presentation – 31 Event Event –9 working out technical questions the P for Event –5 a meeting with Olaf Kopczyński, 2008 July BlockI. twofinterestingresult which model,an gave block Prof. Krzysztof Żmijewski transfor to proceeded I clusters. two-event cluster three-, were events all where Kazimierz Grajcarek other the and al cluster with one – events of columns 2 produced analysis di the in link’) ‘complete option an (with clusters hier a out carried I 0,5. equal or than greater was t 1 of value a giving by correlations of matrix the s binary a into events correlated model to order In ______0,705 Prof. Jerz Hearing in the House Lords, Oct.of 2008 mijewski, Sept. 2008 ______olish negotiation team, July 2008 y Buzeky osition to the Polish Parliament, Nov. Parliament, Polish the to osition

o events whose correlation value correlation whose events o Pls eooi poet, the project’, economic ‘Polish d and the Polish energy sector. sector. energy Polish the and d chotomized matrix. The cluster The matrix. chotomized archical cluster analysis to find to analysis cluster archical o three-eventso blocks. imilarity matrix I dichotomized I matrix imilarity m this partition matrix into a a into matrix partition this m ewski and actors from PGE, PGE, from actors and ewski e b Bzk s mediator a as Buzek by ted ntoa agmns Once arguments. rnational the time of its creation and and creation its of time the ed into 36 single-event or or single-event 36 into ed was a member of the then then the of member a was eet blnig o one to belonging events l block shows that during during that shows block vsd ihn fairly a within evised crct ad Gas and ectricity tvs f the of atives 181 CEU eTD Collection au o 1 o cos hs creain au ws gr was value correlation whose actors to 1 of value model. a createproceededblock to I clusters.45 th and cluster one to belonging actors all with one part a received I link’). ‘complete option an (with look to analysis cluster hierarchical a out carried matrix the dichotomized I matrix similarity binary provi also m to order In I data. matrix correlation pairs. dichotomized correlated of analysis the skip a procedure analytical the reproduce I part this In actors between Similarities Manev. DoyleStefan Avril and Raeva, Bijana P European the of Members all were These once. than w foreignactors of couple a only were There team’. an include to manage not did GEG the Interestingly, assured and campaign whole the of core the up made Chrusz Buzek, Kr people: three with cooperated closely Prof. extremely person: one was of activities network the on lobbying primarily GEG The thesis. this carried analysis centrality the underscore Coey. modeling Marina and Żmijewski Prof. Chruszczow; Tomasz Prof. and Żmijewski Prof. Żmijewski; Prof. common: blo two-event seven generated also has analysis The E the in comfortablebut much lessdomains business navigat in comfortable felt and proficient very was intervie an During unions. trade Polish for contact move Solidarność the of member a also was He Opole. and Silesia of University Technical the at academic party ruling Platforma Obywatelska Obywatelska Platforma (Civic Platform). He also used to work as an as work to used also He Platform). (Civic ition matrix with two columns – – columns two with matrix ition e other with actors grouped in grouped actors with other e he that admitted Żmijewski w, hom Prof. Żmijewski met more more met Żmijewski Prof. hom o cutr o smlr actors similar of clusters for pplied for events. However, I I However, events. for pplied n wti oih oiis and politics Polish within ing cks with one or two people in people two or one with cks czow and Coey. These people These Coey. and czow f orltos y iig the giving by correlations of y foreign actors into its ‘core its into actors foreign y zysztof Żmijewski who most most who Żmijewski zysztof there.neededBuzek and U odel correlated actors into a into actors correlated odel u i te rvos at of part previous the in out h Tcncl nvriy of University Technical the e bok oe fr the for model block a de Buzek; Prof. Żmijewski and Żmijewski Prof. Buzek; arliament: Anders Wijkman, Anders arliament: ae o eul .. hn I Then 0.5. equal or eater its identity and continuity. and identity its ment, and thus a reliable a thus and ment, The results of block block of results The etaie, relying centralized, 182 CEU eTD Collection 2008: November in took who representative union trade also are There inthe actorsofclusterparticipat who a is There cluster: ar NGOs environmental Polish the of Representatives otheractors: foreign officials and EU Polish include which clusters three also are There nationalactors. only all They include officials. sector-relate power of clusters five also are There profiles havesimilar which sectorcompanies, power i There section. this in analyses previous of basis suppor which results, interesting gave analysis The 6: 6: Ministry Economy, of Ministry Treasury, of UKI : ae Ubńk, iołw iwaosi Jry Jan Jerzy Przemysław Goldman Andrzej , ZielaskowskiBolesła , Niewiadomski, Mirosław Urbański, Paweł 3: Burny, Maciej Wojciech Jaworski, Janusz Moroz Kaliś, Jacek Henryk Sawicki, Jacek 2: PGE,1: Tauron, Enea, Energa f h Gra Emas, Rpeettv o te Est the of Representative Dieter Helm a EAmbassy, Embassy,BulgarianMemb Greek the of Representative German the of E French the of Representative a Embassy, Hungarian Miria Tokmackchiev, Amb Polishthe Representativeof a Yordanov, Simeon Pencho Pelovsky, Yoncho Dachev, D Paunova, Politimi Rombaut, Philippe Samson, Denis Zł Lubomir Dishovsky, Stefan Katchakova, Lubka 14: Andrzej11: Kassenberg, Grzegorz Wiśniewski, Dariu Rudo Řehoř, Lewandowski, Andrzej Szymański Onichimowski Grzegorz Miroslav Dudziński, Radosław Ciżkowicz, Rogulski, Piotr Gracz Wojciech Kulesa, Pyrka, Marek Maciej Błaszczyk, Bernard 9: Rafał Czaja Joanna Zborowski, Krzysztof Trojanowska, Hanna 8: 7: Tomasz Zadroga, Krzysztof Noga, Mogens Peter Ca Piort SerafinPiort (UKIE) Szejnfeld Adam Korolec, Marcin Pawlak, Waldemar 5: Szynol : tnsa Tkrk, ryzo Hjrwk, Andrz Hajdrowski, Krzysztof Tokarski, Stanisław 4: Sophia roundtable: Sophia s a distinct cluster of four Polish Polish four of cluster distinct a s t the conclusions made on the the on made conclusions the t power sector representatives, sector power of event attendance. eventof E, Senate part in the Katowice meeting meeting Katowice the in part eprs n governmental and experts d sz Szwed w w Jankowski (EnergSys) assy, a Representative of the Representativeof a assy, atanov, Vladimir Stariradev, Vladimir atanov, rl, Caroline Demoyer gopd n separate a in grouped e r ais Mce Swora, Maciej Mariusz dr , Jan Bury, Maciej Nowicki, Maciej Bury, Jan , Rudnicka, Pasqual Dupuis, Dupuis, Pasqual Rudnicka, Ambassy, a Representative a Ambassy, ers of the Parliament, Prof. Parliament,Prof. the of ers mtr rno, Krassimir Brankov, imitar j ekwk, Kazimierz Werkowski, ej kwk, oa Szyszko, Roman ikowski, k Kzmez Grajcarek, Kazimierz yk, , Jerzy Obrębski, Janusz Janusz Obrębski, Jerzy , a Evtomova-Misheva, na f ovdk Krzysztof Vojvodik, lf na Ebsy a Embassy, onian 183 CEU eTD Collection nutis evrnetl Gs Ntok nlss ma analysis fields between spaces Network of concept the operationalize NGOs. environmental p industries, EU and national action: of fields various between who actors identifying at aimed also analysis This basis. cor this into included were actors foreign company, Brussels-ba the and Buzek to thanks but Polish, was stra its shaping actors of group centralize core a was distinguish campaign lobbying Polish the Second, arg of i selection production, knowledge from of processes excluded were NGOs Environmental industries. objectives economic by driven mainly was enterprise chapter. this from drawn be may conclusions Several actors Polish of mobilization examined chapter This Conclusion terms. environmental sta with campaign sector’s) power even (or business Po the of perception the to contributed segregation o point green the include to businesses of side the conce and interests termsof in other fromeach far representatives see t shows It separately. clustered to NGOs environmental interesting is It clusters. homoge nationally forming actors of groups striking d the on ma out carried transformation model who block The actors also are there And clusters: them). of three in in participated who (those Commission European the in participated who actors contain clusters Several Auriemna, Ioan Feurdean, Emil Gheorghe, Pencho Tokm 15: Anabella Rosenberg, Reiner Koch, Peter Kerckho Peter Koch, Reiner Rosenberg, Anabella 15: Krzysztof Żmijewski, Tomasz Chruszczow, Olaf KopczyChruszczow,Tomasz Olaf Żmijewski, Krzysztof

f view into their programs. This programs. their into view f rns, and that there is no will on will no is there that and rns, managed to locate themselves themselves locate to managed four consultation meetings at at meetings consultation four eis n dbts Te core The debates. and tegies hat the two groups are quite are groups two the hat ih obig apin s a as campaign lobbying lish kes defined in economic not economic in defined kes uments and frame-building. frame-building. and uments atclr oiin i the in positions particular e component on occasional occasional on component e of the power sector and and sector power the of or two in them, of one only cooie dt, revealed data, ichotomized no lbyn network. lobbying a into olicy fields, power sector, sector, power fields, olicy First, the Polish lobbying lobbying Polish the First, sed public communication communication public sed neous and heterogeneous heterogeneous and neous f h pwr etr and sector power the of fs, Michael Wolters, Mateo Wolters, Michael fs, ad t s osbe to possible is it and d akchiev, Alexander Kanev , n atclr from particular, in t, y therefore help help therefore y ński, Jerzy Buzek. Buzek. Jerzy ński, e p single-unit up ke 184 CEU eTD Collection ers n Sak 00, n h eet wih rn t bring which events the in 2010), Stark and Vedres publicBrusselscompany.communicationthe e.g. a mediating in specialized be of may Others Chruszczow). fields various within activities of portfolios be in positions occupied actors rather some Interestingly, ident are who to or possible fields, those be between may themselves it action, of fields their actors’ the and networks of composition the Knowing po also but position bridging be may These network.

tween because of their diverse diverse their of because tween to (.. ue, Żmijewski, Buzek, (e.g. ction sitions in structural folds (see folds structural in sitions between various fields, like fields, various between ify actors who positioned positioned who actors ify akrud i trs of terms in backgrounds be o c ars them. across act to able gte dvre actors. diverse ogether 185 CEU eTD Collection aln n Lw 92 it vros rjcs f emiss of projects various into 1982) Law and Callon process a as understood be can analyzed events The on based interviews has been primarily chapter this t an of in mainly place meetings took here examined formal communication only recorded GEG The chapter. netw the on found be cannot them of some Therefore, m been not have analysis this in present actors the o from officials governmental and companies, sector European with allied also have they but Parliament French the Commission, European the from officials engag only not have lobbyists and government Polish a heterogeneous more and more becomes analys actors Polish the As 2008. and 2007 in ETS the of revision emission allocating for methods various negotiating ac of networks examines below provided analysis The markets. controlof various spaces on and power po is method allocation an such, As dioxide. carbon mark carbon European the On (EUAs). commodity ETS’s as actors, various between relations defines which Muni and (Callon technology calculative a called be between relationship a organizes method allocation places and people the and traded, be will that EUAs partial it as ETS (t the of Scheme device crucial a Trading is method Emission Union European the under ta companies European to (EUAs) methodallowances emission the over controversy a examines chapter This Introduction Market European Carbon Negotiating Allocation: EUAs’ of Methods 5. Chapter

well as between actors and the the and actors between as well litical. It entails distribution of distribution entails It litical. . . allowances (EUAs) during the during (EUAs) allowances y eemns h nme of number the determines ly ther Member States. Many of Many States. Member ther esa 2005). It is a technology, a is It 2005). esa Presidency and the European the and Presidency supply and demand and may and demand and supply of trade. In other words, an words, other In trade. of entioned in the GEG report. report. GEG the in entioned king part in emission trade trade emission in part king o alcto. t s lo a also is It allocation. ion nutis Gra power German industries, ed in communication with with communication in ed s nel, h ntok of network the unveils, is in engaged Poland in tors ork charts in the previous previous the in charts ork informal way. Therefore, way. informal f erlig cos (see actors’ ‘enrolling of nd internationalized. The internationalized. nd et it relates companies to companies relates it et of allocating European European allocating of e E ntok and network GEG he h Poet f the of Project the e T) Allocation ETS). he 186 CEU eTD Collection utpsd cnrdce, iecd n smtms st sometimes and silenced contradicted, juxtaposed, various methods for allocating European Allowances Allowances European allocating for methods various Actors’ engagement in purifying interests and spher and interests purifying in engagement Actors’ i economic European common ‘a of category a with up constructin of eco European Eastern and strategy Central ‘the to interest’, the from on moved lobbyists governm Polish networks. these purifying in engaged metho given a support to networks intersectoral and 198 Latour (see ‘purification’ and ‘translation’ of m allocation the of negotiation the precisely, More order. institutional new in a result they sim defined, are interests project, a behind actors mob withi of course the formulation In opportunities. and their constraints of transformation, interest wh to and when propose, they what projects, propose 1982 Law and Callon (see projects concrete pursuing activ also are they but structure social wider a in may Interestsb transformation. interestofprocess time constructing these concepts in various ways. various conceptsin these constructingtime environmen and economic of concept the to j referring They bureaucracies. and markets of economics, and constructing in engaged actors allocation, j emission when However, it. achieve to helped which interests devise, common a become to translated were actors MEPs. the and Commission the agencies, European and gover companies, involved it – heterogeneous became the Commission the extension of their control over control their of extension the Commission the Europea how de-le show I analysis, and the in Further ETS others. the w on practices It own dominated. their have legitimize could they which and influence act which over terrains of boundaries over struggle act could actors which within spheres of divisions ely constructed in the course of of course the in constructed ely 7). While building international international building While 7). ethod may be seen as a process a as seen be may ethod e derived from derived positions e actors’ nomic interest’ to finally come come finally to interest’ nomic the European carbon market. carbon European the n lgtmt wy I ws a was It way. legitimate a in ors’ could have exerted their their exerted have could ors’ bounded spheres of politics politics of spheres bounded es of action resulted in new new in resulted action of es n industries negotiated with negotiated industries n lzn a rae nme of number greater a ilizing d of allocation, actors were actors allocation, of d abilized so that in the end end the in that so abilized ). By examining how actors actors how examining By ). nments, trade unions, state unions, trade nments, ental officials and business and officials ental a efcec, t h same the at efficiency, tal EA) te E network GEG the (EUAs), ustifying their projects of of projects their ustifying n conditions of various various of conditions n Interests of those various those of Interests iiie h patcs of practices the gitimize nterest’. While proposing While nterest’. m I td poess of processes study I om, lfe, lid funneled, allied, plified, siid hi cocs by choices their ustified ‘h Pls economic Polish ‘the g n eprie a the was expertise and s lo srgl to struggle a also as 187 CEU eTD Collection actors possi its on constraints put govern to came ETS the Mater of distances. long over electricity transporting losses connector, grid a construct to time takes electricity through connected ‘discurs are EU a the in in regions sa changed be the cannot per this dioxide And generated. carbon of volumes different emit For 2008). 2006, MacKenzie 2005, Muniesa and Callon Latour ma e.g. (see markets for of realities account to represent they have entities various of characteristics actors since social’ ‘purely that clearly very shows does analysis This constructed’. constructed’ ‘the However, value. and commodity’s supply of devices, market of markets, of nature show to is chapter this of goal main the Therefore, translat succeed. always and action of fields various in understood categ are uncertainty and certainty that shows This u t generating as for perceived was uncertainty proposal Commission’s generated have to seemed proposal Commission the by controlled process administrative based allowances emission of allocation organizing tying and production, for industrial actual the argued to allowances industries when visible particular of logic the into action of fields their of logics the negotiating while that shows also struggle This sector companies. power European and industries differ with system hybrid a was result The well. as the over control administrative its performa keep to own wanted their of basis the on them to supplied emi way the over influence more have to wanted They ’ justifications of justifications thosesolutions. 87 19, 05 1999 2005, 1999, 1897, the market operation. This was in was This operation. market the and which help them construct construct them help which and iality of various markets, which which markets, various of iality the constructed and organized and constructed the supply of emission allowances allowances emission of supply sca cntuto’ s never is construction’ ‘social ent set of rules for European European for rules of set ent ETS, actors tried to inscribe inscribe to tried actors ETS, on historical emissions in an an in emissions historical on h Cmiso age for argued Commission the o bten hm a not may them between ion rd ad oe r nt It not. are some and grids power are expected when when expected are power itself. While the industries’ the While itself. ories, which are differently differently are which ories, l sltos n as onto also and solutions ble ssion allowances would be would allowances ssion ead bt lo f the of also but demand, nce. But the Commission Commission the But nce. ncertainty for industries. industries. for ncertainty allocation of emission emission of allocation ntne dfeet fuels different instance, v’ ‘oil wy Some way. ‘social’ ive’, not stand for ’socially ’socially for stand not me amount of energy energy of amount me e diitain the administration, he terial, often physical physical often terial, ???? Clo 1998, Callon , 188 CEU eTD Collection lo acltv dvcs wih raie akt exc market organize which devices, calculative Also Alternative Allocation Methods and Internationaliza and Methods Allocation Alternative ih the with E various with arguments in engage to out set Group appoint newly the August, of end the till July From

ways. material deconstructed’ ‘socially easily been have not could actors’ materia of elements become other have allocation emission and Such parameters. their and sector emissi to according allowances carbon of allocation differentiate the of some criteria. performance production and technological tie only would benchmarks to utilities electricity by produced dioxide carbon auc full through method allocation the While 2008). ti they an Callon (see way and material a in function ETS the to markets may ETS the how on constraints Environment or the Ministry of Economy. Initially, Initially, Economy. of Ministry the Min or Polish the Environment of one in out worked know-how Polish clear entirely not is sector power the for proposal sector power Polish the to allowances emission free probl identified the to solutions proposing started mo they Polish interest’, economic ‘Polish the defined and the develop when economic Poland’s of problematization diagnosis Commission’s of phase the From P only “the as wasabout”. the ETS new what understood Brussels, in NGOs environmental from many by regarded was He negotiation. ETS the in GEG wa who Buzek by endorsed also was idea This sector. auc full from derogations for ask to was government summer the of end the Till Brussels. in activities eot 2030 Report n ohr nomto mtras te E luce i launched GEG the materials, information other and for me. It seems that this was a a was this that seems It me. for the ETS, the method based on based method the ETS, the 2008, the position of the Polish Polish the of position the 2008, ems. They proposed to allocate to proposed They ems. ed lobbyists of the Green Effort Effort Green the of lobbyists ed , they resisted trials in various in trials resisted they , ved on to the phase when they when phase the to on ved tion of theof Network tion Polish technologies used in a given given a in used technologies The benchmark method would would method benchmark The tions would tie every tonne of of tonne every tie would tions companies. The origin of this this of origin The companies. d Muniesa 2002, MacKenzie MacKenzie 2002, Muniesa d tions of EUAs for the power power the for EUAs of tions negotiation networks. They networks. negotiation s the main authority for the for authority main the s ags pt oe material some put hanges, et ne te e ETS new the under ment uropean actors. Equipped Equipped actors. uropean of my interviewees, also also interviewees, my of , ehia ciei for criteria technical l, h Pls government Polish the istries –the Ministry of of Ministry –the istries oeain o other on operations e ls MP h really who MEP olish actors refused the the refused actors ons according to to according ons

189 ts CEU eTD Collection fneig (e Clo ad a 18) f te Polis ‘the of 1982) Law and Callon inte (see very ‘funneling’ is Hassi Satu from coming information The sector power German compan the fromcamefuturethe po to Committee, derogation the extend to idea the that interview Environmental the from Change Climate T the of member a and Energy and Research Industry, of President Vice a also Safety, the Food and Health Public Environment, and MEP Finish a Hassi, Satu future. the p coal-fired to allocation free extend to companies by transformed soon was solution the interestingly, exis the for auctioning full from opt-outs proposed investors. (Interview, Brussels, April 2009) (Interview,April Brussels, investors. interest an – derogations these po demand to German interest a also was there that but interest Polish the that know to interesting it’s people Polish the M (…) Summit. December the during defeated was that coal-fi deman to new Poles the convinced they then and stations in pow Poland German in other invest to some wanted and companies RWE because RWE by text a power German firs formulation this that other Germans from heard We’ve some from came but and Poland by lobbied was RWE This companies. from thi that came MEPs German actually coal-fir from new heard for we’ve also And stations. derogation of proposal a into there stations power this process the in old late quite then But derogation. the for that was proposal Po the initially and proposal this of opponent main sector P And accepted. widely very was that And auctioned. power the for permits emission all tra 2013 emission from of review the in issues key the of One coal-fired power plants built in built plants power coal-fired ower plants built in Poland in Poland in built plants ower member of the Committee on on Committee the of member ig oe pat. However, plants. power ting h Gra pwr sector power German the h economic interest’ went went interest’ economic h ies: ies: etn. t el ta the that tells It resting. re was not only a only not was re moay omte on Committee emporary proposal turned proposal the Committee on the the on Committee the d also this but this also d ne ot uig an during out inted oland was the was oland t appeared in appeared t f h future the of ih counter- lish e a that was de e sector wer e power red be would Germany. ed power power ed must be be must ye for aybe idea s er 190 CEU eTD Collection ond h ntokb pooig slto fr ‘the for solution a proposing by network the joined me told official governmental one as However, 2008. VI the – IFIEC of affiliate German a by Environment t recommended was method This position. negotiation i to and IFIEC-method the support to recommendation presented EnergSys the from Jankowski 2008 July In (see2 more‘durable’ Latour makingit IFIEC-method i element important an was review positive EcoFys’s strengthene and IFIEC-method the legitimized EcoFys Therefor trade. emission th on Europe of in one bodies expert is It governance. environmental for cooper tools closely governance E the for solutions policy on works environmental It Environment. of area the renowne most the of one is EcoFys The arena. making E IFIEC-method the taking to contributed that factor the by review positive The 2009). January Warsaw, reviewe positively and IFIEC) (the Consumers Energy Eur the by out worked been has It expertise. Polish marketelectricity taking by Poland in operation launch to aspiration foreign Also actors. national of network the beyond the b not has companies power to allowances emission of involveme RWE’s as process this in invisible fairly A interests. own their for beneficial be would that government for lobbied intensively benchmarks, inte on based the method during admitted officials governmental the a with benchmarks technological on based was it and allocatin for method alternative an was This shape. since but 2008, of end the till agenda negotiation com sector power the for derogation of proposal The GEG Report GEG , by the Green Effort Group and by the European indu European the by and Group EffortGreen the by . . , took part in constructing ‘the Polish economic int economic Polish ‘the constructing in part took mid 2008 another proposal took proposal another 2008 mid t the same time they remained remained they time same the t nt in proposing free allocation free proposing in nt TS and develops market-based develops and TS seriously within the EU policy- EU the within seriously opean Federation of Industrial of Federation opean g emission allowances (EUAs) allowances emission g Polish problem’ – a solution solution a – problem’ Polish , at that time, the Ministry of of Ministry the time, that at , 005, Callon and Law 1982). Callon Law 005, and bge sae f h Polish the of share bigger a n ex post adjustment. One of of One adjustment. post ex n K – as early as in February in as early as – K een covered by media or by or media by covered een panies stayed on the Polish the on stayed panies d by the EcoFys (Interview, (Interview, EcoFys the by d opne, hs wt an with those companies, , pstv rve b the by review positive a e, d it. One could say that the that say could One it. d te co-ewr o the of actor-network the n e main non-governmental non-governmental main e in Brussels by the Polish Polish the by Brussels in rview that the allocation allocation the that rview d consulting companies in in companies consulting d oy ws n important an was coFys cue t no h Polish the into it nclude te oih iity of Ministry Polish the o h UI wt a strong a with UKIE the tn wt te DG the with ating stries, was not anot was stries, erest’. They They erest’. 191 CEU eTD Collection oevr te FE-ehd oeaig ih mr g more a with operating IFIEC-method, the Moreover, P the to support mobilizing for lobbyin frame the Polish extended, The industries. European of interest int economic Polish ‘the made method IFIEC the RWE, with congruent interest’ economic Polish ‘the made to EUAs free allocate to proposal the While actors. fo opportunities new opened Jankowski, to according ne Polish the by used also was industries, European te The competitive. globally industries Polish keep o interest the me, told (I official UKIE the industries As 2009). ‘killing’ be would prices electricity the in identified problem Polish The lowerin of project a all above was IFIEC-method The explained:Jankowski interview, the gave Ministry Polish The ETS. the in participation the industrie and companies power that Polish for beneficial Group Effort Green the from Żmijewski and conv Jankowski July In himself. IFIEC the contacted Jankows that, of Irrespective interests. Polish the of presentation VIK’s the find not did Environment by the IFIEC. (Interview, Warsaw, February 2009)FebruaryWarsaw, (Interview, the IFIEC. by was Poland that th like just show – methodologies allocation alternative thus and prices electricity of empha to impac less have would that but solution a wanted Poland sector power p Polish the t the to for stick After derogation to countries. not suggesting of was group I presentation larger a for that proposal beneficial a not was This out-reach. Europe-wide wo that arguments general with up come to difficult prop this and situations different in are countries good a not was sector power Polish the for auctions t proposal Ministry’s the that out point to tried I Report 2030 2030 Report Polish power sector companies power Polish rm ‘carbon leakage’, coined by coined leakage’, ‘carbon rm the IFIEC a phone call. During call. phone a IFIEC the f ‘the Polish economy’ was to to was economy’ Polish ‘the f the IFIEC-method relevant for for relevant IFIEC-method the was that due to full auctions auctions full to due that was triw Wra, February Warsaw, nterview, g electricity prices in Europe. in prices electricity g s. It could lower their cost of of cost their lower could It s. ki, present at that meeting, meeting, that at present ki, gotiators. The IFIEC-method, IFIEC-method, The gotiators. inced Serafin from the UKIE UKIE the from Serafin inced h itrs o te German the of interest the olish arguments expanded. expanded. arguments olish ntok a therefore was network g nrl tcncl n less and technical eneral, r allying other European European other allying r erest’ congruent with the the with congruent erest’ e one worked out worked one e IFIEC-method could be be could IFIEC-method pspn full postpone o one. Different Different one. sl ae it makes osal t on the level the on t l hv a have uld ooa of roposal could be be could pn to open e VIK’s he size that that size 192 CEU eTD Collection companies would auction EUAs for emissions exceedin emissions for EUAs auction would companies pr In Directive. ETS new the in determined be would g a after place take would allocation EUAs However, period. trading thebefore established technology. available best the by determined level EU purchase to have would fuels emitting more using more with companies all words, other In technology. emissi the to up sector given a in companies all to electricity (e.g. sector given a in technology best achieva lowest the by determined be would benchmark be product ex-ante an on based was IFIEC-method The ETS theof Project Industrial IFIEC-Method: The a also but them. among commonalities – Europe Eastern Central of part a being commo their to according only not governments, more coul actors Polish the benchmarks, technological on o strategy IFIEC the Since context. European the into economy a to – developments historical and fuels assemb spatio-temporal unique a as economy national strateg their from away move could a They with strategies. actors Polish the provide to able was Mar method in Council European the re and emission Commission of European rate the at achieved been have could b Poland in only not prices electricity lower could th for method allocation the as adopted If device’. IFIEC-meth The interest’. economic ‘European a into coin to potential a gave It companies. sector power price electricity high from industries their saving other attracted have could It further. even network h have could arguments of language country-specific

). Free EUAs would be allocated be would EUAs Free ). ut in the whole EU. And all this all And EU. whole the in ut The benchmark level would be would level benchmark The ‘the Polish economic interest’ interest’ economic Polish ‘the cue b fl acin for auctions full by caused s Member States interested in in interested States Member on level of the best available available best the of level on d start enrolling more actors, more enrolling start d iven production period which which period production iven Erpa pwr etr it sector, power European e allocation method was based was method allocation elped to extended the Polish the extended to elped actice this would mean that that mean would this actice lage of actors, technologies, technologies, actors, of lage As on the market above the above market the on As g the emissions for the best best thefor emissions the g icroaig h Polish the incorporating f nchmark allocation. Such a Such allocation. nchmark y of exoticizing the Polish Polish the exoticizing of y od became an ‘enrollment ‘enrollment an became od mtig ehoois or technologies, emitting substantial shift in their their in shift substantial ccording to technological technological to ccording n historical experience of of experience historical n utos lne b the by planned ductions l eisos rm the from emissions ble h 07 Te IFIEC- The 2007. ch 193 CEU eTD Collection As early as in 2006, the IFIEC criticized allocatio criticized IFIEC the 2006, in as early As serious threat to the competitiveness of EU energy EU competitivenessoftheto threat serious desig the 20 in endemic “were September ETS EU the with in problems issued release press hig A with consumption. industries burdened and producers power of prof windfall about concern its expressed IFIEC the 41 40 39 38 a Switzerland Spain, Portugal, Poland, Netherlands, Finland, France, Denmark, Republic, Czech Belgium, in industries represents IFIEC The competitiveness. costs operating of component major a is energy co whom industrial intensive energy represents IFIEC The production. actual fromthe resulting emissions EUAs because eliminated, be would profits windfall would partic companies because simply lower, much be would of cost the way This 3). p. 2008, Dictionary be period given a for known was would performance production but sector given a in technology available xenl atr afc te blt t tae s pre as trade to ability the affect ex-post factors external consider to constantly is urged business “as allocations allowances’ and emissions historic on otefcet solutions”cost-efficient c “Challenging response initial its published IFIEC (2003/87/EC) Directive ETS EU the to amendments the pre Commission’s European the after day next the On efficient in an on way. markets global operating predicta a re administrative an in of example an as it criticized investments green boosting for device based cap emission an perceived Commission European IFIEC Press Release 29 January 2008. January 29 PressRelease IFIEC 2006. September 28 PressRelease, IFIEC 2006. September 28 PressRelease, IFIEC 2006. September 29 PressRelease IFIEC 41 I te is fw aarps f h nt te IFIEC the note the of paragraphs few first the In .

lict, which prevented them from from them prevented which lict, n of emission allowances based based allowances emission of n intensive industry” intensive adjusting against forecast and forecast against adjusting limate change targets require require targets change limate nd United Kingdom United nd fifteen EU countries: Austria, Austria, countries: EU fifteen dicted” its that went into the pockets the into went that its ipation in emission auctions auctions emission in ipation ol b alctd ny for only allocated be would of time (the GEG, The ETS The GEG, (the time of smr – opne for companies – nsumers able to do it after their their after it do to able be buying less EUAs. AlsoEUAs. less buying be etto o a rpsl of proposal a of sentation on historic emissions as a a as emissions historic on and directly affects their their affects directly and Germany, Hungary, Italy, Italy, Hungary, Germany, n” and they presented “a “a presented they and n” on 28 January 2008, the 2008, January 28 on ble way, the industries industries the way, ble her costs of electricity electricity of costs her 6 ttd ht severe that stated 06 40 adjustments of the the of adjustments Wie n 06 the 2006 in While . 39 38 . . . In 2006 In . 194

CEU eTD Collection 44 43 42 cost-eff about measures: concern his expressed Grünfeld, Hans process. this in industries by played role crucial emission strong introduce to need the acknowledged energy intensive industries over the next yearsindustrieswil next theintensive over energy uncertainty of degree this “with that claimed IFIEC unc causing for Commission European the by proposed pro their in auctioning of cost the include to able proc administrative an through assess, to difficult volatil and globalized in that was argument IFIEC’s lau the of advance in Commission the by competition in of assessment arbitrary an by caused uncertainty auc partial of cost the regarding were concerns His for the power sector: power thefor proposal Commission’s the criticized also IFIEC The IFIEC Press Release 29 January 2008. January 29 PressRelease IFIEC 2008. January 29 PressRelease IFIEC 2008. January 29 PressRelease IFIEC rtc Erp’ eeg itnie nutis bt t theirremove effect don’t about doubts the proposed but industries, intensive energy Europe’s pr protect explicitly Barrosso President measures. proposed avoi and cost-efficiency th at are economy if EU the to distortions competition succeed only can EU the t the with and pace the at abatement change Climate to pay the resulting high electricity prices.electricityhigh resultingthe pay to companies, member IFIEC’s damages further only This the of auctioning full to move to is flaws present way only the believes Commission EU The consumers. rev immense unjustifi electricity making producers, electricity cause, still and 1st caused the periods in trading rules allocation ETS EU the Furthermore,

duct prices. Blaming the method method the Blaming prices. duct However, the IFIEC’s President, President, IFIEC’s the However, 44 lsuffer”certainly ess, which industries would be would industries which ess,

for introducing full auctions auctions full introducing for , the investment climate for for climate investment the , nch of the new EU ETS. The ETS. EU new the of nch dustries’ exposure to global global to exposure dustries’ in fr nutis n the and industries for tions eooi mres t was it markets economic e targets and underlined the underlined and targets ertainty in the EU ETS, the ETS, EU the in ertainty ably expensive forexpensive ably iciency of the proposed proposed the of iciency iveness. oe sector. power e heart of the the of heart e argets set by set argets e methods he which have which to avoid the avoid to msd to omised ne for enues n 2nd and ac of dance 42 43

. . 195 CEU eTD Collection January 2008). Hans Grünfeld stated that “enhanceme that stated Grünfeld Hans 2008). January ep te aat rm h tcnlgcl hmin T champion. technological industries steel glass, lime, cement, for the benchmark from apart them keeps production on based allowances of allocation free of proposal ca IFIEC the arguments, main its out pointed Having electricity marke thus and European also the market Żmijewski, well. as dom would plants players power biggest the that emphasized power nuclear of pockets w against warned (2008) Jankowski actors. Polish by emissions for installations in the power sector as sector power the in installations for emissions matter of negotiations). All other companies would would companies other All negotiations). of matter even could technology efficient most the have which technology efficient most The emissions). CO2 least 48 47 46 45 capacities” power nuclear with larg the of benefit the to primarily - rules ETS EU contin will It solved. be won’t market power the in – method allocation new a propose to Commission the the – profits’ ‘windfall that out pointed IFIEC The CO2 reduction target’” reduction CO2 ens thus and technologies carbon low for incentives co EU all for €billions save can sector electricity ‘Applying concluded: has supply energy sustainable a and experience broad with company consultancy and I paragraph proposed alternative the of investigation thorough opening In auctioning”. to alternative climat and economic supports report “ECOFYS titled: later years would mean the overall CO2-cap was ensu CO2-capmeanwas wouldoverall the years later zero to set be would profits windfall change, small hi not actual, to allocation the linking by avoided b profits Windfall benchmark. a on based allowances n uoe I patc i wud en ht aa abou data that mean would it practice In Europe. in collected in order to decide which among them is mo is them among which decide to order in collected The IFIEC method was an allocation methodology bas methodology allocation an was method IFIEC The 2008. April 17 PressRelease IFIEC 2008. January 29 PressRelease IFIEC 2008. January 29 PressRelease IFIEC 46 . On 17 April 2008, the IFIEC issued another press press another issued IFIEC the 2008, April 17 On . 47 . The IFIEC-method would build on an allocation of allocation an on build would IFIEC-method The .

45 . This point was congruent with arguments made arguments with congruent was point This .

well as in the industries based on the best availab best the on based industries the in as well . Another rule proposed by IFIEC said that there wo there that said IFIEC by proposed rule Another . have to buy additional permitscalculated as a diffe a as permitscalculated additional buy to have would serve as a benchmark in a given sector. Comp sector. given a in benchmark a as serve would receive all CO2 emission permits for free (but thi (but free for permits emission CO2 all receive st efficient in terms of CO2 emissions (most output (most emissions CO2 of terms in efficient st t technologies used in given sectors would have to to have would sectors given in used technologies t ed on benchmarks. Benchmark would be a yardstick fo yardstick a be would Benchmark benchmarks. on ed e ytm ol b ognzd etrws, o one so sector-wise, organized be would system he e players, and most of all those all of most and players, e by IFIEC, ECOFYS, a research a ECOFYS, IFIEC, by phenomena, which prompted which phenomena, ue to work – supported by the by supported – work to ue trcl rdcin Wt this With production. storical smr, hl stig equal setting while nsumers, benchmarks related to actual actual to related benchmarks . Adjusting the benchmark in benchmark the Adjusting . t. ures the achievement of the of achievement the ures y power producers would be would producers power y indfall profits coming to the the to coming profits indfall red would not be out ruled (29 (29 ruled out be not would e policy merits of an IFIEC IFIEC an of merits policy e nt of market concentration concentration market of nt inate the European carbon European the inate me up with an alternative an with up me FIEC states that after a a after that states FIEC h IICmto i the in IFIEC-method the promote to mission clear 48 on the other hand, hand, other the on . . ees. t was It release. le technology technology le rence that that rence uld be an an be uld s was a a was s free with anies anies 196 be be r r CEU eTD Collection implied that fair competition and equal treatment c treatment equal and competition fair that implied gl on conditions changing rapidly to exposure their dif huge for account to IFIEC the trea for meant To equally companies. emitting of w ETS performance the economic connect to Commission the suggested IFIEC A Commission the by 2013-2020 for fixed be would companies. EUAs European ups economic of the irrespective proposal, Commission’s of (thei performance EUAs the production of supply the tie not ey did it the because in inefficient was proposal Commission’s The 50 49 of production actual the on based year marketevery suggested IFIEC 2020, and 2013 between period whole T 2008). Report EcoFys (see n+1 year in granted and actual the to EUAs allocated of adjustment ex-post a but producers companies: electricity fuel fossil the by only in method its of efficiency the stressed IFIEC The whilst further contributing to the EU’s climate pol theto EU’s contributing further whilst th remain to able be would industry EU The indus leakage. EU for disadvantage competitiveness of threat the IFIEC-method the using by incentives, reduction wit that stressed Europe, in IFIEC the of President B in day that study ECOFYS the of launch the During market. While the European Commission proposed to d to proposed Commission European the While market. rul the concerned Commission European the of method IFIEC Press Release 17 April 2008. April 17 PressRelease IFIEC 2008. April 17 PressRelease IFIEC akt n wud icuae ute mre consolid incumbents. large market further discourage would and market com more a of removi benefit the to be would that profits extra believes Europe IFIEC generators. power profits extra of year a €30bn to €20bn removes also fu go can IFIEC-method the that shows report ECOFYS fuel fossil affects only carbon of auctioning While 49

a given company. given a production of a year n-1. This adjustment would be be would adjustment This n-1. year a of production adjusting the benchmark-related amount of EUAs on on EUAs of amount benchmark-related the adjusting he major difference between the IFIEC method and th and method IFIEC the between difference major he etermine the emission cap on historical emissions f emissions historical on cap emission the etermine es of determining the supply of EUAs on the carbon carbon the on EUAs of supply the determining of es icy.

eliminating windfall profits not profits windfall eliminating ouldn’t be guaranteed without guaranteed be ouldn’t obal markets. Thus the IFIEC IFIEC the Thus markets. obal h these economic merits and and merits economic these h EU ETS could avoid the real the avoid could ETS EU 50 ferences between them and and them between ferences lso by the nuclear energy energy nuclear the by lso e global low-carbon leader, leader, low-carbon global e russels, Hans Grünfeld, the Grünfeld, Hans russels, n dws te upy of supply the downs, and r allocation) to the actual actual the to allocation) r

r ad eutn carbon resulting and try s f h IIC experts IFIEC the of es in 2008. As a result, the the result, a As 2008. in generators, the generators, idsra companies industrial t petitive power petitive t te cul yearly actual the ith y nuclear by rther, as it it as rther, ccording to the the to ccording to by ation g such ng made for for made or the the or 197 the the e e

CEU eTD Collection tool” th by regarded was industries of performance actual a clearl emission adjusting 2008 for allow January would that 29 mechanism from release press IFIEC The actua the to according cap the adjust to Commission mechan a introduce to proposed IFIEC the 2013-2020; advance in years few tightened, be gradually would cap, the establish to proposed Commission the While production. about information for companies gr a also but industries from coming data analyzing onl not Commission European the for mean would This th by provided performance companies’ about data on Com European the and production actual to linked be a The companies. to EUAs of supply the over control globa the Eu to more ETS the the tie to by tried IFIEC-method proposed one the than project different a t to according organized market carbon European The 51 ThroughMethod Fullvs.Auctions: Justifying IFIEC o allocation themselves. players industrial the over control and power more giving ao fa o te ytm wih ol nt ae t c it make not would which system, the of flaw exp major the IFIEC the from by regarded ETS was Europe EU in electricity the Decoupling 2009). May fully it Brussels, have you if response th supply is without ETS market EU “the Bank: Deutsche at Research Carbon Lewi Mark quoting said, IFIEC support the To from market. interviewees true a as IFIEC the for qualify i Commission European the by proposed as ETS EU The IFIEC Press Release 28 September 2006. September 28 PressRelease IFIEC 51 . .

Boundary Making Boundary l performance of companies. companies. of performance l l economy and to give more more give to and economy l llocation of the EUAs would EUAs the of llocation for the third trading period trading third the for eater dependence on these these on dependence eater and the factor by which it it which by factor the and fixed ex-ante” (Interview, (Interview, ex-ante” fixed mission would have to rely rely to have would mission he IFIEC-method was thus thus was IFIEC-method he IIC s tu market true a as IFIEC e lcto acrig o the to according llocation ism that would enable the enable would that ism this judgment one of my my of one judgment this rs itriwd s the as interviewed I erts eiso alwne to allowances emission f s, the Director of Global Global of Director the s, oen omsin The Commission. ropean cmais themselves. companies e y a great yearly effort of effort yearly great a y pbe f epnig to responding of apable Jnay 08 i not did 2008 January n sae ta “ny a “only that stated y ol bg commodity big only e cul ead of demand actual

198 CEU eTD Collection his meeting with one of the high level officials in level officials one high with theof meeting his re his follow not did They argument. this to listen Comm the claimed he However, economy’. ‘real the to indu the of performanceeconomic actual the to EUAs attemp an was me, to explained he IFIEC-method, The that: growth. economic Europe’s in fluctuations potential

er tm. o a a ietr eea h hs very a has he General Director a as Now time. years niomna efc o te T wud e o a wel 2009)June Brussels, as low be would ETS the of effect environmental n would ETS the of effect the that price low a such Euro twenty-five or twenty fifteen, round be would the If collapse. price EUAs’ an again get could we happe could What it. have will we but now hope as severe downturns, economic other two not if one least th likely quite is it 2020 and – 2009 – now Between Delbeke was a bit of my age. Let’s say he will reti will he say Let’s age. my of bit a was Delbeke si same the is This decade. a for signals price the y is doing are you what “listen, Ivone, well said I more this year, that it would be killing for them. for killing be would it that year, this more dow went steel since certain, quite is it then 2009 th on rights emission their base you if steel, Take man for much too have may sectors certain then that I argument”, no “That’s ok”. quite be will that so ch we but 2009 choose don’t we favor, a you do will “Anyway”, same”. the that’s Ivone know “you say, I allo free not tax “that’s European a That’s else. something says she then And 2007.” and 2006 of income till taxes pay to has he that you tell I and taxes and Belgian is he s money, But lower gets know. he and don’t retires I now, taxes pay doesn’t he maybe DG Environment: DG asoning, he said. He referred to referred He said. he asoning, strial and power producers – producers powerand strial h IIC xet argued expert IFIEC The ou try to freeze all freeze to try ou So you never do it do never you So sin fiil wud not would officials ission re maybe in a few few a in maybe re price in long term term long in price t to relate the supply of of supply the relate to t at we will have at have will we at 00 n i high his on 2020 cation.” And then then And cation.” tuation if Mr. Jos Mr. if tuation ot be big. So the the So big. be ot i eisos in emissions eir ad “f o do you “if said, 2005-2007 oose 4% r even or 40% n that would be be would that he has to pay pay to has he y many years. many y h sy, “we says, she n then is that is then n ih salary, high l.(Interview, fully not as as not fully completely poe he uppose 199 CEU eTD Collection legitimized its own proposal as being amarket.asown being its proposal legitimized price market ‘a – carbon of value the and – market’ callin By strategies. rhetoric same the to resorted the At politics. with market the contaminate would the in implied engineering’ ‘administrative of lot Żmije economy’. real ‘do actors where space natural lat the Commission, European the by steered process is former the While economy’. global G real ‘the and the from Żmijewski betwee and distinction sharp a constructed rhetorically IFIEC the from Schyns Both Żmijewski also commented on the Commission’s reacti Commission’s commentedthe on also Żmijewski 52 Krzysztof Żmijewski, Blog, 15-11-2008, 23:40, 23:40, 15-11-2008, Blog, Żmijewski, Krzysztof (Interview, Brussels, May 2009) Brussels, May (Interview, product actual the to tied it have you unless right thus making it more difficult to engage in speculatmore it in difficultengage tomaking thus r the in ETS EU the embed would it that is proposal flaw unarticulated Another low”. “too be would EUAs it: against argument one only is There (…) sectors. non-ETU the from reductions move to Fr us allow by would proposed way, the (by mechanism” “flexibility rej Commission European the argument, of same the price With the is it that all after out – high unjustifiably point is allowances to able be will nobody t for better the is market this artificial more The billion 60 worth market financial new a create and f switch to important more much is It participants. particula in and face, to going is economy European burdens and costs the minds really nobody Obviously

www.wnp.pl . proposal of the Commission that that Commission the of proposal g the space for carbon trade – ‘a – trade carbon for space the g

n an ‘artificial carbon market’ carbon ‘artificial an n ’ – the European Commission European the – ’ wski argued that there was a was there that argued wski built up in an administrative an in up built ae ie te Commission the time, same on to theto on IFIEC’s proposal: ter is a living organism – a – organism living a is ter he London City as City London he a “market price”. price”. “market a ive actions. ive rom coal to gas to coal rom o, f course.” of ion, Euros a year. a Euros eal economy, eal of price the of the Polish the of is poorer its r reen Effort Group Group Effort reen hc the which to the ETS ETS the to ne that ance) emission emission ects the the ects 52

200 CEU eTD Collection 53 Żmijewskimarket, for bui while arguing hisblog, onplace another In European CommissionIFIEC-method:the on European An ‘economics’. exp 2009, Summer in interviewed and I whom Environment, proposal ‘politics’ its between justified distinction also Commission European The politics, socieand economy’between ‘the ‘the bureaucracies, and economics between realms, two between a Żmijewski way This outside market’. market ‘true a a is influences such Only politics’. ‘the beyond – i sphere This demand. and supply between play a and imm by governed there’ ‘out sphere a – 2009) Callon a as market constructed Żmijewski paragraph this In Krzysztof Żmijewski, Blog 12-11-2007 09:31, 09:31, 12-11-2007 Blog Żmijewski, Krzysztof pressures and it is incorruptible – unless someone someone unless afr 2008) consumers. (Żmijewski million 15 corrupt – is incorruptible market is a it because and pressures market a such pressures, on no corruption are there sensitive, politically not Su level. consumers), the by is (that market the by t rational, a to down everything boils it expectation demands’, ‘social demands’, ‘unions’ to sensitive Compet impossible. seems it where even and possible costs cuts regulator, a not and competition, which market true A level. possible lowest the at prices Market you will actually hand out, so then you also don’t don’t also you then so out, hand actually will you gis. lo o dnt nw n dac hw uh al much how advance in ver know don’t were you we Also against. what that’s So enormously. signal price com incentive the impact, the a reduces it is emissions, production on based allocation an view our In i i te ny ehns, hc i cpbe f ho of capable is which mechanism, only the is it – 53 proposed his own definition of what a ‘real marketa‘real own what of definitionhis proposed

www.wnp.pl .

lding a real European electricity realEuropean lding a ty’. ty’. lso constructed a boundary boundary a constructed lso s outside of social pressures social of outside s ‘quasi-natural sphere’ (see sphere’ ‘quasi-natural nn lw o competition of laws anent f oiis n political and politics of lained the position of the of position the lained know how much how know ewe mres and markets between official from the DG DG the from official by referring to the the to referring by hat is accepted accepted is hat samre on market a is ch a market is is market a ch wherever it is it wherever ing from the from ing ’ r ‘salary or s’ hr i no is there subsidy of of subsidy to i not is ition s be to able is locations locations y much much y i of aid lding ’ ’ is: 201 CEU eTD Collection of emitting carbon dioxide to companies’ products. products. companies’ to dioxide carbon emitting of s were auctions Full thinking. his behind rationale off Commission European the paragraph, above the In counterproductive as it did not allow the European European the companie lowcarboneconomy become a and goals environmental allow not some did it to as subsidies counterproductive proposing by competition t in flawed was IFIEC-method the Commission the For

Also the full price of carbon allowance would not b not would allowance carbon of price full the Also you will auction or, even worse, it may trigger unc trigger may it worse, even or, auction will you (Interview, June 2009,June Brussels.) (Interview, whic signal, that gives which price, carbon the and the between difference the only is it IFIEC, the by sys the In technology. efficient most the apply and red to incentives gives which price carbon full the ETS the under So allocate. to way the from not and ca the from comes technology updating for incentive saying. were they what true not That’s technology. incentive clear a give not does Benchmark year. the coamuchlower at usachieve cap tothe help would product intensive energy of consumption reduce then exte the to prices product in change a to lead also system, efficient more much a be would that signal, the of cost full the ha have you you cap, the allocation, of ante certainty ex an have you when Whereas ch would nothing consumption, of terms in also then fo allocation get still would you because cost, the it. (Interview, Brussels, June 2009)Brussels, (Interview,June it. o m se very are We saying. electricity based were they what rubbish the really allocation in or of industry the kind in production any – allocation ex-post much very been have we Therefore emissions. on cap upposed to pass the whole cost cost whole the pass to upposed hs a, abn intensive carbon way, This wo ways. First, it distorted it First, ways. wo : : ca epand o e the me to explained icial economy to achieve its its achieve to economy nt possible and possible nt r free back, so back, free r ertainty on the the on ertainty h is much less. much is h uce emissions uce carbon price price carbon tem proposed tem Of course the course Of st throughout throughout st which would which e included in included e we have now have we benchmark . eod i was it Second, s. tr That’s ctor. to upgrade upgrade to ange much. ange uch against against uch s. And that And s. against the against rbon price price rbon real n e the ve 202 CEU eTD Collection utfctos oig rm h IIC n Pls exp Polish and IFIEC the from coming Justifications economy. carbon low ‘prosthetic efficient an become to price EUAs’ the thus dioxide; carbon emitting of cost the lower to goo energy-intensive and carbon-intensive producing poli climate of goal governmental the – goals other (C device’ ‘prosthetic a as perceived therefore was EUA of cost the and price EUAs’ goods. those buying tu in this And (EUAs). allowancesemissionof price pri their because costly very become would products h Erpa Cmiso. h Peiet f h IFIEC the of manner:following the in position Environment’s President The Commission. European the outsid located body political and p administrative an IFIEC, the For allocation EUAs’ when market carbon the contaminate interests. industrial on dependent allocati EUAs’ when market carbon the Commissi contaminating the For actors. different European between also employe relations but which spheres these justifications, of understandings actors’ with together economy? and politics between boundary the is Where signal. accord ac the out t of to efficiency distorting subsidies carried according administrative post if ex adjusted even and EUAs, benchmarks of allocation free the from official the efficiency; market distorting an political a of example an was way administrative e (the side supply the fixing that argued IFIEC the this of sides both by constructed actively was them bureaucracies. and tw markets of economics, and image politics an on based were officials, Environment he market and the carbon price price carbon the and market he it would weaken the potential of potential the weaken would it device’ facilitating transition to transition facilitating device’ would consumers rn deter from G niomn age that argued Environment DG e of the economic market – by by – market economic the of e debate. While the expert from from expert the While debate. mission cap) in a political and political a in cap) mission d administrative interference administrative d aliskan 2007) for furthering furthering for 2007) aliskan y o ee cmais from companies deter to cy ds. The IFIEC-method tried tried IFIEC-method The ds. u te onay between boundary the But s would be fixed ex ante by ante ex fixed be would s e ol as icue the include also would ce erts, as well as from DG DG from as well as erts, ’ ucae y companies by purchase s’ neet ad iin of visions and interests ons processes would be be would processes ons It seems to be shifting shifting be to seems It on, politics would start start would politics on, o separated spheres of of spheres separated o nt ny different only not d ltc wud tr to start would olitics ul rdcin were production, tual ing to technological technological to ing interpreted the DG DG the interpreted 203 CEU eTD Collection A representative of the DG Environment commented on commented Environment DG the of representative A

edfn rltos ewe ojcs n ntok an network a in objects between relations re-define n ascribe it, problematize reality, the re-order to re- To projects. actors’ to according reality 1982) o 2010) Lépinay ove and (Latour struggle ‘re-configure’ capacity a rather but other, the over actor one as understood only not power, over struggle a also E the of organization that show quotes These 2009). emissi reduce to incentives much very reduces it so l much have you because change, of climate to adapting point their from that see “I conclusion: brief a o ae eln, o ae sd o eln wt uncer with dealing to used are you dealing, are you main things, their main problems. From a company’s company’s a From problems. main their things, main an Uncertainty despise. servants civil what exactly an uncertainty involves it and control to easy less it’s complex, more little a probably it’s numbers, ta are you If it. That’s allowances. emission these on based thoseyears,of couple the over last know, the for easy very is it cont And markets. under control cannot things ‘have they that idea an have they is it politicians, the for servants, civil for mean cont have to need the with do to lot a has it think solutio better no is there – one efficient most the point economic an from view, of point intellectual A.L. method, [IFIEC proposal t this against objecting that’s think I control. losing of afraid are they afr be to services public for typical is it think I Brussels) Brussels) (Inter IFIEC-method. the wer of concepts the they to opposed why reason the that’s d and are risk they introducing fearing, are they what think I possible. a uncertainty avoid to try servants Civil government opposite. the and about is business what basically ew identities and roles to objects, objects, to roles and identities ew configure or to translate means means translate to or configure ons” (Interview, Brussels, June Brussels, (Interview, ons” iw t ep te t avoid to them helps it view exercising direct influence by by influence direct exercising r ‘translate’ (Callon and Law and (Callon ‘translate’ r uropean carbon market was market carbon uropean ess of a carbon price signal, price carbon a of ess asr ter oat (see loyalty their assure d r power which rests on a a on rests which power r ey motn that important very aid of that, because because that, of aid the IFIEC’s position with position IFIEC’s the of view, it is clearly is it view, of nd risk as much as as much as risk nd d risk these are the are these risk d years, now youget now years, e el esn for reason real he more dynamic, it’s dynamic, more m to say, well you you well say, to m kn aot actual about lking ta ti oe I one. this than n ] because from an from because ] o oe tig. I things. over rol rs ad that’s and risk d view, June 2009, June view, al ari of afraid eadly rol’. And they they And rol’. any Ti is This tainty. point of view, view, of point s strongly so e is the exact exact the is 204 CEU eTD Collection Although the Polish government, power sector and in and sector power government, Polish the Although was not exactly good for Poland because, the IFIEC- the because, Poland for good exactly not was fro interviewee my to According prices. electricity match exactly not did method the IFIEC-method, the whether debate, This ways. different in efficiency Europ the problematized which projects, two between IFI the and Environment DG the between struggle The administrationbodies national theand European and relat of change the was Commission European the and the of stake The 1982). Law and Callon 1986, Callon Polish Coal vs. Russian Gas: the IFIEC-Method Revis IFIEC-Method Russianthevs.Coal Gas: Polish ef most the otheron markets.actions actors’ – signal’ price ‘undistorted an produce wor they politics with contaminated not are markets et Callon 2009, (Callon against argue sociologists ma essentialized Actors undistorted. and true pure, w 2009) Callon (see spheres’ ‘quasi-natural of kind referre IFIEC the and Commission the market, carbon po highly and strategic a in participated they fact ineffici economically thus and 1991) Douglas w purity ‘contaminated was which opponent, its efficien of pure’, proposal more ‘economically was proposal own 1 (Latour work purification the doing by legitimate strived IFIEC the and Commission European the Both 2009). May Brussels, wo two of period a is this so happen, d might changes happen might what know don’t We wars. world 2 for s We Commission. the said it, that’s and ante ex it result this wi concluded IFIEC fromtheinterviewee ante ante or adjust it it adjust or x post ex edd ih h Erpa Cmiso wnig t My it. winning Commission European the with ended , al. 2002) and claimed that when when that claimed and 2002) al. liticized process of designing a designing of process liticized ay that the Commission fixes it it fixes Commission the that ay m the Ministry of Economy, it it Economy, of Ministry the m th the following words: “we fix“we words: following the th ent and irrational. Despite the Despite irrational. and ent o i te upy f EUAs of supply the fix to ed 8) Te age ta their that argued They 987). method defined allocation of allocation defined method . dustries in general accepted accepted general in dustries rld wars” (Project interview, interview, (Project wars” rld struggle between the IFIEC IFIEC the between struggle k better, and above all, they all, above and better, k ih ol b mr o less or more be could hich kt i te a economic way the in rkets to make their own proposal own their make to

ean carbon market and its and market carbon ean iin to fr regulating for tool ficient h Pls poet f low of project Polish the t mres s o some to as markets to d t pltc’ se lo on also (see politics’ ith ad ainl hn the than rational and t ions between companies companies between ions EC was thus a struggle struggle a thus was EC rn ti pro, what period, this uring 205 ex ex

CEU eTD Collection July 2009). Schyns frominn commentedthis Schyns 2009). on IFIEC July ben another UK the e.g. 2009). June Brussels, and benchmark, another with benchmar of level higher a and production power the a with Europe Eastern be would area One areas. five pr He benchmarks. differentiated regionally the for to recommended IFIEC the from Schyns EcoFys. the by weake was efficiency, environmental its of terms in tha meant It him. for importance significant of was a not and general a recommended EcoFys the fact the the not was benchmark general a industries, Polish po government, Polish the for that aware was Schyns sector IFIEC- power for benchmark fuel-specific a Brussels original the modified go Jankowski, Polish and the Serafin Therefore, ‘Russian’. was gas natural beca it like didn’t they and Polish coal over The gas favoring installations. gas from levels emissions wou sector power the for benchmark general the that coal-f brown existing than emissions gas greenhouse ca stations power gas-fired natural co efficiency from High produced 1MWh to compared (1135lb/MWh) gas w electricity of 1MWh when emissions dioxide carbon t because actors Polish the by welcome not was This to according set be would thistec meant theand sector – power in technology allowances free of amount th for benchmark general a on based allowances free o wn t g t te o cro tcnlg te yo then technology carbon low the to go to want you building coal-fired power plants. (Interview, Bruss (Interview, powerplants. coal-fired building sim you then because benchmark fuel-specific a have h fe-pcfc ie Bt h Eoy rpr caref report Ecofys the But side. fuel-specific the mor also are Germans it. about debate long a had We hnologies using natural natural usinggas. hnologies oposed to distinguish three or three distinguish to oposed companies (Phone interview, interview, (Phone companies t the fuel-specific benchmark, benchmark, fuel-specific the t best option. At the same time, time, same the At option. best s ca ws dmsi’ and ‘domestic’ was coal use r than the proposal endorsed endorsed proposal the than r poue p o 0 lower 70% to up produce n ired generators. This meant This generators. ired ovation thisovationway: large dominance of coal in in coal of dominance large actors understood it as as it understood actors wer companies and for the for and companies wer ld be in fact based on the the on based fact in be ld ee a ams hl less half almost was here ehd n pooe in proposed and method natural from produced as k, then Germany, Benelux Benelux Germany, then k, Poles another idea – to go to – idea another Poles vernment, together with with together vernment, e electricity sector. The The sector. electricity e fuel-specific benchmark benchmark fuel-specific els, June 2009)June els, ly as ht if that says ully the least emitting emitting least the l (2249 lbs/MWh). al hak (Interview, chmark e or less on less or e ms not must u l g on go ply 206 CEU eTD Collection Poland is abundant with is coalabundant Poland Q412 Q412 GEG argued for “introducing “introducing for argued GEG a with auctions full on Emis EU the supplement „to proposal the after Right cities. European other activities lobbying its during GEG the by advocated negotia Poland’s the in included fact in was method generation. energy in r the rejected colleagues Polish his fuel that convinced specific a which of rings, auctioning domination into division a ETS, EU the recom He ETS. EU the on debate the of beginning the the to retuned expert, IFIEC the Schyns, way, This had poor geographic conditions for developing hydro developing for conditions geographic poor had fuel- a preferring for justifications two had Poles Report 2008). most(GEG the benchmarks specific However, solutions. the of any drop to not decided government Polish the coalition, negotiation a and buil of course the in Therefore, 2008). Report (GEG (as sector power the in emissions CO2 of auctioning idea an was there proposals GEG’s the of list long exclaimed Żmijewski at the Hearing in the House of of House the in Hearing the at Żmijewski exclaimed rfso Buzek: Professor es, n i w sat o xlr qie e prs o parts new quite explore to start we if o and 30 least, for today, amount big a have also we coal hard it if start, the for waiting are we so all, at now d we and all, of first lignite, of amount big a had tonn million million-99 95 year, per tonnes million prod of view of Frompoint the(…) ago years 30 and ago, years few a same the always was it and 10%/5% coal our of activity the on and year the on depends Lord Palmer: Is all the coal that you burn homeproduced?that you coal burn the all Is fuel specific benchmark benchmark specific fuel e, 0% W ae lo eln sm ca. It coal. some selling also are We 100%. Yes, – argued Buzek at the same meeting:atsame theBuzek – argued auction rings auction ” (GEG Report 2008). At the end of a of end the At 2008). Report (GEG ” for the electricity producers”, the producers”, electricity the for specific benchmark. While Poland While benchmark. specific they promoted the idea of fuel- of idea the promoted they egion-specific benchmark, this this benchmark, egion-specific strategy adopted by Poland at Poland by adopted strategy n rses Srsug and Strasburg Brussels, in ig p lbyn network lobbying a up ding will be possible. For possible. be will power – – power “to gradually introduce full full introduce gradually “to sion Trading Scheme based based Scheme Trading sion of division spatial a mended and the business lobbyists lobbyists business the and n h idsra sectors)” industrial the in in oiin n ws also was and position tion ol b bsd n the on based be would d o ue t until it use not id uction, about 100about uction, lhuh cys was Schyns Although od i Otbr 2008. October in Lords es per year. We We year. per es industry mining f our country, it it country, our f r 40 years at at years 40 r 20 years ago ago years 20 We have no Alps!no have We 207 – CEU eTD Collection Reute, referred to this issue as well: thisas to referredissue Reute, Com the with correspondence his in Żmijewski 2008). Rus from dependent more becoming by emission reduce the but gas, natural Russian as such fuel polluting we course, „Of stated: Zeit Die by quoted Republic region. the in influence its increase could Gazprom dependenci political (old) new into them push would “s that states European Eastern other and Poland by

Even earlier, earlier, Even press.well asin as Commission with meetings the at Lords, of House the in hearing by times many given was question this to answer The natur the was Why Poland? in acceptable politically 2008, October Lords, the and coal nuclear, means independence disc political of part this concluded Buzek except not. fuels, are biomass, other fuel, domestic a is coal While text ees eo te e lvl Te, f e eeo und Octo Lords, of (House level. this on develop coal of amount we if Then, th because years, 300 for be would level. it gasification, sea the below meters a is depth its because years, 300 for even it bring gas Underground years. 120 or 100 for even be could atr ad trg ad ula eeg. a deeply am I energy. nuclear and storage and capture resourc renewable of development efficiency, energy t other many among tool a – tool reduction emission Accordi letter. your tre be can latter the States, Member of in declaration stated have you which other gas), (in fuels” fossil emitting less to „switch program to 3x20 the of 20 goal till percent 20 by reductions emission guarantee main the that understand I ) Die Die Zeit article from July 2008 pointed out that thereouta that is 2008 pointed from July article original text original ). Why would only these three types of fuels be be fuels of types three these only would Why ). question is whether we want to to want we whether is question al gas excluded from this list? list? this from excluded gas al could replace coal with a less a with coal replace could es. The Russian energy giant energy Russian The es. An official from the Czech Czech the from official An o wn pwr slr and solar power, wind for the representatives of the the of representatives the eeals (os o the of (House renewables” sin ut sapy „Our sharply: quite ussion witching from coal to gas” gas” to coal from witching ere is an enormous an is ere oih cos uig the during actors Polish mission official, Matthias Matthias official, mission ber 2008, ber bout 1,200-1,500 1,200-1,500 bout i? (i Zi 1 July 10 Zeit (Die sia?” words natural natural words ated only as an as only ated 20 (...) and not and (...) 20 ification could could ification ools, such as such ools, concerned es, carbon carbon es, ng to the the to ng erground original original s to is fear shared 208 CEU eTD Collection fe-pcfc ecmr wud hrfr alw for allow therefore would benchmark fuel-specific A 55 54 n h bo' pand lmt strategy” climate planned St bloc's the in Member EU new en of security “the other for asked – countries Communist six with together Poland and s energy of security of issue The neighbor. Eastern poli and economic about considerations involved gas equivale establishing Poland, In simple. too actors would This emits. them of each dioxide natur carbon of much 1kg and coal of 1kg burn to enough not was of representatives For factors. political these for fossil dirtiest the on (2008) report Greenpeace The reg whole of autonomy political and security energy ‘geo-poli distinct their of because also separately possible: possible: exp international an making region the in countries mediato a as acted state Polish the expertise, with V German the and IFIEC the While industries. German withthe hand Germain hand againwent state Polish fuel-spec the favoring also were Germans interview, Sch o as However, network. gained Polish the in IFIEC spokesperson the that suggest modifications These the EU. newin for divisions base becomethe AFP Krzysztof Żmijewski, Blog, December 9, 2008 2008 9, December Blog, Żmijewski, Krzysztof “EU newcomers want energy security included in blo in included security energy want newcomers “EU – straight into the clawstheGazprom.of into straight – example for – countries other and Poland pushes one g to coal from „switching of goal the treating that ein w wr nt uprig hm iacal, bu financially, them supporting not were we region, their endorsing were we that extent the to closely wit working were We VIK). (the Industries Intensive Federation German the with together working were We

www.wnp.pl 55 Ti tm ‘oiia fsi fes would fuels’ fossil ‘political time This . 54

c's climate deal” 05.11.2008. deal” climate c's . the Eastern European states it it states European Eastern the

tical value’. Their meaning for for meaning Their value’. tical r between Germans and other and Germans between r nce between coal and natural and coal between nce ions was completely different. completely was ions fuel – coal – did not account not did – coal – fuel upplies was not a trivial one trivial a not was upplies ns. This time, they allied with allied time,they This ns. ergy supplies to be included included be to supplies ergy tical independence from the the from independence tical nin f h IFIEC-method the of ansion treatment of coal and gas gas and coal of treatment IK provided the Polish state state Polish the provided IK fc ecmr; gi, the again, benchmark; ific yns pointed out during the during out pointed yns e ipe fr h Polish the for – simple be al gas and measure how how measure and gas al nly a partially devoted devoted partially a nly as” as the main main the as as” activities in the in activities Baltic states Baltic h them very very them h ts al former all – ates w were we t of Energy Energy of

209 CEU eTD Collection 59 58 57 56 eprr eepin ni 21, codn t a sour a packa to change climate and energy according the on negotiations 2016, until exemption temporary e of 60% over provide they where countries in fuels “power that announced Europolitics day next the On eev mlin o Ers f re abn msin a emission carbon pact” climate Union free European a to opposition of Euros of millions receive statio “power that proposed Commission the pressure (8.11.2008). trading” carbon EU revised in auctions benchmarking wants Poland “EU/CLIMATE: wrote Europe i headlines made benchmarks ante ex of proposal The otl h Vrul e Idsr (N) Pln rejec Poland (WNP), Industry proposal. New Virtual the portal emissions” powe union's the how on presidency EU French the by shou cold the given has “Poland that wrote Observer EU Observer EU Europolitics Times Financial WNP 19.11.2008 19.11.2008 most fruitful. (Interview, Warsaw, January 2009) January Warsaw, (Interview, mostfruitful. fed European Western the with cooperation our think alternati an out work to able not are they but them is ETS new the know industries intensive energy the So job”. “seasonal m intellectually were They a us. for partners serious for look to to Russia have or would Ukraine They Union. European the in activity th to goodbye say to have would They future. the in would proposal Commission’s the what knew also They surpr not were Germans Europe. Central in active be which country, the a of role a played We it. of outside in States Member several in solutions their for that so region the in logistically them supporting 57 59

“CLIMATE CHANGE: France offers Poland ETS Exemptio ETS Poland offers France CHANGE: “CLIMATE , “Poland rejects French CO2 compromise as summit l summit as compromise CO2 French rejects “Poland , . , “Poland offered a break on carbon emissions” 18.1 emissions” carbon on break a offered “Poland , www.wnp.pl .

56 . According to Polish information Polish to According . lectricity could benefit from a a from benefit could lectricity n rsos t Poland’s to response a In ns in Eastern Europe could Europe Eastern in ns lder to concessions offered offered concessions to lder r sector should reduce CO2 reduce should sector r stations operating on solid on operating stations ge. Nvme. h Agence The November. n ooms” 20.11.2008.ooms” 1.2008. enabled them to them enabled llowances to overcome overcome to llowances they could lobby lobby could they 58 ature. In Poland In ature. ted the Commission’s Commission’s the ted n” 20.11.2008.n” On the same day EU day same the On ce privy to current current to privy ce ve proposal. I proposal. ve ahr hn energy than rather not good for good not eir economic economic eir erations was erations ein and region ised by this. this. by ised bring them bring

hy were they oe to move

210 CEU eTD Collection eutos mn Erpa evrnetl Gs Howev NGOs. environmental also were FoE EU, the in trade emission organizing European among reductions rtce cmais fo hvn t sed oe mone more spend to having from companies’ protected Ins budget. national the fund could which auctions, its depriving was government Polish the allowances, com power for allowances free for ask to government no was it that argued They E.ON. or Vattenfall RWE, b the by also but companies, Polish the by only not manipula being as government Polish the of idea strategy this condemned NGOs environmental European the free for ask to started government Polish the When forproposed fullof auctions proposal Commission’s w they Therefore, unacceptable. as sector power the free colored they appearances, and t campaigns public talking By immoral. were they that and allowances by geared to were producers was power for years profits windfall two last the in success during moral me biggest tell to proud were officials CAN-Europe’s allowances emissionof free allocation any against E European the of Network-Europe Action Climate the odme b te uoen niomna mvmn. T movement. Gre WWF, environmental Earththe like of Friends Brussels, European in based NGOs the environmental by condemned p the for auctions full against objections Poland’s 60 State Re-Distributionthe Statevs. Competition The environmentalN negotiated European thebybeen has k what show also will This proposals. Polish the to envi European the how at look closer a take also us there. made be to was decision final The Brussels. Summit December the till lasted States Member other the Commission, the Poland, between bargaining This red o te at ae h bget rtc o em of critics biggest the are Earth the of Friends 60 , as well as the environmental umbrella organizatio umbrella environmental the as well as ,

against full auctions for the power sector. sector. power the for auctions full against ission trade as a policy tool for emission emission for tool policy a as trade ission to power sector companies. The companies. sector power to Before, we reach that point, let point, that reach we Before,

the power sector. power the er, when it comes to details of of details to comes it when er, ower sector companies were were companies sector ower n o cro mre project market carbon of ind ronmental movement reacted reacted movement ronmental iggest power companies like companies power iggest allowances for power plants, power for allowances t in the interest of the Polish the of interest the in t ed te oih government Polish the tead, ted by the power producers, producers, power the by ted free allocation of emission emission of allocation free allocation of allowances to to allowances of allocation GOs. nvironmental Bureau, were Bureau, nvironmental loe ad nosd the endorsed and elcomed panies. By asking for free free for asking By panies. elf of revenues from full full from revenues of elf o MEPs, through various various through MEPs, o f h Has f tt in State of Heads the of ovne h pbi that public the convince n neve ta their that interview an rnh rsdny and Presidency French y on climate protection. protection. climate on y Te prevd the perceived They . nec, xa and Oxfam enpeace, e biggest he ns like ns 211 CEU eTD Collection Vattenfall, RWE or E.ON. He openly said that “compa that said openly He E.ON. or RWE Vattenfall, etn pwr etr eoain n oad n other and Poland 200Brussels, March (Interview,countries” European in derogation sector power getting biggest the of pockets the to flee would companies ultima years, coming the in privatized become would t as that out pointed Brussels in citizen office Polish Greenpeace of interest the against and interest wa government Polish the NGOs, environmental the of budge t and big groups various to money budget the distribute a as have to was interviewee, government each of My interest movem environmental companies. European the for of representatives revenues more for revenues budget more on up give to willing incomprehensi be would and illogical it found interviewee My freeallocation:and auctions implicati the on commented Unit European Greenpeace interv an During allowances. benchmark-based of and prop Poland’s against NGOs European the of argument electrici Polish Europ the in share biggest gaining de in the interested government and Poland Polish in the operating argued, companies NGOs the way, This pn o cmestn cnues r fr xml, on 2009) example, for (Intervi or, measures. efficiency energy with companies consumers compensating on in money spend more some have to wants government Polish t I why. grasp to easy not is now it and revenues auction And wo revenues. companies Polish the that decided auction has government these re auction receive receive companies government the will reductions], pay who is here about decide can you thing only The y akt Ti ws h main the was This market. ty o various policies. In the eyes the In policies. various o . y nevee fo the from interviewee My s. 9). 9). he Polish electricity market market electricity Polish he nies like RWE and E.ON are E.ON and RWE like nies iew, a representative of the the of representative a iew, and would decide to lobby lobby to decide would and ey rvne kp b the by kept revenues tely, l ta ay government any that ble would think that the that think would atn aant t own its against acting s osals of free allowances allowances free of osals ad o e be o re- to able be to and t n f w otos full – options two of on ew, Brussels, March Brussels, ew, n, mgnd ht the that imagined ent, oe cmais like companies, power eta ad Eastern and Central s for this [emission [emission this for s a uiiy companies utility ean uld receive these these receive uld venues or will will or venues cided to subsidize subsidize to cided well as other other as well t bde to budget its providing providing e Polish he 212 CEU eTD Collection validity of the Polish government’s claims that the that claims government’s Polish the of validity issue of power sector privatization. The reportThe sectorarg privatization. power of issue gove the and public Polish the for sensitive E issues the across companies al utility free for profits that windfall argument the to referred they Further, in the out: pointed In prices. electricity of rise the for cause fu that economyand Polish harm and Poland costs in package. energy and climate European FoE-Eu the undermine CAN-Europe, by together Pol the accused NGOs the report, the In Greenpeace. published was (2008) pocke the filling are households Polish How sector? report pub The reports NGOs. common environmental in repeated were arguments These Vattenfall and E.ON. This will happen at the expens the at happen will This E.ON. and Vattenfall 2008, p. 1) p. 2008, cost energy their reduce to businesses and families that measures other or programmes efficiency energy money out of Poland to shareholders of utility comp utility of shareholders to Poland of out money s transferring mean could allocation free how shows bu and families Polish for costs energy overall and no will sector electricity the f to permits the pollution continue to government Polish the by proposal analys economic independent on based briefing, This situation as an opportunity for growth. (..) the ma the (..) growth. for opportunity an as situation current the see equipment, plant power of suppliers an Vattenfall RWE, as such giants, utility European It’s retired. being plants old of prospect the and m of because restructuring, major of process the in Cen power-genera associated and coal in Polish The Europe. largest the is sector electricity Polish The re olto pris o te oih power Polish the for permits pollution Free package would increase energy energy increase would package ued: rdcin o h rpr they report the to troduction ts of European energy giants energy European of ts . hy lo oce upon touched also They U. ll auctions would be the mainthe be would auctions ll net ad aey n the on namely and rnment, ish government of seeking to seeking of government ish rdc pwr prices power reduce t oain ol rsl in result would location sinesses. The briefing briefing The sinesses. jor European utility European jor e of labour tax relief, tax labour of e ignificant amounts of of amounts ignificant not a surprise that surprise a not anies, such as RWE, as such anies, arket liberalisation liberalisation arket is, explains how the the how explains is, d E.On, as well as well as E.On, d . CNErp … (CAN-Europe s. rl n Eastern and tral tion industry are are industry tion hy usind the questioned They e alcto of allocation ree a hl Polish help can oih market Polish lished by European European by lished rope, WWF and and WWF rope, 213

CEU eTD Collection codn t ter aclto, h pooa o ful of proposal the calculation, their to According

capacity (CAN-Europe … 2008, p. 3)p. 2008, … (CAN-Europe capacity efficiency in f investments allowances recommended NGOs free European for fighting of Instead increase. elec allocation, free with that argued They Poland. ele wholesale on impact little have should auctions fr from change a reason this For allowances. carbon implic which costs marginal short-run reflect fully mark the allow would This 2013. by morecompetitive trading of liberalisation further that argued they t repo the to Referring sector. power to the for permits due Poland in prices power of increase percent government’s Polish debunk to tried also report The end (CAN-Europand RWE,of E.ON Vattenfall shareholders could profits windfall the sector, power Polish acquiri giants utility European with report, the to an billion 9 RWE profits, windfall in euros billion Germany, In permits. pollution free of distribution th of phase second the in euros billion 35 about to ETS. EU the from profit to continue would companies German the of report the to according (2008-2012), seco the of end the Until 2-3). (p. track on t sector necessary were that investments substantial these c utility Polish the that out pointed they Further, euto tdces lbr ot, pr mlyet a employment spur costs, labor They todecrease reduction fuels. fossil on dependency decrease and costs pur increase to measures concrete on spent be could the for revenues in euros billion 2-9 approximately oe sco b bt ivsig n e gnrto ca generation new in (CAN-Euractivities. acquisition and merger through investing both by sector power activiti their increase to ambitions have companies ompanies were lacking capital for capital lacking were ompanies d Vattenfall 6.6 billion. According billion. 6.6 Vattenfall d ng a larger market share in the in share market larger a ng rt by the New Carbon Finance, Carbon New the by rt ctricity prices in countries like countries in prices ctricity e ETS (2008-2012) due to the the to due (2008-2012) ETS e d rdn pae n h ETS the on phase trading nd itly also include the value of of value the include also itly Polish budget. The revenues revenues The budget. Polish wholesale electricityto wholesale prices ee allocation of allowances to allowances of allocation ee .N ol er aot 11 about earn would E.ON rct pie wud actually would prices tricity chasing power, to lower fuel fuel lower to power, chasing These profits would amount amount would profits These acin wud generate would auctions l acltos f 0 t 300 to 100 of calculations up in the pockets of the the of pockets the in up nd make the economy less less economy the make nd or the power sector, the the sector, power the or t ol mk electricity make would et 3). 2008, … ep. he auctioning of pollution pollution of auctioning he kistt Gra utility German Ökoinsitut, o keep the Polish power power Polish the keep o eomne lbr tax labor recommended ope … 2008, p. 2) 2008, … p. ope n cen generation clean and es in the Polish Polish the in es aiy and pacity 214 CEU eTD Collection According to DLR, Poland would be able to cover 26% cover to able be would Poland DLR, to According lo h rpr fr W b Nw abnFnne “The Finance Carbon New by WWF for report the Also th em of to allocation ex-post of solutions proposal the to pointed the Among 2008-2012. period trading windfal Jankowski, to according market, electricity Howe wholesale. the in electricity of price average not did profits windfall 2008, of half first the in been not allowance emission of prices and prices has electricity there that el out Polish pointed the he on conclusions profits windfall of phenomenon the expertise an produced Jankowski 2008, September In by questioned been have calculations these However, (2008) post-2012” auctionin of impact “The Finance Carbon New Source: 3) p. power wind by supplied be could demand electricity dema of 80% as much as and 2020 by energy renewable ene clean in investments to pointed also has report business a in than lower 37% be would demand energy middle the By consumption. energy reduce gradually Thermodynam Technical of Institute DLR the by study efficiency recommended also They energy-intensive. would result in the same increase in electricity pr electricity same inthein result increase would (2 post-2012” prices electricity wholesale European g on European wholesale electricity prices prices electricity wholesale European on g occur or were insignificant for the for insignificant were or occur ices as freeallocation: as ices s between 2004 and 2007. Also Also 2007. and 2004 between s ver, due to liberalization of the of liberalization to due ver, ission allowances, which have have which allowances, ission 008) argued that full auctions auctions full that argued 008) plants. (CAN-Europe … 2008, … (CAN-Europe plants. l profits might occur in the the in occur might profits l programmes. According to a to According programmes. for UKIE where he analyzed analyzed he where UKIE for ics, Poland would be able to able be would Poland ics, Jankowski from EnergSys. from Jankowski of electricity demand with demand electricity of rgy generation capacity. capacity. generation rgy n creain between correlation any crct mre. n the In market. ectricity f h cnuy primary century, the of mat f utoig on auctioning of impact nd by 2050. Half of the the of Half 2050. by nd a-sa seai. The scenario. -as-usual s rbe, Jankowski problem, is 215

CEU eTD Collection decided government Polish the trade, emission from ga to like would governments that natural as it saw the a While role. fact State’s and interesting State the an of conception is this And budget. State the Polish reve additional of idea the endorse not the did experts fact, of matter a as critic, movement’s this invalidating despite However, companies. power neit profits windfall generate not would for, tha stood claimed they particular, In NGOs. environmental arg the of some countered experts Polish Therefore, 2008). (Żmijewski especially these citizens, EU that by endorsed be out necessarily pointed He programs.” civilizing big t new developing for drive impatient “an showing of econ way This EU.” the of new, outside States and Commission produce to income, high generate needed “not did it and technologies” (sic) prices high super IFIEC-me the against was Commission the why reasons (2 Żmijewski lower. trade emission of cost the make se power the for revenues increase not would it but r reduce indeed would supported, they which method, opposit this that argued well, as government Polish poc companies’ in them keeping or budgets State the opposition an pictured NGOs green while Therefore, thantotrcost emissiontheof budgets lower State pr to important more was it Commission the for that Jank government. Polish the by for lobbied been has met this And 2009). May Warsaw, (Interview, profits allowa emission selling for opportunity no is there productio actual the to tied is allowances emission emissio sell to opportunity an gives non-production windfall that argued He IFIEC. the by proposed been ade for companies (p.21). companiesfor (p.21). ade nues from full auctions funding auctions full from nues nces, and thus also no windfall windfall no also thus and nces, ctor companies. It would only would It companies. ctor in a bigger share of revenues of share bigger a in alwne. f loain of allocation If allowances. n which could be spent by the by spent be could which hs wrig hi wy up” way their working those echnologies and carrying out carrying and echnologies e t Pls nr o foreign to nor Polish to her uoen re movement, green European hod – the ex-post allocation – allocation ex-post the – hod between keeping revenues in in revenues keeping between i a ie pro o time, of period given a in n point of the European green European the of point profits appear always when always appear profits oenet n te Polish the and government to fight for lower electricity electricity lower for fight to for income additional omise o ws rn. h IFIEC- The wrong. was ion kets, Polish experts and the and experts Polish kets, he accused the Commission the accused he criticized also (2008) owski mns u frad y the by forward put uments evenues for states budgets, budgets, states for evenues i pit t a different a to points it s 008) pointed to the ‘real’ ‘real’ the to pointed 008) oiain wud “not would motivations te FE-ehd they IFIEC-method the t thod: it did “not generate “not did it thod: mcly o viable not omically 216 CEU eTD Collection oue f iaca tascin o ta mre and market that on transactions financial of volume akwk, mjwk ad oenetl fiil lik officials governmental and Żmijewski Jankowski, allowances emission on based products financial new secto financial the to attractive more ETS the make financial of hands into plays idea Commission’s the and experts Polish time, same the at Interestingly, into the thePolish in this termwas – coined socialism’ regime previous the of images back bring these pre a for this all and – participation of character Com European the the by trade on emission of based orchestration and ahead years several for companies emi of idea The 2009). February i Warsaw, (Interview, my and planning of central Some socialist between instrument. similarities ‘socialistic’ a as labeled l companies big many and Street Wall l the of of support circles within born mark governance, This change Poland. climate in trade emission about discourse 2009 (Teluk socialism’ ‘green as Poland in pictured Europe the of position the perspective, this to Due 2009).Brown acti economic for conditions favorable of organizer s neo-liberal attr a was to Poland future. the and in producers borders its within inve companies for industrial states other with competing industrial 2006), an Fougner was state Polish The competitiveness. a as mainly role its defined government Polish the with economy an as economy Polish the of advantage trie government Polish the revenues, trade emission cont having and measures policy climate funding and g see to wished movement environmental European the revenu less gaining of cost the at Poland in prices omsin n te rsdny bu ptnil specu potential about Presidency the and Commission media. commentators pointed out that out pointed commentators -defined common good – all of of all – good common -defined guarantor of national economic national of guarantor es from emission trade. While trade. emission from es d to maintain the competitive the maintain to d n niomna NO was NGOs environmental an cos Fl acin would auctions Full actors. . hs rdcd perverse a produced This ). msin rd i te EU the in trade emission vity within its borders (see (see borders its within vity ae aig p rl o an of role a up taking tate cheap electricity. Therefore, electricity. cheap ae t osbe o create to possible it make ike e.g. BP, was in Poland Poland in was BP, e.g. ike ‘optto sae (see state’ ‘competition , brl hn tns having tanks think iberal mission and a compulsory compulsory a and mission o oe r-itiuin of re-distribution over rol h Pls dbt. ‘Eco- debate. Polish the so qoa alctd to allocated quotas ssion . t ol ices the increase would It r. act more investors and and investors more act Srfn aamd the alarmed Serafin, e tet, rig o keep to trying stments, triwe aldd to alluded nterviewees et-based mechanism of of mechanism et-based hsn ae er the year, base chosen overnments organizing organizing overnments Pls eprs like experts, Polish . lations on the ETS. ETS. the on lations 217 CEU eTD Collection October Summits the Negotiations: Political to Expert From Europ sector in financial theof development propel industrie control centrally to instrument socialist actors. Polish the to chimera strange a as appeared Com European the by proposed ETS new the Therefore, umt hr i wud e dpe uaiosy Howev unanimously. Summit: adopted differ slightly a be drew CAN-Europe from would interviewees it pac where energy and Summit change Climate the on decision final 2008and 15-16, October Summit in Council European decisio a obstructed Slovaki Rumania) Republic, and Bulgaria Czech Estonia, the (Hungary, that States reported Member media international 2008, October In You had many Central and Eastern European Member St Member European Eastern and Central many had You end was to say ok, we see there is a problem, I’m g I’m problem, a is there see we ok, say to was end h what So solvable. a not was that joining and acting Italy Germany had he then but revenues, more certa a with at them buy would we said he where, MSs CEE can we ok said he And expect. didn’t he opposition faced was Sarkozy where meeting government and Head th at uprising tremendous this Parliament, European after right 2008, October in created that and game a playing were They governments. CEE lobbying were thei RW on by companies, those pushed and there again out that then getting were they but less po and the more for auctioning to regard with also and whole th for auctioning with issue an had which in coming you then and Republic Czech the and Poland States, issu main the was which auctioning full with sector h also You (...). baseline 2005 the with upset were

s, and a neo-liberal instrument to instrument neo-liberal a and s, e, mainly the London City.thee, mainly London to the December 2008 EU EU 2008 December the to It appeared to them as a a as them to appeared It n pcue f h October the of picture ent the postpone to forced they n making process at the the at process making n mission in January 2008, January in mission oad ih te new other with Poland ae o te December the for kage deal with some some with deal e industry as a as industry e onna take it in it take onna the vote in the in vote the e in the Baltic the in e , ihai, Latvia, Lithuania, a, ad the power power the ad had Germany had on term, own r frt State first e e did in the in did e wer sector sector wer d e had he nd ey dirty very er, one of my my of one er, ates who ates with an with in point point in E for for E 218 CEU eTD Collection vocal, there were also Western European countries f countries European Western also were there vocal,

fighting to save the package and full auctions for auctions full and package the save to fighting p interviewees my of actor Some projects. actors’ how through again shows this but motivation Sarkozy’s T 2009). March Brussels, (Interview, Presidency his pack the of failure The Directive. ETS new the with was Georgia, for except Presidency, his under thing successfu a have to but policies” climate ambitious “ Sarkozy for that out pointed also interviewees My money. promised bybe bought not could Western dev the represented West The needs. many its of one the by be can which made Europe, of part needy been the represented also has construction West e This Poland. like States, Member European Eastern actors by constructed been has divide East-West the t far, So Commission? European the by made proposal they persuading of logic other some there Did Was revenues? States. Member old the with work not would revenu state more with states CEE the buy to wanted th out pointed expert CAN-Europe the Interestingly, realproblemconstituted the a Germany to and Italy Weste the of dissatisfaction a promise, a by bought easie seemed countries European Eastern and Central accord while, interestingly, And Germany. and Italy which among countries, European exc Eastern that and shows Central interview an from excerpt above This (Interview, Brussels, March 2009) 2009) Brussels, March (Interview, taken be to going are decisions big all – unanimity it also and level Government and State of Heads at a is there if thembut at look to going really not Parl the also and Council Environment The hands. my the power sector because this this because sector power the French Presidency. FrenchPresidency. age would mean the failure of of failure the mean would age l Presidency. And the biggest biggest the And Presidency. l that climate change package change climate that coming from the Central and and Central the from coming eloped part of Europe, which which Europe, of part eloped his was one of the views on on views the of one was his Western States to accept the accept to States Western ointed out that Sarkozy was Sarkozy that out ointed i aed ws o t have to not was agenda his e and that this easy solution solution easy this that and e ighting for their interests – – interests their for ighting n t m itriwe the interviewee, my to ing n uoen onre like countries European rn easily satisfied by fulfilling fulfilling by satisfied easily he analysis has shown that that shown has analysis he at the French Presidency Presidency French the at r negotiators, easier to be to easier negotiators, r deal it will be done be will it deal et hw ta te East- the that shows xert s’ interests are enacted enacted are interests s’ not need more budget budget more need not ept for the unsatisfied unsatisfied the for ept oad a te most the was Poland will be done by done be will by unanimity. by iament were iament cos Te East The actors. 219 CEU eTD Collection various actors my stand behind a project and push i push and project a behind stand my actors various A Polish governmental official whom I interviewed a interviewed I whom official governmental Polish A goals. see actors these shape, its took project the before coin may interests how shows This generators. power of rule the to due increase would Europe in prices additiona enjoy would they However, dioxide. se carbon power French the allowanc emission auctioning be for not would companies favorable particular in was way: way: duri made decisions the on States Member new the of Interview, July 2009)July Interview, Decem in Council European the of meeting the during vote final the decided he then October in procedure the towards opposition encountered he When factor. h an was to Presidency his ambition of end the Sarkozy’s by adopted Package also And leakage. carbon of mai were Germans them. for good the be not would Summit during made decision a that afraid were Germans surpri and, Italians also but States Member new the c of coalition strong really a was there point this g economies European the of position future the for f sector, power the for strategic importan is it that saying great of is act legal this that saying way in arguments our framed we But procedure. decision tellin not thr Package the on decision the were push to trying were we but law the against it doing us were they that Commission with expertise legal some We unanimously. made be should mixes energy States’ struct the changing significantly initiatives legal there 2c or 1c paragraph 175, article the the in in Treaty but issue this raised officially not have We t forward despite the fact that that fact the despite forward t e t b prun different pursuing be to med lso commented on the impact the on commented lso full auctions for fossil-fueled fossil-fueled for auctions full es because they do not emit not do they because es ng the October Summit this Summit October the ng cide in one project, how how project, one in cide or the economies, economies, the or l revenues as electricity electricity as revenues l ountries, not only only not ountries, ure of Member Member of ure ctor – nuclear utility utility nuclear – ctor ough in the co-the in ough lobally. And at And lobally. then abiding abiding then is a line that that line a is and that they that and ce. We were were We ce. il e cast be will igy even singly, ber. (Phone ber. co-decision important a political political a vn had even nly afraid afraid nly October October v the ave the g 220 CEU eTD Collection or rsdn, o or masdr ad el hm w them tell and Ambassadors your to President, your you Commerce, of Chamber a are You for? waiting you o government’s the from interviewee my to According Ja Warsaw, (Interview, Friday” on once and Thursday Su this “smash to tried team negotiation Polish The lob the in made still were decisions final the that ta be to was decision final the where arena the was negotiat of moment last the till question under was legisla other of and Directive ETS the of shape the eff these despite And meetings. formal less or more than muchweaker fact in was coalition the However, 2009).FebruaryWarsaw, (Interview, like.” talk and go Ministers, your to talk go and on move act them make to tried they And governments. other Po the and MEPs with met They countries. these from th that wi meetings organized also They States Poland. as problems Baltic the and Hungarians Romanians, to managed they prices, electricity on auctions of gov the analysis the on based that me told Ministry co of coalition stronger a build to and allies more E of Ministry Polish the meeting, October the Since of character the changed 20 January Warsaw, (Interview,process” negotiation fundamentally has “this me Th Package? the with satisfied already you are was: the ha After Package? the was: block to majority Poland qualified to addressed question key absolutely votes. 94 was minority blocking The votes. 27 only m qualified the in voted be would Directive) ETS EU th And propos the decision, October the Before arithmetic. Poland. of position negotiation the improved momen important an was meeting Council December the on vote final the postpone to decision October The bies of the December Summit. Summit. December the of bies persuade Italians, Bulgarians, Italians, persuade ken. The UKIE official told me told official UKIE The ken. impact the about has ernment ed directives (among them the them (among directives ed tive proposals of the Package Package the of proposals tive mmit several times… once on once times… several mmit October Summit the question the Summit October the October of middle the Till nre. n fiil rm the from official An untries. had Poland procedure. ajority 09). ions. The December Summit Summit December The ions. the Package of directives till till directives of Package the it seemed after the series of seemedafterof seriesit the orts to build up a coalition, a up build to orts conomy set out to look for for look to out set conomy told official governmental e th business representatives representatives business th by saying: “Look, what are what “Look, saying: by o or rm Mnse, to Minister, Prime your to lish government contacted contacted government lish nuary 2009). He told me: me: told He 2009). nuary are a business council so so council business a are s a de o simple a to due was is a te iutos looks situations the hat e o aray ul a built already you ve y ol fc similar face would ey u wr – f the of – work our i te negotiations. the in t fc UI, hs has this UKIE, ffice 221 CEU eTD Collection January 2009). January enrollment activities: activities: enrollment proc was Presidency French the benchmarks, specific i States Member other enroll to sought Poland While me: told Economyof Ministry fromtheinterviewee this within cleavage a was there However, auctions. were countries larg a was there And auctions. full of introduction of number wide A Minister. Bulgarian Ene Lithuanian the the by supported in was Openly, Poland media. December the in presented one the than the of coalition ‘the – as press international the on good a was proposal benchmark the that countries Poland end the in that me told mund Economy of Ministry more looked reality the attitude, this Despite expectatio our fulfill not do Presidency French the m straightforward a fo in saying were conditions we And decision. our are these saying: simply were “We a strong coalition but such a strong coalition did did coalition 2009) July Interview, (Phone strong a such but coalition strong a negotiati the observing those a on impression an make such even not was that Maybe proposal. benchmark lonely quite table negotiation the to down sitting w that fact, in And better auctions. full of introduction gradual it’s thus, through, go can this think say were rest The countries. of couple a of support bench fuel-specific of proposal the with up came We nrsrcue Te poie Etnas fr exampl for Estonians, promised They infrastructure. po the and grid the of modernization on be governments could money this that and auctions would from there revenues that was for argument main intensively Their lobbying auctions. was Presidency French The e group of countries against full against countries ofgroup e unwilling’ – was much weaker weaker much was – unwilling’ managed to persuade some persuade to managed anner that the proposals of proposals the that anner in December we were we December in ane. An official from the the from official An ane. ru. n te, s my as then, And group. e. The coalition, called in called coalition, The e. t is rjc o te fuel the of project its nto s (neve, Warsaw, (Interview, ns” as to the alternative the to as ing: ok but we don’t we but ok ing: r taking the unanimous unanimous the taking r eig ih t counter- its with eeding marks and gained a a gained and marks eoito poes in process negotiation ons that there was there that ons opting for a gradual gradual a for opting g Mnse ad y a by and Minister rgy e hold on to the the to on hold e not exist in fact. fact. in exist not , n easier an e, a tig to thing bad wer sector sector wer pn by spent e huge be the full full the 222 CEU eTD Collection

goals as the benchmark coalition:benchmark the as goals wa States, Member of new the ally alleged an Italy, it Summit, States: fromcameMemberold or new the opposition October the during as again, December In there was no one to play with. (Phone Ju play(Phone with.to Interview, one no was there S a not was this So Czechs, auctions. full the from opt-outs t the use to from going all are later they Romanians learnt or Bulgarians have we As end. the this get to managed we and position lost completely no of advantage this had we There Council. European d unanimous a to co-decision a from Package the for makin decision the change to managed we negotiators considerable a with where Summit October the during dec the to thanks And Poland. for accept – to auctions ready were table negotiation the at coun down sitting the of most Therefore, funds. public to access the Package but once the Cars Directive wasfinaliz Directiveonce but Cars the Package the Italia the that reporting was Media Directive. Cars only they fact in but noise of lot a made Italians c was rest The coun openly. 2009) July interview, (Phone “pacified”... two interests only their the for were fighting these Hungary, and Poland So Ky the under made effort reduction the account into argu and voices their raising still were „pacified”… Hungarians table negotiation the at down sat they P French the of the and Commission the of maneuvers th and influence… to easy were that states – States say, let’s new, of made coalition was coalition Our som win to chance a have may you Then side. your on old the from country big one least at have to have to want you if that EU the in rule a such is There s in fact not pursuing the same same the pursuing not fact in s strong coalition – – coalition strong make a deal, you deal, a make mattered whether the the whether mattered cared about the about cared ly2009) ed according to according ed Member States States Member anks to various to anks weak Member weak ns would block would ns derogation in in derogation n fr taking for ing ecision at the at ecision oto Protocol. Protocol. oto input of our of input isions made made isions he right for for right he g procedure procedure g cet full accept ething over. ething t being at a at being t tries, while while tries, el right, well, ompletely ompletely residency residency lovaks, tries 223 CEU eTD Collection

oad rpsd o xed h drgto t te pow the initphysically to been already has processinvestment g derogation the extend German to proposed Poland the Summit th in Therefore, plants. power existing already the December the opposed It it. against much very was representation during future, the companies German co to sector power the for derogation the other extending and RWE while Interestingly, 2009). The final win-overs of Poland duringwin-overs DecPoland ofthe final The2009). end the till 2013 between period derogation the by th pushed a Poland be could which solution a negotiations as allocation benchmark of phase final the In n netet hscly ntae b te n o De of end the by initiated physically investment An hi itrss te dd’ cr aot ntig el anything about 2009)July Interview, care didn’t they interests, their derogation. (Phone interview, July 2009) July interview, (Phone derogation. exten of kind any prevent to Germany and Commission press huge a was there because success considerable projec plant power initiated the to also derogation a of with up came we how That’s 2008. beyond it prolong wa it so derogation this with plants power existing co to hard pressing were Germans hand, other the On our of number limited very a only covers derogation situation a in be would we then MW, thousand 10–20 wel 2014, or 2013 till plants power existing our of i exis fact, in So allowances. the free E receive would only plants the that saying of was Directive conclusions the final Council the adopting before hour ETS the Directiinto Weit wrote idea. a Polish was hscly ntae investment initiated physically in order to extend the the extend to order in e last moments of negotiations, negotiations, of moments last e iated: ember meeting where: meeting ember of 2019 (Phone interview, July interview, (Phone 2019 of al-fueled power plants built in built plants power al-fueled extending derogation beyond derogation extending pplied by countries covered countries by pplied rough the fuel-specific fuel-specific the rough r lns f hc the which of plants er ve. Some half an half Some ve. f we closed half half closed we f l at least some least at l ts. This was a a was This ts. power plants. plants. power were interested in in interested were cember 2008 2008 cember s difficult to to difficult s ure from the from ure ver only the only ver the concept concept the ig power ting e (Phone se. sion of this of sion hr the where uropean uropean overnmental 224 CEU eTD Collection Conclusion hy a udro hfs n cags hog process through changes and shifts preferencesof an juxtaposition and simplification, undergo may they a (Callon options” available limiting as recognized actively of out “built are interests that fact the exam actors of Reaction problems. fo certain to by regard them study also can one but action, of fields the from actorsinterestsderiveof can One orders. and propose and goals, their pursue actively actors b well may interests that showed also analysis This nego allowances.emission allocating the on focused analysis This organization. ETS propos and Directive ETS new the of proposal the by op defining actively in engaged latter The support. a governments their asked and process policy-making of representatives of reactions generated Directive pro goo industrial and electricity for markets transform existing and regulate a to came as which ETS structure, the of construction followed chapter This

• • • • •

2005 or average emissions from2005-2007). average 2005or emission for year base the choosing in flexibility emission foCO2 allowancesthe share EU in larger a 2018sector in power Polish em free prolong to possibility a clause: revision a scheme trading emission Polis the for allowances emission free of exclusion 2013) in allowances (70% ETS EU the within auctions allowances emission into sector power Polish the of inclusion gradual a

constructed constraints that are that constraints constructed ds. The proposal of the new ETS ETS new the of proposal The ds. d identities. identities. d ir positions within their original their within positions ir nd Law 1982, p. 617) and that and 617) p. 1982, Law nd portunities and threats posed threats and portunities gapd n oet when moments in grasped e ined in this chapter point to point chapter this in ined lwn atr’ cin with actions actors’ llowing hs mres h joined who markets these negotiate new institutional institutional new negotiate ed alternative ways to the the to ways alternative ed d xet o te T for ETS the of experts nd ito o te ehd for method the of tiation reduction (emissions from from (emissions reduction uto pten o the on patterns duction akt n governance and market h power sector from the from sector power h ission allocation for the the for allocation ission the system of full CO2 full of system the r Poland Poland r f re emission free of es of selection, selection, of es 225 CEU eTD Collection utf is poiin te omsin sd h mec the used Commission the opposition, its justify an in successful The fields. those within acting actors of interests lo these way the on and connect, to tries it fields un the on depends also potential This expertise. of inher an not is fields various of interests between potentia the that shows case studied the Therefore, ‘pu ofmechanismthe to resorted – it ‘translation’ log bureaucratic the into ETS the inscribe to tried envir governance, its primarily pursued Commission, logi economic their into ETS the inscribe to wanted the by driven primarily were companies sector power happy not was Commission the ETS, the on allowances t make to way a found IFIEC the that satisfied were g and coal-based the While Commission. European the inte translating in efficient not was it companies, coal-based of interests into industries European of e was IFIEC-method the potential. While translation bu fields, between interests translating for device showed IFIEC-method the of case The rules. ETS the negot constructed, the to pointed also chapter This classifying it to certain fields of action.ofit certain to fields classifying construc may actors because also but 1982), Law and transl the ‘betray may actors some because only not a priori a way (see Callon and Law 1982). It can fail at any t any at fail can It 1982). Law and Callon (see way

gics and rules of the game define game the of rules and gics rification’ (see Latour1987).rification’ rests of industries into those of of those into industries of rests ent or immanent characteristic immanent or ent iated and political character of of character political and iated fficient in translating intereststranslating fficientin ok f rnlto i never is translation of work the of action of logic derlying c f hi ato. n re to order In action. their of ic t it also showed limits of its its of limits showed also it t l of expertise as a ‘translator’ a as expertise of l and gas-based power sector sector power gas-based and how expertise may become a a become may expertise how ir search for profit and they and profit for search ir c of action. The European European The action. of c to ntok (e Callon (see network’ ation t limits of the expertise by by expertise the of limits t e py es o emission for less pay hem as-based power producers producers power as-based onmental objectives and and objectives onmental aim poie o the to opposite hanism bu i. nutis and Industries it. about ime, 226 CEU eTD Collection At the same time, the 2008 debate on the new ETS Di ETS new the on debate 2008 the time, same the At ih hm aot oiy mlctos f h nw ETS new the states.member European of implications policy about them, with organizat labour European in membership to due and, abou learning of process a here observe clearly can ‘Eu a into interest’ economic Polish ‘the re-define Feder Workers’ Energy and Chemical Mining, l European to unions c Polish for for necessary need it the made as expertise, well as EU, the se in clearly representation can We jobs’. ‘European for fight a into un trade Polish by launched jobs’ ‘Polish for fight Confe this In Directive. ETS the of proposal Commission’s Union Trade European the how of critics harsh ET amended the within sector power the for auctions opp strong of position a taking debate this in role tr Polish the Again, organizations. labour European ETS new the towards reaction examines chapter This market.electricity Polish inte batt vested had latter European the and Europe a in production fighting were industr former German The with companies. cooperation close in re-defined econom Polish ‘the fact, In hold. to difficult been accord interests economic Polish of framing initial The Poland. in particularly officials, governmental pow industries, from coming Commission European the pro the to responses examined chapters previous The Introduction Climate inAction Unions: Confused Chapter 6. Trade ekes f uoen aor s n co i E decis EU in actor an as labour European of weakness

ic interest’ has been defined and defined been has interest’ ic ing to the East-West divide has divide East-West the to ing ionists gradually was reframed was gradually ionists ropean economic interest’. We interest’. economic ropean ade unions played a significanta played unions ade case I examine how the initial initial the how examine I case analysis has shown that the the that shown has analysis nns o h pooa o full of proposal the to onents t domestic policy implications policy domestic t uc coeain ih the with cooperation aunch rests in expanding onto the the onto expanding in rests e that the logic of interest interest of logic the that e rective has shown a relative relative a shown has rective ject of the ETS proposed by proposed ETS the of ject S Directive. They were also also were They Directive. S aiin ulig n for and building oalition project coming from the the from coming project r etr opne and companies sector er on economies of other other of economies on ions and communication communication and ions eain akd p the up backed deration to (h ECF and EMCEF) (the ation ies and power sector sector power and ies

o-aig processes. ion-making e o ep industrial keep to le 227 CEU eTD Collection A relative weakness of European union organization organization union European of weakness relative A the organizations into union tradebyshared values the only representative cross-sectoral trade union trade cross-sectoral representative theonly E the by recognised is and partners social European coo ETUC the addition, In ETUC. the of auspices the Fed (European EFREP/FERPA and Staff) Managerial and such structures Union trade Other Herzegovina. and Euro 36 from members, million Confederations 60 of total a making federations, Union Trade National 83 Trade Union Councils), which organise trade union c union trade organise which Councils), Union Trade t in them represent to and level European at people Consequently, one of the challenges was, how to ins to how was, challenges the of one Consequently, became this problem And rights. labour to adherence impact employment workers, of skills consideration p these of None ETS. the within companies for trade technol various of efficiency translate to proposed Benchmarki allowances. emission on spent money into ETS. the of o translation straightforward a proposed allowances devices calculative and algorithms into concerns, social inscribe to challenging becomes It redistributionmechanisms. and an becomes integrity Co social its methods, European allocation through guarded is ETS the whi of And integrity GHGs. of impacts environmental concern IPCC based targets, reduction emission However, Europe. respons a toward turn radical more a for hope gives ch climate taking hand, one the chal On movement. posed labour have policies climate and change Climate par social European for body consultation permanent measur reduction emission by affected badly sectors financin for up set be to fund European a for asked De in Summit the at States of Heads European the by unions all representing organization umbrella main 61 Confede Union Trade European the by made Postulates

The European Trade Union Confederation (the ETUC) w ETUC) (the Confederation Union Trade European The

organisation at European level. See: See: level. European at organisation plus observer organisations in Macedonia, Serbia, a Serbia, Macedonia, in organisations observer plus he EU institutions. At present, the ETUC has in mem in has ETUC the present, At institutions. EU he uropean Union, by the Council of Europe and by EFTA by and Europe of Council the by Union, uropean ooperation at a cross-border level. The ETUC is one is ETUC The level. cross-border a at ooperation as EUROCADRES (the Council of European Professional European of Council (the EUROCADRES as dnts h atvte o te 4 RUs (Interregi IRTUCs 44 the of activities the rdinates eration of Retired and Elderly Persons) operate und operate Persons) Elderly and Retired of eration as set up in 1973 to promote the interests of worki of interests the promote to 1973 in up set as pean countries, as well as 12 European industry industry European 12 as well as countries, pean ogies into the cost of emission emission of cost the into ogies ETS organization.ETS issue of additional budgetary additional of issue f volumes of carbon emissions carbon of volumes f in Europe, have not been met met been not have Europe, in e.g. concerns of employees, employees, of concerns e.g. cribe the value of labour and and labour of value the cribe ible way of doing business in in business doing of way ible atic for labour organizations. organizations. labour for atic cember 2008. And the ETUC the And 2008. cember roposals; however, took into into took however, roposals; f hs cmais r their or companies those of on recommendations by the by recommendations on epomn porm in programs employment g s n fr salsig a establishing for and es nr o ciae policies. climate on tners a deee b lc of lack by deepened was ne eiul i te EU the in seriously ange utoig f emission of Auctioning lenges to the European European the to lenges msins rpsl of proposals mmission’s ration ng, on the other hand, hand, other the on ng, le the environmental environmental the le http://www.etuc.org/r/5 61 te TC, the ETUC), (the nd Bosnia Bosnia nd bership bership of the the of 228 onal onal

as ng ng er er

CEU eTD Collection A breach within the European labour movement became movement labour European the within breach A nry okr’ Federation Workers’ Energy uoen rd Uin a e uin eeain repres federation union new a Formall Union, ETUF-TCL Trade and EMCEF European EMF, the 2012, May 16 On rgam, dpe a is onig oges underl strengthened. be to environment and labour between Congress, for strategy Founding overarching an implement its to community at adopted Programme, organiza affiliated 311 its through workers million million workers in 35 countries and 128 national tr national 128 and countries 35 in workers million work of interests the defending body representative Serbia Croatia, Iceland, Norway, Turkey, Bulgaria, of States Member the all from unions metalworkers' indu from metal European the in workers of interests the as well as Union EMF The Switzerland. and Serbia Croatia, Iceland, European the repre of of States behalf Member on acts EMF The affiliates. million f unions metalworkers' 65 representing organisation See: committees. various its and OECD organi union trade international an is It OECD. the http://www.emcef.org/about/structure8.asp?job=GEN 65 of-Three-Federations http://www.icem.org/en/78-ICEM-InBrief/5019-Industr http://www.unitetheunion.org/default.aspx?page=1592 64 63 62 Confederation Union Trade International the like, international and NGOs environmental to turned ETUC the and expertise For movement. labour European the T policies. climate and trade emission on expertise oiis a be te eaiiain f aors va labour’s of relativization the been has policies uni of and debates these of consequences the of One to industries. employees of representatives as obligation their uni trade industrial the emissions, GHG reducing in Wes of obligations general on emphasis strong a put empl of problems and problems environmental towards turned for expertise and lobbying know-how to feder to know-how lobbying and expertise for turned intere representing organizations umbrella European eae n h ES mnmns hn h EU ad Fede and ETUC Federation the Metalworkers’ when amendments ETS the on debate no Avsr Committee Advisory Union h Erpa Mtlokr’ eeain te M) wa EMF) (the Federation Metalworkers’ European The O the to (TUAC) Committee Advisory Union Trade The IT (the Confederation Union Trade International The The European Mine, Chemical and Energy Workers’ Fe Workers’ Energy and Chemical Mine, European The

64 63 te M) r h Erpa Mn, hmcl and Chemical Mine, European the or EMF) (the 65 Federations, Industrial European And TUAC). (the te ME) dfeety eie ter positions their defined differently EMCEF), (the http://www.tuac.org/en/public/index.phtml

iALL-European-Trade-Union-Born-Today-with-Merger- ade unions. See: See: adeunions. tions in 155 countries and territories. Its Work Work Its territories. and countries 155 in tions stry. The EMF acts on behalf of representative representative of behalf on acts EMF The stry. is therefore the representative body defending defending body representative the therefore is sation which has consultative status with the the with status consultative has which sation rom 30 countries with a combined total of 6.5 6.5 of total combined a with countries 30 rom the European Union as well as from Romania, Romania, from as well as Union European the sentative metalworkers' unions from all the the all from unions metalworkers' sentative and Switzerland. The EMF is therefore the the therefore is EMF The Switzerland. and See: UC) was created in 2006. It represents 168 168 represents It 2006. in created was UC) ers in the European metal industry. See: See: industry. metal European the in ers sustainable development with the linkages linkages the with development sustainable ECD is an interface for labour unions with with unions labour for interface an is ECD deration (EMCEF) represented 2.5 2.5 represented (EMCEF) deration http://www.ituc-csi.org/ Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Norway, Norway, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, s founded in 1971. It is the umbrella umbrella the is It 1971. in founded s ines the need for the international international the for need the ines enting seven million workers. See: See: workers. million seven enting his resulted in fragmentation of infragmentation resulted his u. nutil r iig jobs mining or Industrial lue. 62 mre t bcm IndustriALL- become to merged y ations of industry employers. industry of ations te TC ad h Trade the and ITUC) (the sts of sectoral trade unions, trade sectoral of sts tern and Northern societies societies Northern and tern defend jobs in European European in jobs defend on federations emphasized emphasized federations on trade union organizations organizations union trade ons’ reflection on climate climate on reflection ons’ yet hl te ETUC the While oyment. obig nwhw the know-how lobbying visible during the 2008 the during visible ain, European rations,

229 CEU eTD Collection to Confederation Responds Trade Union European The to order make to in with actors other ally have who politi as weakness their and instruments, reduction neces their on expertise the for movement labour the of outside unions, of weakness double a shown have an policies climate of mainstream the into concerns hopin economy’, carbon low to transition ‘just a of coin in effort and time invested they time same the Euro with cooperation forged and action climate for welcomed They policy-making. European the of center may which opportunity-issue, an as policies climate orga umbrella unions’ the ETUC, the and federations organiza union trade European the to challenge real point important another makes chapter this However, E the closecooperation unions andwith German with their represent to strategies their positio unions, Polish ETUC’s the toward opposition their in – out interv my as – ‘emotional’ most and vocal most been t of activities on mainly focuses It Directive. ETS chang Climate the partic 2008, in Commission European the by to proposed relation in organization union wi breaches and controversies examines chapter This coal andindustrial effort ‘greening’ of an implied servi of zone economic an into EU the turning meant Eu greening of postulate The services. of Europe of project a economy: Union’s European the of projects Beneat jobs. green clean, of qualification a gained jobsrel and Services asqualified dirty. been were the European Commission’s proposal of the Climate c Climate the of proposal Commission’s European the Confederatio Union Trade European the 2008 March In -related -related jobs. ated to renewable energies have energies renewableto ated h these qualifications layed two layed qualifications these h ‘local’ interests, their alliances alliances their interests, ‘local’ their claimsEU.intheheard their ing and promoting the concept the promoting and ing cal actors within the EU arena EU the within actors cal e oih nos wih have which unions, Polish he climate policies and emission and policies climate pean environmental NGOs. At NGOs. environmental pean iewee from the ETUC pointed ETUC the from iewee rope in its most radical form form radical most its in rope of the industrial Europe and Europe industrial the of d politics. The 2008 debates debates 2008 The politics. d position them closer to the the to closer them position MCEF. fr nldn employment including for g that climate policies pose a a pose policies climate that ularly in relation to the new the to relation in ularly in. ainl rd union trade National tions. n. The analysis will follow follow will analysis The n. hange and energy package energy and hange NGOs and politicians’ call politicians’ and NGOs nization, seem to perceive perceive to seem nization, the Commission’stheProposal e. n h mle fr it form milder the In ces. hn h Erpa trade European the thin (h EU) supported ETUC) (the n ad nry package energy and e sity to rely on experts experts on rely to sity 230

CEU eTD Collection se fr iaca spot o porm, hc wou which programs, for support financial for asked a green with worldwide and Europe in people provide car low to transition employment ‘just a a transition ITUC the with Together it. facilitate to programs emphas ETUC the transition, this anticipated Having onstructurein employment the havean impact also a states member European in economies carbon low to wer policies Climate jobs. their losing start would an unprofitable companies some make would emissions o In employment. reducing or coalmines down closing electric in coal of phase-out slow a Also off. laid ke not did who Those necessary. workers of skilling Technologica r coalmines. and would plants reductions power factories, Emission high. were for fighting reg for 2). p. 2008, (ETUC directive” trading Emission the argued w ETUC which partners, The social en European with 1). consultation the p. on 2008. partners (ETUC social package” European establishm the the of “for committee asked ETUC the debates, workers of climate interests the that sure make to order In it cl employmentandEuropean theconcerns social into warming, global fighting in Commission the with alt that, signal clear a gave ETUC the way This 1). socia lessen and jobs quality create to opportunity “transfor and combat change climate the in lead the that stated was conditio it paper, position the of paragraph certain under given was support ETUC’s The 4 of meeting its at ETUC the of Committee Executive package energy and change Climate the on position officia an published It 2020). by efficiency energy and production energy renewable of percent 20 1990, emiss of percent (20 2020 by 3x20 of goals its with e meant to result in a transition a in result to meant e the European Union must take must Union European the l position paper called called paper position l ity generation would result in in result would generation ity And the stakes the ETUC were were ETUC the stakes the And l inequalities” (ETUC 2008, p. 2008, (ETUC inequalities” l m emissions reduction into an an into reduction emissions m the EU. EU. the ep up with changes would be would changes with up ep og i sod ad n hand in hand stood it hough o eooy, hc would which economy’, bon imate policy imate agenda. policy ized the need for setting up up setting for need the ized o rdcin cmae to compared reductions ion hc ws dpe b the by adopted was which ther words, the cost of GHG of cost the words, ther d h TA i cle this called it TUAC the nd cags ol mk re- make would changes l ud e olgtr, under “obligatory, be ould were well represented in in represented well were nd decent jobs. The ETUC The jobs. decent nd March, 2008 in Brussels. Brussels. in 2008 March, d lo fr iiain of mitigation for allow ld ol ps fr including for push would d people employed there employed people d 20 percent increase in in increase percent 20 esult in the closing of of closing the in esult d hs rniin would transition this nd s Aray n h first the in Already ns. n o a consultative a of ent ergy-climate change change ergy-climate ular and binding binding and ular ETUC’s 231 CEU eTD Collection Another strong point in the ETUC’s position was mad was position ETUC’s the in point strong Another nega the limit to as so enlarged be Fund Adjustment th move and ETS the on EUAs sell would them of some allowance of part receiving industries of prospects ETUC the Second, goods. produced unsustainably and Europe prevent and Asia, e.g. like regions,” „dirty competitive globally goods European keep to wanted w request this behind logic The policies. reduction c from imported Euro products for the adjustments tax that border demanded It industry. European the of carboneconomy” ( a low to transition theof result assistance “to and transport” and energy costly on co households favored less that so transport public “invest to money the of part significant a allocate E the ETS, techn the on new states by in earned revenues investment auction and auctions of cost the by prepar to 2013, after only late, too come would ETS auctions of Revenues 2020. and 2013 between ETS the th the from ahead far quickly, programs transition’ ne the by justified was mechanisms finance for need a t and in launched be change” growth” sustainable for climate initiative combat to measures of workers prop ETUC the mechanisms, funding for search the In theforalso shouldbetransition rais just funding a pan-European a was ETS the since And future. near develo to training and skills, new needed define to poorer others leave would and paradigm, development be and off better people some make would It others. s some in unemployment to lead would ET action The climate 1-2). p. 2008, ETUC (see EU the in reduction the lose would families their and workers many that pa employment on action climate of impacts negative ed at the European level. European the ed at ETUC 2008, p. 4).p. 2008, ETUC from being flooded with cheap with flooded being from p them, would be crucial in the in crucial be would them, p he EU (ETUC 2008, p. 2). The 2). p. 2008, (ETUC EU he ird round of emission trade on trade emission of round ird et i eeg svns and savings energy in ments s (EUAs) for free after 2012, 2012, after free for (EUAs) s e society for changes induced changes for society e uld reduce their dependence dependence their reduce uld s w-od Frt te ETUC the First, two-fold. as ir livelihood due to emission to due livelihood ir nd fairly centralized system, system, centralized fairly nd e to defend competitiveness defend to e tterns. The ETUC predicted ETUC The tterns. o wres ipae a a as displaced workers for U rcmedd o pre- to recommended TUC utis ihu ay GHG any without ountries against goods produced in produced goods against carbon low the for fit tter est t luc te ‘just the launch to cessity and unadjusted. Research unadjusted. and ectors and employment in in employment and ectors osed that “the Globalized Globalized “the that osed was afraid that given the given that afraid was C a mkn i clear: it making was UC on the restructured the the restructured the on lge. ih ead to regard With ologies. en no introduced Union pean tive consequences for for consequences tive i pouto ot of out production eir Erpa financial “European 232 CEU eTD Collection s h EU pitd u, lcrct pie hv no have prices electricity out, pointed ETUC the As obstacle to mass participation was the rule that th that rule the was participation mass to obstacle See: me ETUF-TCL and EMCEF EMF, 2012 May 16 On Brussels. There dialogue. social European of purposes the for glob the of a as Commission European part the by recognised partners sometimes and to comparable level, pn o l uin ebr o te TC ad lo to also and ETUC, federations the of members union all to open Decal Joël Secretary Confederal ETUC the to advisor o course led Development Sustainable on Group Working the ETUC’s in was position ETUC’s the of text The trans makingthis for andfunding European programs citizen the for costs c social generate reiterated would economy has It economy. carbon low a – economy with actor important an as itself position to tried at However, ETS). (the market emission European the f externalities negative for compensate to measures variou proposed It policy. mitigation climate based to dimension social important an added has ETUC The socialoftariffs” throughthe ( provision “notably to services” energy essential priority to ETUC’s access “universal the became efficiency Energy 5). p. risi of impacts social negative prevent to measures po its of point last the In standards. living lower thus and EU the ele in poverty Increased energy of areas states. broaden member European in households c electricity of cost high The industries. European 66 resulto full of auctions a as increase would which c the by also but allowances emission auctioning of fr scared away be that might industriesout pointed cost not were emissions GHG where regions to Europe Erpa idsr fdrto i a rd uin or union trade a is federation industry European A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_industry_fede 66 ersnig atclr rds n scos n the in sectors and trades particular representing

ration are twelve industry federations functioning in in functioning federations industry twelve are cting on behalf of employees in their sectors sectors their in employees of behalf on cting ganisation operating at European sectoral sectoral European at operating ganisation al union federations. They are the social social the are They federations. union al

sition paper, the ETUC called “for called ETUC the paper, sition ETUC 2008, p. 5).p. 2008, ETUC in the picture of a new European new a of picture the in f EUAs for thefor powerEUAs sector. f rged into one organization IndustriAll. IndustriAll. organization one into rged onsumption could burden many burden could onsumption ng energy prices” (ETUC 2008, 2008, (ETUC prices” energy ng e ETUC reimbursed travel and travel reimbursed ETUC e s distributional and loan-based and distributional s om Europe not only by the costtheby only notEurope om ost of electricity consumption, consumption, electricity of ost s of Europe unless European European unless Europe of s lion. The Working Group was Group Working The lion. rse t b gnrtd by generated be to oreseen l pol lvn i Europe in living people all ition just would bewouldup. setition just ol psd rbes for problems posed only t the Commission’s market- Commission’s the the same time, the ETUC the time, same the f several meetings of the the of meetings several f odm mn pol to people many condemn by Sophie Dupressoir, an Dupressoir, Sophie by together with securing securing with together am ta a o carbon low a that laims y Mroe, h ETUC the Moreover, ly. h Erpa industry European the ctricity prices would would prices ctricity U Te only The EU. 233 CEU eTD Collection gisk Djio Hwvr pol fo ohr e m new other from people However, Dojlido. Agnieszka European ones. European action urgent and responsible a for change calling climate problem him, to According disaster. global a o possi pointed as quickly as undertaken be to had He reductions policies. climate European for support ag He needed”. it all “had t him, to said according paper, he 2008, November in me with interview an In Nation the from Adamczyk Andrzej by represented was that At Solidarność). Inde (NSZZ Solidarność the Union and Trade (OPZZ) Unions Trade of Alliance Unio Poland Trade the organizations: union national Polish affiliat national all by signed and accepted was It meeting its at ETUC the of Committee Executive the energ and change Climate the on position ETUC’s The EMF,fromwerethe federations, especially industry Repres measures. adjustment tax border for need the the However, idea. good a was benchmarks technology industri for WG’ allocation free the that agreement general of most for concerns crucial the of one was competiti that out pointed Dupressoir heated. often the within Debates NGOs. environmental from experts t Dupr in involved directly speakers. ITUC, the of guest representatives hosted often Group Working The coming. u not did Dupressoir well. as them for covered been in been had they though even meeting, the to coming fr person a by represented was Poland meetings. the at has people fifteen around – representatives of group there me, told Dupressoir As federati well. as industrial meetings European representative all unions’ of one Representatives for costs accommodation es of the ETUC, including three including ETUC, the of es each meeting - participating in participating - meeting each he post-Kyoto negotiation, and negotiation, post-Kyoto he es based on the best available available best the on based es against it. against veness of European industries European of veness ble, unless we wanted to face face to wanted we unless ble, nderstand why they were not not were they why nderstand reed with the ETUC’s strong ETUC’s the with reed of 4 March 2008 in Brussels. Brussels. in 2008 March 4 of f ihr oite, ie the like societies, richer of vited and costs would have would costs and vited Working Group (WG) were were (WG) Group Working s Frm FZ, h All- the (FZZ), Forum ns’ ons were invited to the the to invited were ons y package was adopted by adopted was package y re was no agreement as to to as agreement no was re etn, h Solidarność the meeting, a a el n burning and real a was always been only a small small a only been always entatives of the European European the of entatives al Commission in Gdańsk. in Commission al mmes Tee a a was There members. s ut that greenhouse gas gas greenhouse that ut a te TCs position ETUC’s the hat edn Self-Governing pendent ember states were not not were states ember om the Solidarność – – Solidarność the om sor ie t invite to liked essoir from each country. country. each from 234 CEU eTD Collection dmzk ad e a nt piitc s o oil co social to as optimistic not was he said Adamczyk Contention within the European Union Movement theUnion European within Contention s mining and closingcoal-fired ofthe power and plants. Europe power fro coal of from phase-out gradual a to due unemployment workers representing Eur Unions from leakage’ ‘employment mean also would which industries European in workers representing Unions (SGiE workers energy EMCEF, and miners the representing (e unions workers EMF, energy and the chemical mining, were representing debate proposa Commission’s this the reinvigorating supported ETUC the way the un and early so Committee, Executive its by ETUC the of adoption an Despite position. ETUC’s the shared m all not and ETUC, the of members all not However, necessary. systemsproduction electricitywas and real a tariffs, social from apart out, pointed to referred also were Europe in poverty energy and o threat A globally. compensate competitive stay to to reductions salaries cut to forced be might they industr some if even And respected. not were rights produ industrial more in result would regions those indust c of flow massive a with is that – leakage’ ‘Carbon industries their burden not did which India, competiti short-term a eas be economycould European economies.Staggering of cost high a at come could Achieving proposals. legislative 2008 Commission’s okn i te okn Gop n utial Develop Sustainable on National Group Working the the in of working expert the and Grajcarek Kazimierz f came Sol position of workers Energy and Mining the ETUC’s of Secretariat the of critique harshest The

fast transformation of European European of transformation fast rial production from Europe to to Europe from production rial f increasing electricity prices prices electricity increasing f ies decided to stay in Europe, Europe, in stay to decided ies long-term low carbon growth carbon low long-term ction in places where labour labour where places in ction me unions did not approve of approve not did unions me idarność in Katowice (SGiE), (SGiE), Katowice in idarność eetiiy eeain in generation electricity m ostly emission reductions. reductions. emission ostly embers of the Solidarność Solidarność the of embers and Chine by overtaken ily y y nevee. s he As interviewee. my by veness loss of European European of loss veness for the cost of emission emission of cost the for et Aneza Dojlido. Agnieszka ment, feared ‘carbon leakage’ leakage’ ‘carbon feared g I BE ad Polish and BCE) IG .g. nmu (o eo vote) veto (no animous oianś ad ZZG). and Solidarność o te edr f the of leader the rom Commission in Gdańsk Gdańsk in Commission p t ‘it’ regions. ‘dirty’ to ope . h mi actors main The l. sqecs f the of nsequences German unions unions German ectors feared feared ectors 235 CEU eTD Collection Also Domik Kolorz from the miners’ union Solidarnoś union miners’ the from Kolorz Domik Also been in conflict with NSZZ Solidarność over propert over Solidarność NSZZ with conflict in been 67 paid by the European economy and workers in manycaworkers in European thebyeconomy and paid ind cos This the worth not reductions. was interviewees, my emission to according global of percent 2-3 emissions global of percent 13 of reduction percent aroun was emissions global in share its because own prob the solve to able be not would Europe example. o sure make first and goals reduction its proposing shou Union European the that was argument other The reductionenterto should They pat be allowed pace. redu to forced be cannot States o Member EU Kolorz, repeated: and Dojlido Grajcarek, with interviews my e scientifi the as well as Commission questioned the by proposed leaders union energy and mining expert Polish government, Polish the by exercised genera critique more was unions trade Polish of critique The ETS.the into within account taken G to according this, And regions. de-industrialized j massive society Polish cost 1990s from reductions Eu Eastern and Central in 1990s the from reductions accou to claims businesses’ and government’s Polish Do and Grajcarek’s solution. fair a as sector power ETUC i industries, for benchmarks technologicalon based the above, mentioned was it as While, sector. suppo for particular in and legislation, of Package wi quickly too rushing for ETUC the criticized They th of critical was EMCEF, the of vice-President the the Solidarność, Andrzej Chwiluk from the miners’ u miners’ the from Chwiluk Andrzej Solidarność, the po climate European and ETUC the criticizing figure ZZG is a miners’ trade union associated in OPZZ, w OPZZ, in associated union trade miners’ a is ZZG

y issues since 1980s. 1980s. since issues y hich is the post-socialist union, which has has which union, post-socialist the is hich rting full auctions for the power power the for auctions full rting rajcarek and Dojlido had to be to had Dojlido and rajcarek e proposed climate legislation. legislation. climate proposed e t accepted full auctions for the for full auctions accepted t c basis for these goals. During goals. these for basis c hs individually. hs would give something around something give would ther regions would follow its its follow would regions ther ob losses and poverty in the in poverty and losses ob lem of global warming on its on warming global of lem nion ZZG nion th endorsement for the new new the for endorsement th ld’ ciiu rfetd the reflected critique jlido’s ć (SKGWK) was a prominent a was (SKGWK) ć licies in general. Outside of Outside general. in licies ropean countries. Emission countries. ropean , hc wud ae o be to have would which t, 1 pret I sot 20 short, In percent. 13 d rbonintensive industries. ad uies lobbyists. business and s t o te al emission early the for nt ne argument was always always was argument ne , es ehia ta the than technical less l, ce emissions at the same the at emissions ce rpsd re allocation free proposed iso rdcin goals reduction mission ividual reduction goal, goal, reduction ividual ld be more strategic in in strategic more be ld 67 , and at that time that at and , 236 CEU eTD Collection vote on the position paper. When the SGiE identifie SGiE the When paper. position the on vote Jaworowski eerh nttt ad h Ntoa Isiue o P for Institute National the and Institute Research Ph of Institute the of Group Biophysical the Paris; Agenc pos held Protection has He Agency. Environmental Energy Atomic International U.S. a the was He of (1981–82). projects Radiation Atomic of Effects the chair former and Warsaw in Protection Radiological Polish economy and asked for a revision of the ETUC the of revision a for asked and economy Polish pr the of impact damaging potential a about it warn SG the 2008 July and June Between one. national the t on actions up took it workers, Polish and economy oih nos ato wt rgr t te rpsd p at 2008,ofleast four half secondthe in only came proposed the to regard with action in unions’ government, Polish Polish the of cases in as Similarly, thanau trade ‘environmental organization’ an like th Poland from interviewees my among disappointment suppor not do The “we met…” are demands following the unless said proposal have should Commiss ETUC the the support want…”, “we said having of instead that constituencies its about forgetting while proposal environmental accepting on keen too was it that was ac main their of One Poland. in employees adopted defending they reports, IPCC the and science climate committee ofalternative establishment the for asked min Polish when moments several from apart However, toscience. climate with regard skepticism their e and poli climate European mining against themselves the positioned from leaders union Polish way This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Jaworowski 68 Pol in promoted temperatures global on impact solar to referred and warming global anthropogenic about change. climate on research reviewing in authority science climate challenged interviewees my Finally, bgiw aoosi a cara o te Scientific the of chairman was Jaworowski Zbigniew 68 a eia dco ad rdooit h de i No in died who radiologist a and doctor medical a ,

ysics, University of Oslo; the Norwegian Polar Polar Norwegian the Oslo; of University ysics, of the United Nations Scientific Committee on on Committee Scientific Nations United the of ts with the Centre d'Etude Nucleaires near near Nucleaires d'Etude Centre the with ts principal investigator of three research research three of investigator principal y and of four research projects of the the of projects research four of and y Council of the Central Laboratory for for Laboratory Central the of Council months after the ETUC’s March ETUC’s the aftermonths nionorganization. – employees. Grajcarek argued Grajcarek employees. – They all questioned the thesis the questioned all They oposed legislative package on package legislative oposed olar Research in Tokyo. See: See: Tokyo. in Research olar wo levels – the European and European the – levels wo ’s position on the package. It package. the on position ’s d potential threats to Polish Polish to threats potential d cies but they also displayed also they but cies utis n pwr sector, power and dustries cusations against the ETUC the against cusations n IC a te ultimate the as IPCC and goals of the Commission’s Commission’s the of goals and by Professor Zbigniew Zbigniew Professor by and fr eiwn te latest the reviewing for s cae f lmt policies climate of ackage re was a general feeling of feeling general a was re at the ETUC behaved more behaved ETUC the at E und o h EU to ETUC the to turned iE lentv tere about theories alternative pamtc agae of language pragmatic a o’ pooas u we but proposals ion’s nergy sectors not only only not sectors nergy n ad nry unions energy and ing t the Commission’s Commission’s the t ebr 2011. vember 237 CEU eTD Collection position. Between June and September Grajcarek was was Grajcarek September and June Between position. aske already also had and package energy and change wor been already had EMCEF The members. are ZZG and the to turned He federations. industry European the s for look to out set SGiE the Grajcarek, of wishes th on position its revise to refused ETUC the Since energy package, July 2008. July package, energy 2008. July Package, 70 69 Com Tripartite the The staposition Security in Poland. Social Workers within government the and sector rep with together package energy and change Climate a issued SGiE the time, same the At th economy. carbon argued It account. highest the pay to into have would coal, on extensively taken be to mixes energy and development economic of levels various demanded ietv ad euain, o ht hy ok no a into economicand generation system” power took they that so regulations, and directive cha Climate the of content the change mea to possible Commission every up “take to urged and EU-15” old and change Climate the introducing of cost highest l might coun poorer other and and Poland Poland. by sovereignty competitiveness its reducing by economy neg a have will shape present its in package energy “adopting that underlined Commission the of Members oiin eadn a rpsl f h Erpa Commi European the of proposal a regarding Position Commi European the of proposal a regarding Position the member states as a factor of price stabilityof price offactor as statesa member the rel issues neglecting vitalityofthe and Union European the in security totally issue, this of aspect en the on only concentrates Commission European The po for used fuel a as coal of European competitiveness lower the of regulations and directives Proposed

70 . . ssion known as the Climate change and and change Climate the as known ssion so kon s h Ciae n Energy and Climate the as known ssion ted that: ted upport of his demands within demands his of upport price for a transition to a low a to transition a for price EMCEF, of which the SGiE SGiE the which of EMCEF, Pcae codn t the to according Package e ccount specificity of Polish Polish of specificity ccount nry akg, nie the unlike package, energy tries of the EU will pay the pay will EU the of tries ative impact on the Polish Polish the on impact ative of the Climate change and change Climate the of electricity not aware of the fact that that fact the of aware not specificities of countries’ of specificities omn oiin n the on position common the access to coal in coal to access the g ad nry package energy and nge d the ETUC to revise its its revise to ETUC the d ns within the European European the within ns resentatives of the coal coal the of resentatives mission for the Mine Mine the for mission ead to losing energy energy losing to ead t oad depending Poland, at ated to energy energy to ated e generation. wer king on the Climate Climate the on king Commission vironmental vironmental 69 . . 238 CEU eTD Collection Executive Committee of the EMCEF about the climate climate the 6 September about On package. EMCEF the of Committee Executive forward put Council Coordination The Poland. EMCEF Co the in part took Reibsch, Reinhard EMCEF, the of IFIEC-Europe method). In Solidarność, the IFIEC met IFIEC the Solidarność, In method). IFIEC-Europe post alloc laterbenchmark ex on, and sector, power p like Gree government, Polish the by proposed solutions the from also was Grajcarek lobbyists Buzek. with closely communicated sector power Polis the and with industrial cooperated Grajcarek that shows This action.protest planned discus to police and authorities local Brussels the E the of Secretary Polish a with met also Grajcarek inv actors Polish many to level EU the at officials meetings facilitated also but Package the on debate not was who Buzek, Euro Jerzy MEP Polish the the by held was at Energy and Climate Poland EU the of project representing the concerning was who Kopczynski, Republic the of Office Representation Permanent the negotiator main the by organized was one First The package. represe of negotiations the in sectorsindustrial and power to 2008 July in created Group, Effort Green representati by attended were them of Two Brussels. 2 September On concerns. workers’ Europ wider a within put and matter European a into i ‘national a as perceived primarily was what ETUC, upanalte building and allies mobilizing courseof members in employees defending position German a on worked already that and views his shared EMCEF the nd , a meeting was held in Katowice where the Secretar the where Katowice in held was meeting a , th and 7 and th , Grajcarek participated in three meetings in in meetings three in participated Grajcarek , rnative position to the one of the the of one the to position rnative the Climate change and energy changeand Climate the ation for the power sector (the theforsector (the power ation s security issue concerning a a concerning issue security s le i te akg debate. package the in olved TUC, Józef Niemiec, and with and Niemiec, Józef TUC, and dialogue with high level level high with dialogue and artial free allowances for the for allowances free artial from Directive ETS EU the of ves of a lobbying project, the project, lobbying a of ves ean context of economic and and economic of context ean nterest’ had to be reframed reframed be to had nterest’ European industries. In the In industries. European of Poland in Brussels, Olaf Brussels, in Poland of hod was known as ‘Buzek’s as known was hod akg. h scn one second The Package. nt interests of the Polish Polish the of interests nt introduced to alternative alternative to introduced riain oni o the of Council ordination ny n uhrt i the in authority an only a motion to summon the the summon to motion a gvrmn ad the and government h Efr Gop He Group. Effort n change and energy energy and change of the EMCEF had had EMCEF the of en Commission pean y General General y 239 CEU eTD Collection A protest of Polish mine and chemical workers took took workers chemical and mine Polish of protest A o end the at place took Brussels to visit crucial A ldmr pda o ak bu te mat n employm on impact the about talk to Spidla Vladimir legislation. Commission on 25on Commission the Climate change and energy package t byproposed energy package changeand Climate the al were reque a with Energy for Commissioner the Pielbalgs, Letters for Commissioner proposal. the Dimas, Stavros Commissioners, Commission’s European the supp for request a with MEPs Polish to sent letters issued. The first one was written in Katowice by th by Katowice in written was one first The issued. chan Climate the on positions two October, early In hi strengthen would debate. this in Commission protests workers’ that hoped He posed economy European the to threats potential the Ver sim Guenter a shared and conversation the meeting, with satisfaction this During t Buzek. Enterprise, by and attended Industry the for Commissioner the Environment the for Commissioner the Dimas, Stavros e wt te omsinr o Epomn, oil Af Social Employment, for Commissioner the with met 8 September On experts.EU and national as served past’, ‘Solidarność a with MEP the Buzek, 2008) November Gdańsk, (Interview, idea’ allocation in 2008. Also due to Buzek’s assistance, on Septemb on assistance, Buzek’s to due Also 2008. in la a of part a became Solidarność and Grajcarek way of lobbyists main the and initiator the Żmijewski, of (Ministry Nowicki Maciej and (EESC) Krzaklewski Ja Mieczysław Union, European the by representative of Ambassador the Tombiński, Jan with met and Buzek and change Climate the of negotiations in position th n 9 and th September (260 participants). The same day a meeti a day same The participants). (260 September th Gacrk atcptd n cneec o te Pol the on conference a in participated Grajcarek , f September. It was preceded by preceded was It September. f e Coordination Council EMCEF Council Coordination e ort of workers’ protest against against protest workers’ of ort a crucial link for Grajcarek to to Grajcarek for link crucial a place in front of the European European the of front in place h Gen fot ru. This Group. Effort Green the energy package organized by organized package energy ilar dose of uneasiness about about uneasiness of dose ilar ge and energy package were package energy and ge er 16er st to support amendments to amendments support to st and was widely supported. widely was and nowski, Polish MEP, Marian MEP, Polish nowski, rger Polish lobbying project lobbying Polish rger Environment) and Krzysztof Krzysztof and Environment) he Polish government. Polish he government. by the proposed Package. Package. proposed the by and Guenter Verheugen, Verheugen, Guenter and ar ad qa Chances, Equal and fairs niomn, n Andris and Environment, o pae I ws also was It place. ook oad te permanent the Poland, th heugen expressed his his expressed heugen psto wti the within position s , Kazimierz Grajcarek, Grajcarek, Kazimierz , n o te proposed the of ent o et o the to sent so ng with ng 240 ish CEU eTD Collection package, October 2008. October package, 71 t lead would energy packages changeand Climate the sig The Chemicznego). Przemysłu Zawodowych Związków Chemi the of Federation the Woźny, Józef Polsce), w Work Mine Chwiluk, Andrzej Kadra), ZZ (Porozumienie (S Grajcarek representa Kazimierz the Poland: and Council Coordination ETUC the of Secretary EMCEF Confederal the of Secretary the Macak, Erik by attended There was also a clear appeal toCommi European theclear appeal also a was There The last two urgedparagraphs last The Position of the Coordination Office of the EMCEF – EMCEF the of Office Coordination the of Position • • • • •

utos o C2 msin loacs fe 21 for 2012 after allowances emission CO2 for Auctions heat the prices and electricityin increaserapid A il o scr te neet f h Erpa econom European the of interest the secure not will wor the case In work. this by assistance declare we A package. energy and change Climate the on working Union’s European the of interests secure better to industries within thewithin EU; industries of cease the to and EU the of outside from products lead will which industry, glass and coke smelting, Mass layoffs of the workers in theindustr workers the ofEuropean in layoffs Mass European theof fromelectricityofoutside Import o power based industry European theof down Closing coal). electricit of 95% Poland (in coal on depends extent produc energy which countries, the in economies the include will that package energy and change Climate s legislative for solicit to ETUC the and EMCEF The 71

Poland about the Climate change and energy energy and change Climate the about Poland cal Trade Unions (Federacja (Federacja Unions Trade cal ssion and the and MEPs ssion o: in Europe; in ers Union in Poland (ZZG Poland in Union ers GiE), Krzysztof Stefanek Stefanek Krzysztof GiE), Union; y is produced from from produced is y to mass import of these these of import mass to y (1000000 jobs) y lost n Jzf ime, the Niemiec, Józef and the specificity of specificity the e uinss warned unionists ned ked-out Package Package ked-out ie o te EMCEF the of tives investments in these in investments n coal; n t the same time time same the t economy when when economy olutions in the the in olutions in o large a to tion the cement, lime, lime, cement, the , unions y, 241 CEU eTD Collection The position statedthat position The interests. The Climate change and energy package wo energypackage change Climateand The interests. reg with however, reiterated; were Poland EMCEF the t in included Arguments adopted. was package on energy position another Yet debate. package climate the representat a Grajcarek assign to made was decision Solidarno of Congress National the later days Three package, October 2008. October package, 72 oiin f h Codnto Ofc o ECF Pola – EMCEF of Office Coordination the of Position in these industries in theseindustries Poland. in abandon and Poland to products these of import mass gla aft and oil coke, smelting, allowances lime, cement, chemical, emission CO2 of auctions Introducing Po in time investments. and used are re hand, other the which on technologies, new Introducing materials, these of production emiss reduce to impossible practically is it Today, • • • • • • •

veto this document. this veto Loss of competitiveness of Polish industries Polish of competitiveness ofLoss society costsPolish for High P technologies in coal clean investmentsinto Lower in power Poland plants coal-fueled of down Closing sovereigntyof energy Poland’s Weakening in Poland jobs 200000lost the EUin price Pol in rise 10-15% of in prediction Commission’s European 60-160% to up prices electricity in rise The their to appeal should EMCEF the within associated

72

nd about the Climate change and energy energy and change Climate the about nd ść took place in Wadowice. A A Wadowice. in place took ść uld inevitably lead to: lead inevitably uld ive of NSZZ Solidarność in Solidarność NSZZ of ive ss industry will lead to lead will industry ss ard to the Polish economic economic Polish the to ard os ihu reducing without ions h Ciae hne and change Climate the he Coordination Office of of Office Coordination he quires great financial financial great quires oland ment of investment of ment the average electricity average the and compared to the the to compared and r 02 o the for 2012 er governments to governments lish economy. economy. lish 242 CEU eTD Collection At the same time the go appealed time the sameto theSolidarność At lsr oprto wt te ME ad omn coordi common and EMCEF the with cooperation closer helpe also Buzek to Talking Group. Effort Green the art better conv a after proposal Commission’s thefor stemming to able was he that me with interview an on debate the in participating unionist active most commun of networks heterogeneous within formed been solution potential of development the and interests g and sit the definitionof industries the how observe to Polish interesting of case the in as similarly Europea the – address they arena which on depending nation as accordingly framed are arguments Workers’ c Climate proposed the to related concerns workers’ inter an reveal Wadowice in days Solidarność three of adopted Congress other the and Katowice in EMCEF C the at adopted one positions, cited above two The energy package, October 2008. October package, energy 2008. October package, energy 74 73 Position 10 of the XXII the National Congress of So of Congress National the XXII the of 10 Position So of Congress National the XXII the of 10 Position l tee cin wl la t ms lyfs f work of layoffs mass to lead will actions these All which our union does not give our consentunion to. does give our not which neet o Pls eooy w cl te government the Acce175theof Article theofbase the ondocument call we economy, Polish of interests b Package negotiated goal the case In this expertise. available achieving in assistance substantive and decl we time same the At package. energy and change negotiat the by interests economic Polish secure to gov eco Polish the to appeal We production. electricity Polish of depen 95% in specificity is Poland that fact the the for particular for account will that Climate the of solutions legislative for solicit to

lidarność concerning the Climate change and and change Climate the concerning lidarność and change Climate the concerning lidarność 73 uation, the definition of unions’ of definition the uation,

the ETS in 2008, admitted in in admitted 2008, in ETS the vernment of Poland Poland ofvernment s to coming challenges, have challenges, coming to s d him a lot and, with time, a a time, with and, lot a him d ersation with Żmijewski from with Żmijewski ersation hange and energy package. package. energy and hange vrmna ofcas i is it officials, overnmental n or the national one. Also, one. national the or n and Energy Package Energy and odnto Cucl f the of Council oordination iculate potential problems problems potential iculate ers in Polish industry, industry, Polish in ers sig hf i faig of framing in shift esting l r uoen interests European or al ernment and MEPs MEPs and ernment ions of the Climate Climate the of ions ssion Treaty.ssion dant on coal in its in coal on dant ain f oiin and positions of nation cto. rjae, the Grajcarek, ication. ae a te National the at later will not secure secure not will oy n in and nomy are our social our are to veto this this veto to ased on the the on ased 74

243 CEU eTD Collection Katowice a Interests: Labour and Goals Environmental Between better to emp European him and power sectors. and industrial Polish for for ETS possible the of it consequences made actions protest re Efr Gop Wy ol tae nos at to want interests?asking.were their they – support unions trade would Why Group. Effort Green busin by attended was meeting unions’ international other the on t were, Kumar and nothing Dupressoir employment. had he EMCEF, the from interviewees my of internat powerful a of representative a As meeting. t from Kumar that see to strange i it my found unionists to strange seemed people three of presence The (GE SanjeevWWFfromtheand Kumar EPO Group Effort in the official of administrator the an Coey, Marina Environment, Błaszczyk, Bernard by attended also Bulgarian the from Kanev Roma Alexandra and the Tokmakchiev from Gheorghe Emil and Feurdean Ioan Aurie CISL, Matteo IGBCE, German fe the union from Wolters European Michael the from Dupressoir Sophie EMCEF, ITUC-TUAC sectothe Kerckhofsfrom Peter Ver.di, union German the federation, union trade international arrived: organizations union European and national organizations, union Polish the of representatives sector energy and mine Polish the from were whom of at was It Directive. ETS the on Parliament European b 2008, December of beginning the at protest bigger t Katowice in conference international an Coordi organized EMCEF the with together SgiE, November 13 On

ten representatives from other other from representatives ten Anabella Rosemberg from the the from Rosemberg Anabella ional green NGO, in the eyes the in NGO, green ional tended by thirty people, most people, thirty by tended ral umbrella organization the organization umbrella ral ess lobbyists from the Polish the from lobbyists ess e W priiae i the in participated WWF he o prepare the unions for a a for unions the prepare o lobbying project the Green Green the project lobbying unions. Apart from twelve twelve from Apart unions. n International Meeting in in Meeting International n efore the final vote in the the in vote final the efore , Reiner Koch from the the from Koch Reiner , hand, surprised that the that surprised hand, FNSM. The meeting was meeting The FNSM. G 2008). G h Pls Mnsr for Ministry Polish the triwe. h Polish The nterviewees. ly ih uies and business with ally d wt polm of problems with do o m fo te Italian the from mma loyees in the mining, mining, the in loyees nation Office Poland, Poland, Office nation im NE Pencho FNME, niam eain h ETUC, the deration nesad various understand 244 CEU eTD Collection And while the ETUC Working Group on Sustainable Dev Sustainable on Group Working ETUC the while And di longer a for stayed he event, official the After benchmar of idea The consent. her give not did ETUC Dupressoi However, sector. power the for benchmarks expr Bulgaria, and Germany particular in countries, l union the of some Katowice, in meeting the During withinthe before 20ETUC discussed the March be to f review positive its with IFIEC-method the Second, full introduce to was her, to according situation, im was b which profits’, ‘windfall gain to allocation First, sector. power that power agreement common a was there Dupressoir, the for allocation benchmark for allocation benchmark on discussion extensive an thisrele method found industry paper fromthe e.g. sect a energy the power from leaders union other the and Grajcarek for allocation gain benchmark to of hoped proposal also Grajcarek idea. Commission’s the emission a organized to how Directive on proposals alternative ETS proposed the of critique their with ministry the and lobbyist GEG the invited Grajcarek changetheto position. March ETUC the would and situation their understood have would she representatives union of number a heard Dupressoir account. into it taken officially have should employme ETUC for Package the of implications about more mom that at packag especially that, energy thought and He Directive). change Climate the on ETUC the of Dupressoirt persuade to Grajcarekhoped Dupressoir. auc from coming budgets national to gains financial dev economic of vision alternative an with Katowice unio the provide to Dupressoir by invited was Kumar moral. The only way to heal the heal to way only The moral. utos o te oe sector. power the for auctions vant for theirfor vant interests. rom the EcoFys came too late too came EcoFys the rom industries, it never discussed discussed never it industries, eaders from Poland and other and Poland from eaders csin ih rjae and Grajcarek with scussion n representatives gathered in gathered representatives n n, hn nos a learnt had unions when ent, essed their open support for support open their essed to alternative way a in trade tioning emission allowances. allowances. emission tioning have started working within working started have o change the official position official the change o 08 vote in the ETUC. ETUC. the in vote08 e oe ta te moment the that hoped He fiil eas h agreed he because official nd mining sectors, but also also but sectors, mining nd r, as a representative of the of representative a as r, expressing the same fears, fears, same the expressing lpet n t elucidate to and elopment ks would lower the cost of of cost the lower would ks nd because the GEG had had GEG the because nd elopment had already had already had elopment companies misused free free misused companies nt in their sectors, the the sectors, their in nt more support for the the for support more or (the IFIEC-method). IFIEC-method). (the or cue acrig to according ecause, (nldn te ETS the (including e 245 CEU eTD Collection According to my interviewee, free allocation of emi of allocation free interviewee, my to According the ‘benchmark talk’ was simply a talk exercised in exercised talk a simply was talk’ ‘benchmark the be have not could talk’ benchmark ‘the why theorize the from interviewee my to Contrary talk’. ‘unions’ typica a him to according was talk’, benchmark ‘The c which idea, an – idea benchmark the supported had n could he said also Kumar conversation, our During levelsemploy of skills,regional labour of quality wor the Benchmark considering living. their for companies for on dependence place no was there p technological proposal purely a produc into from production simplified workers erased benchmarks Technological acco not did companies of performance technological sectorcompanies: power imple were they whether of irrespective it, against IFIEC-met the supported officially which EMCEF, the way. any in companies those in employment of issues sector power and industries for reductions emission o ssanblt o epomn, s ipy o inc not simply is March (Interview, Brussels, proposal. benchmarking employment, of sustainability for int for fight whole this sector paper the in unions p the from So well. as jobs their keep to them like b it, done not invested had which companies, in had unions trade which company, a a think and care take to have also We technologies. in work o to accident… by fortunate are who those of favor in position a th fair not is it and companies all in unions trade represe are we But technologies. clean in invest to encouraging give to going it’s because perspective f and reductions CO2 the of good cost the of a perspective is benchmarking this understood I what From ment or respect of labour rights. labour respectofmentor a different organizational field organizational different a mented in industries or in the in or industries in mented ssion allowances based on the on based allowances ssion ame from the industry lobby. industry the from ame s, but it did not account for for account not did it but s, ot have believed that unions unions that believed have ot at we are going to take to going are we at ME, e i nt r to try not did he EMCEF, l ‘industries’ talk’ and not a a not and talk’ ‘industries’ l en a ‘unions’ talk’. For him, For talk’. ‘unions’ a en hod, had some reservations reservations some had hod, unt for the value of labour. labour. of value the for unt egrating employment, egrating Even my interviewee from from interviewee my Even oes I te benchmark the In rocess. s were not sensitive to the to sensitive not were s signals to industries to signals bout employees and and employees bout erspective of trade of erspective innovation the rom tn wres and workers nting 2009) o pol ad their and people of k cue e would we ecause r rather simply simply rather r tion processes and and processes tion luded in this this in luded hn fo a from thing in clean clean in 246 CEU eTD Collection And while defending the unions’ right to propose al propose to right unions’ the defending while And bu te eea picpe f oil oiaiy an K with wasdisappointed November She 2008). Gdańsk, solidarity social of principle general the about lmt cag ad nry akg wr mt Bt the But met. were package energy and change Climate the by made demands whether asked rhetorically she Solidarność Dojli ETS. thebeforehad been it way the situation jobs, existing the save fighting were unions Polish acc ETS, the to due Poland in foreseen unemployment programs’ transition ‘just for money that idea The working companies. in their people for Pol that out pointed also She 2009). June Brussels, Po with straight companies our for Doj important issues commented employers,” the with trolley same the mean it because companies their of performance good landlords. themselves especi considered companies, unions Polish companies, in that understand not did Kumar of aware was Dojlido example, For opposition. did unions Polish the from interviewees my However, general. in employees int different structurally had which actors, by and ak i nt tpcl tae nos tl” (Inter talk”. unions’ “trade typical 2008) November a not is talk” becaus proposal, our of “authenticity” question WWF propose li we people allocation, when benchmark the But like solutions, budget. EU the into paying also re-distributi increase to not is point the So else. to able be to someone from money this take to have a trees on grow not does money that know we Because distribut be to money more for simply not and sense fighting are we But rules. fair for fighting are We s smtig oe hn ut tae no, hc d which union, trade a just than more “something as do also referred to the legacy of legacy theto referred also do rss rm rd uin and unions trade from erests for keeping the employment employment the keeping for ternative allocation methods, methods, allocation ternative ish unionists felt responsible responsible felt unionists ish rsosblt” (Interview, responsibility” d would solve the problem of of problem the solve would not perceive this structural structural this perceive not on in the EU – we are are we – EU the in on for rules, which make make which rules, for ording to Dojlido, was silly. was Dojlido, to ording ’s surprise but she said he said she but surprise ’s t jobs for them. “We are in are “We them. for jobs t lish ministers” (Interview, (Interview, ministers” lish umar’s attitude:umar’s ke the guy from the the from guy the ke hy et epnil for responsible felt They TC ih ead o the to regard with ETUC ly n h sae owned state the in ally lido “and we negotiate negotiate we “and lido wr nt Drn the During not. were y give it to someone to it give e the “benchmark “benchmark the e ed from budgets. from ed nd that first you you first that nd view, Gdańsk, Gdańsk, view, alternative alternative d o forget not id 247 CEU eTD Collection unions:tradeforthe opensoon EU in would fundi in interested been not had unions Polish that She unconditional. so was businesses and government P that surprised was She programs. training skills’ sup financial of kind any for anything, for ask not tr mak Polish without industries and government the supported why wondered she conversation, our During domestic unions’ Polish the on commented Dupressoir ofle Commission’s Package haveendorsedthe should d those once only and demands forward put first had Accordingt strategy. wrong taken a having for ETUC progra support transition just the for fund special decis any been not have There place. in put not had part social for positiv committee consultative them the meeting, answer dire to able asked not was were who questions Dupressoir, such Katowice, in meeting and the industry, and they didn’t get anything in r in anything get didn’t they and industry, the and backed They (…) sides. positive the at look to able sides positive the at look also could They Poland. scenario usual as business the them, help to means will there opportunities, f be because will there difficult, but was problem it So it. hear to able not key a be is one least at that sure will make to have you Poland, CCS that know you w that, for came up set we be when even is there know you ok, that saying ideas, new arguments, was difficult was what and it. that’s and position own its on one each i really the fo bit little a from moved we if know don’t I And presentations think. of the for also number was it But etc. Kazimierz, good government, a quite had in was Which concerns. their to listen to was it us me the of purpose the was what exactly know don’t I ot wih ol b ue for used be could which port, ners concerning the package package the concerning ners s Gacrk rtczd the criticized Grajcarek ms. o him, the ETUC should have should ETUC the him, o ls uin’ upr fr its for support unions’ olish ions made as to launching a launching to as made ions gislation. gislation. g potnte se hoped she opportunities ng ing any demands. They did They demands. any ing teresting because we because teresting strategy in a similar way. similar a in strategy in Poland. They were They Poland. in rward. I think it was it think I rward. This was not helpful not was This emands had been met, it it met, been had emands up the government the up also found it surprising surprising it found also eturn (…) and they and (…) eturn m to listen to us, I us, to listen to m r ue hr i a is there sure or l. y h tm o the of time the By ely. is not very pink for pink very not is be some financial financial some be n te wr not were they and eting. For sure for for sure For eting. ade unions so eagerly eagerly so unions ade a fund which will which fund a ty y rjae to Grajcarek by ctly ehooy for technology t new ith ndustry, ndustry, 248 CEU eTD Collection t h sm tm, hy teghnd hs rjc by project fairnes social of justification the – justification this strengthened they time, same the At

sensitive innovations to it. innovations sensitive withou ETS the of projects GEG the and government’s t words, other In carbon. low become to was economy change to have would who those for programs support re-skill labour for funding securing in interest no sensitive’. employment or ‘socially more it making solution technocratic socia a supported they to solidarity, referring justifications Using industries. u trade Polish Kumar, and Dupressoir of eyes the In allocation. With time, cooperation between the two statem two the between cooperation time, With common allocation. CEP made (the Industries Paper example European of for Confederation EMCEF, E the The of institution Dialogue. the by provided was statements plat clo The well. worked as level EMCEF, European the the at federations and EMF the like Federations, NGO green with mostly allied t ETUC the in While actors. unique exactly not were unions Polish However, neo supported unions Polish 2008a).2008, Gajewska when time fist the been environme and ETUC the by supported strongly state’ against state’ ‘competition a as Poland of project an government’s Polish the supported and quo status un trade Polish values. social of – values of realm a started IFIEC-method the unions, trade Polish the efficienc economic to referring justifications from ey ek ta te r nt osle, t. u th But etc. consulted, not are they that weak, very are always the first ones to complain that social d social that complain to ones first the always are Brussels, June 2009)June Brussels, for reductions emission of target lower a achieving s, solidarity and social justice. Apartjustice. social and solidarity s, ions seem to have fought for the the for fought have to seem ions y, thanks to the engagement of of engagement the to thanks y, the project of a ‘re-distribution ‘re-distribution a of project the They have also showed little or little showed also have They ihu cnrbtn mc to much contributing without n porm o ay id of kind any or programs ing nions took a position close to to close position a took nions lso functioning in a different a in functioning lso organizations with regard to to regard with organizations jsie n picpe of principles and justice l om o aheig common achieving for form d the businesses’ neo-liberal neo-liberal businesses’ the d t having introduced labour- introduced having t s, the European Industrial European the s, upyn nw id of kinds new supplying ) uprig benchmark supporting I) ialogue in Poland is Poland in ialogue e gt nold no the into enrolled got hey er lis ih business with allies heir Poland. (Interview, Poland. tl Gs Ti hs not has This NGOs. ntal rpa scoa Social sectoral uropean y oue ol on only focused ey their jobs if the Polish Polish the if jobs their iea sltos (see solutions liberal ey ih industrial with sely ents with the the with ents 249 CEU eTD Collection te wrs i te erh o bte mas f inte si CEPI, of the of means project the into better enrolled got EMCEF for search the in words, vi other shared a – equalized t was in employees level and EU employers the at action to came it when unions, as Similarly contacts. and resources in organizational paper European provided also They Directive. ETS Commis the against action launching to came it when organiza and expertise on strongly relied EMCEF The a gave EMCEF the cooperation: from interviewee My organizations. which lobbyists, professional hired CEPI Dialogue. f the beyond went package energy and change Climate iwons ad e a as hv smbd a or Ex our under at somebody who have people also to can that we and with viewpoints, go and position joint eiinmkn s ta w cud nefr wt cer with interfere could 2009) Brussels, March (Interview, m we important of that overview so good decision-making very a had we then and got we June in and discussion first our had we that helpf very was this and plan time a us for prepared s paper the in affiliates our all to out it sent we lobbyist this with presentationtogether a prepared we can support a little bit the lobbying, we can de can we lobbying, the bit little a support can we l industry, the to said we So to. go to person good wa he so about, concerned are level European the at wh well very knows He EP. the of member Dutch a now Fed Woodworks and Building me the ab of a thought Secretary have General I to Parliament. try European can the We from things. somebody three do can we ok, goin were they what was, problem the what had said They we and presentation a made He officer. paper advocacy the from lobbyist their with meeting a had We made an action plan for both both for plan action an made ector. This lobbyist also lobbyist This ector. nce as my interviewee from from interviewee my as nce tional resources of the CEPI CEPI the of resources tional n h cs o te Polish the of case the in i dbt te neet of interest the debate his sion’s proposal of the new the of proposal sion’s velop some kind of a of kind some velop from the CEPI. NextCEPI. fromthe ook we can do that, do can we ook this from the CEPI the from this et ersnain the representation, rest utis ih hi own their with dustries sion was negotiated. In In negotiated. was sion aeok f h Social the of ramework ul because in May in because ul s, I think, a very a think, I s, g to do. We said said We do. to g nuty their industry, at trade unions trade at discussion. a n account of this this of account n eration, he is is he eration, tain actions. actions. tain u te old the out tn with eting tn our stand mns of oments ctv. I ecutive. 250 CEU eTD Collection European one. My interviewee from the EMCEF commentinterviewee one. EMCEF My from the European Polish own their side, fighting not were they that unions other the on WWF the and ITUC-TUAC the EMCE ETUC, the unions, together Polish them between especially bring debates, and actors mobilize to capacity stated that: stated of Participants package. energy and soc change Climate with negotiations launch to Commission an European again c Once participants. Katowice all in by signed meeting statement the tensions, the all Despite 75 13 However, canceled. was and purpose its Cou European the after December, mid till postponed in vote final the Since package. energy and change negotiat during Poland in Office Coordination EMCEF organ event biggest the was Katowice in meeting The ETU the and EMCEF than theinterestsofdebate that the and EMCEF the of interests explained, EMCEF the Climate and Energy Package Energy and Climate pel o h Erpa Cmiso t luc negotia launch to Commission European the to Appeal (Interview, Brussels, March 2008) 2008) Brussels, March (Interview, the on together work and actors government with and together work should we where thing European a more anothe or country this of matter a not is it us For shatter the goals of the Climate changeand the of energy Climate goals the shatter possible These EU. the of outside move might it to investm and industry emitting CO2 the time same the in workplaces of thousands of hundreds of closedown int be sta current should its in Package package the introducing However, energy and change Climate The , November 2008. November ,

th tions with the social partners about the the about partners social the with tions oebr hwd h SGiE’s the showed November battle but that the fight was a a was fight the that but battle the European Parliament was Parliament European the C. ncil, the protest action lost lost action protest the ncil, r one. For us it was a was it us For one. r pel a md t the to made was appeal CEPI were much closer in in closer much were CEPI zd y h Si ad the and SGiE the by ized h meig n Katowice in meeting the o oe ie ad the and side, one on F nldd n common a in oncluded os f h E Climate EU the of ions ed that: that: ed . Tensions and heated heated and Tensions . package. ial partners about the the about partners ial consequences will consequences European basis. basis. European showed to the Polish Polish the to showed e a rsl in result may te with employers employers with the EU and at and EU the ents connected connected ents 75 roduced.

251 CEU eTD Collection willing to listen to industries but usually ignored usually but industries to listen to willing a time long a for arena EU the within position weak admitted Duppresoir, Sophie including interviewees, w it way, a in but, ETUC the for setback a was This words other negotiations.roundofin this substantial anything In 2009). Directive ETS the (see either not in EU the of outside was produced goods on adjustments programs transition just the for mechanism Directive. ETS the of text the in included not was consul regular of requirement A met. was postulates indu European for allowances Apart emission Directive. of allocation ETS new the on decisions included Europea the by taken were package energy and change decisions final 2008, of Summit December the During out from coming energy of “ carriers the a on dependant to attention drew also participants meeting The Negotiation Failure and the Fragmentation of the Eu theofFragmentation the Failureand Negotiation their to due astronghad mobi competition, global on dependence sectors, industrial in arg an competitiveness Germany), or Republic Czech the (like extent al which countries of number limited a from support similarl s mining the in losses future to referring argument were sectors industrial of competitiveness of benefits and costs calculating for impulse first powe in coal on dependence heavy Poland’s obviously Eur a as also but national a as only not framed was t by identified problem The proposals. own their of such in participation declared they time, same the s negotiatio energy of round another for its Commission European reduce substantially would This 2008). the proposed ETS Directive, the Directive, ETS proposed the

the stance of the unions. Apart unions. the of stance the ector would be able to mobilize to able be would ector as not a big surprise. All of my of All surprise. big a not as he SGiE in the middle of 2008 of middle the in SGiE he negotiations and presentation and negotiations sprt fn o a finance a or fund separate A ropean LabourropeanMovement lready. The Commission was was Commission The lready. lizing effect.lizing regions were not introduced introduced not were regions r generation which gave the gave which generation r pa oe Atog i was it Although one. opean so relied on coal to a large a to coal on relied so ht h EU hd a a had had ETUC the that stries, none of the ETUC’s ETUC’s the of none stries, iprat Wees an Whereas important. y ain ih oil partners social with tation ns with social partners. At partners. social with ns ie f h E” ( EU” the of side het f aig h EU the making of threat nentoaiain and internationalization te TC i nt gain not did ETUC the , crt. hy se the asked They ecurity. ument about the loss of of loss the about ument ocrig h Climate the concerning from the benchmarking benchmarking the from salse. odr tax Border established. Has f tt. This State. of Heads n Appeal

252 … CEU eTD Collection money would becompanies. would money - name own its got even mechanism finance This EU. p to allocated be would allowances emission million economic not still friend environmentally necessarily not is importantly, which technology a developing t revenues auction of allocation meant This EU. the de (CCS) storage and capture carbon of construction would allowances emission million 300 of D equivalent ETS the into line a those insert to for managed institutes, equipment of producers companies, related whic Platform Emission Zero the from lobby business the in win to managed businesses much how realizes eve is movement labour European the of weakness The decisions: concrete nat by with of none somehow, Unfortunately, 2008. in for asked dealt be to left chanceso someseen had she that me told Dupressoir were market carbon ETS E agenda. unions’ the through pushing in interested unions’ for fighter strong a not was interviewees, Spid Vladimir Employment, for Commissioner the from .. i te ietv tak t te rnh Preside French the to thanks Directive the in A.L.] made it problematic. (Interview, Brussels, April 20 April Brussels, (Interview, it problematic. made th fact say: the think I Others so etc. difficult, complicated, Fund… Globalization the in proble line no budget fund, new a why abou say: some talk and you complicated when always And it. support to States critica some lacked we think I and hard them pushed clos very had We us. help could they that confident eeec t or agae o etbihn te Just the establishing [of or language something our having to reference to close quite were we think I ly. Money from auctioning 300 300 auctioning from Money ly. interests anyway, no one was was one no anyway, interests the promises ever turned into into turned ever promises the articular CCS projects in the in projects CCS articular at it was about money, money, about was it at cmais o te ae of sake the for companies o xternalities produced by the by produced xternalities f getting what the ETUC had ETUC the what getting f rcie hc si ta an that said which irective NER300. Applicants for this for Applicants NER300. monstration installations in installations monstration 2008 ETS negotiation. The negotiation. ETS 2008 09) ascae ol ad coal- and oil- associates h e u aie o finance to aside put be e contacts, we really we contacts, e a wo acrig o my to according who, la, n more visible when one when visible more n ly ibe ad more and, viable, ally ncy who was very very was who ncy etr ad research and sectors rniin Fund. Transition l mass of Member of mass l mny i is it money, t ional governments. governments. ional at least some some least at e, u i is it but yes, , e u a put we m, 253 CEU eTD Collection failu unions’ way: following the on commented Dupressoir est policies. body consultative official an having of chances w they unions, trade European the for challenge big trans ‘just to allocated money actual getting While against that idea and that answered: she against servants civil the all would why Dupressoir asked I n h te n a hscnuttv omte o committee consultative this was one other the And you, but unions are not really involved. And then w then And involved. really not are unions but you, NG industry, the with relationship easy an have You ad n, o n, hs s o cmlctd Ad fran And complicated. too is this no, no, no, said: i opposed they it, for pushed Presidency French the consultat additional an burden, a as seen was it So sup to us want they when only us need they or … are they frank, be To us. need don’t They well. working DG the in consultation the that convinced were they Prog Change Climate European this was there Because opposed this idea. (Interview, Brussels, June 2009)Brussels, (Interview, this idea. opposed particul in Environment DG the from servants, civil set not was group working The happened. never this set can we how do, can we what explore to people of set to going are “we saying where commissioners two the of President the Monks, John with meeting a had a Dimas commissioners two from commitments oral and r not are unions trade moment the at because – that want we – Commission t the to have said we they And decisions. when arise which difficulties, smoothes tra the make to them helps This Protocol. Kyoto the th of part employment the at look to table dialogue gather partners social where Spain, in e.g. Europe, experien have We have. to easier probably was which ition’ in the EU seemed like a like seemed EU the in ition’ from the DG Environment be be Environment DG the from ablished to discuss climate climate discuss to ablished r mr otmsi about optimistic more ere

together at a social a at together e implementation of of implementation e kly, they wanted to to wanted they kly, ive body. And when when And body. ive Os are very closeto very are Os e have got informal informal got have e e n hs su i the in issue this in re eally involved in it. in involved eally t. The Commission The t. don’t see why we why see don’t Environment was Environment up this, etc.” and etc.” this, up port the package. package. the port ar said that they they that said ar up a small group small a up sto. tik it think I nsition. f social partners, partners, social f TC ad the and ETUC, p Ad l the all And up. e ih ht in that with ce ram group and group ram oehn like something o take strong strong take o nd Spidla. We Spidla. nd 254 CEU eTD Collection codn t Dpesi, h EU hd o ae com a make to had ETUC the Dupressoir, to According

Dupressoir commented on this as well:this onas commented Dupressoir rea a was This it. lacked they and knowledge expert f thing new a was It EU. the in heard widely become ma not was – trade emission – debate of subject The t in challenge general more a faced unions However, the rich and polluting North to reduce emissions, a emissions, reduce to North polluting and rich the responsibili human general a between balance to how politics. climate European the in labour represent with enough discussed been not apparently has which be to have reductions emission that – conversations opin such expressed Dojlido and Grajcarek even end, wa globally u trade and European among shared widely Europe was conviction in made be c the should but reductions dilemma a was This well. represented been o problems that risked but debate the within itself debate. the on influence from itself deprived have o position its with waited and learning in invested lwd on y oehn te dd’ fn essential find didn’t 2009) April they Brussels, something by down did slowed they and quickly very adopted package this have ie t b al t hv a obig doay proces advocacy lobbying 2009) April Brussels a have to able be to time, difficu was It infl quickly. very an act to have had to we process, wanted we if because quickly, go to und to well a as But plants. power coal-based the time for implications some took it maybe So learning. C the of servants public the here, even And myself. o implications all see to able not was I And stake. understand really Europe in unionists many trade how for know subject new a is this that is problem The n the ETS. But this way it would it way this But ETS. the n nd the statutory obligation of obligation statutory the nd or the unions, which required which unions, the or epoes ol nt have not would employees f h iprat usin was question important The r t ol hv positioned have could it Or he 2008 debate on the ETS. the on debate 2008 he ions many times during our during times many ions made. However, the issue issue the However, made. king it easier for unions to to unions for easier it king calne o te unions. the for challenge l ty as European citizens of citizens European as ty nion organizations. In the In organizations. nion n h EU ws o to how was ETUC the in ommission are still are ommission onviction that emission emission that onviction t that time we had we time that t t o u t b on be to us for lt rms. t ol have could It promise. f this instrument instrument this f srne. n this And stronger. s nos I don’t I unions. ’ wn t be to want n’t ec o the on uence . (Interview, s. what was at at was what (Interview, . rtn the erstand 255 CEU eTD Collection thi it on in put employment. Dojlido impact its and ad ETUC the position of kind the understanding with a Dojlido goals, two the between contradictions any Solidar of Commission National the from interviewee citiz European protect to organizations union trade been present in the Working Group’s debates. It sta It debates. Group’s Working the in present been posit ETUC’s the on vote 2008 March the before that 2008. and 2007 whole the throughout problematic was about ETUC the and EMCEF the between Communication structures.organizational EMCEF’s the discussion on way any in reflect to willing not was H 2009). March Brussels, (Interview, organizations” than WWF the from guy the of language the more much th “in that was problem the him, For field. playing organizat the ETUC the for him, to According 2009). NGO” environmental European another “yet it calling of wit position the about talked He unions 2008. in Directive German and Polish the with communicating also was He ETS. the on debate the in involved been a with conversation long a had I EMF. the and EMCEF in European two from came critique of kind same The biain. u i te TC os o fe wl def well feel November 2008) Gdańsk, not compl profile does its change should ETUC it maybe employees, the if But obligations. so have we that and protected be should environment agre and understand We people. i working the that members, – with deal to created were they issues with interests global general, some of name the in fight org union trade a not and NGO environmental another ETUC the think they that Germans e.g. ETUC, the of fr hear can you informally, people to talk you When sway: the ETUC with a dose of irony, irony, of dose a with ETUC the ens’ workplaces. And while my while And workplaces. ens’ rted voicing its claims only in in only claims its voicing rted s and interests voiced within within voiced interests and s present in Katowice and was was and Katowice in present e complained that the ETUC the that complained e EU te wr speaking were they ETUC e (Interview, Brussels, March March Brussels, (Interview, opted toward climate action climate toward opted d rjae hd problems had Grajcarek nd ność in Gdańsk did not see not did Gdańsk in ność ional field of NGOs was its its was NGOs of field ional n EMCEF official who had had who official EMCEF n o, h ECF a not had EMCEF the ion, of industrial trade union trade industrial of uty eeain – the – federations dustry nta o dealing of instead om some members some om Dupressoir complained complained Dupressoir s to defend their their defend to s h respect to the ETS ETS the to respect h etely. (Interview, (Interview, etely. the new ETS Directive ETS new the me international international me behaves like yet like behaves anization. They anization. ta natural that e nig the ending 256 CEU eTD Collection onto environmental issues. environmental onto Trade European the institute, research its and ETUC the like didn’t He developments. these of critical uni the to listen to willing was fraction green the fro apart Parliament, European the in that realized was It strategies. representation of terms in them N to closer get to f decided ETUC a the to BusinessEurope, due 2000s, the of beginning How the members. at its recalled, of workplace a see place first the c be should which polluter a see place first the in looking at when NGOs, that He said allies. EMCEF’s that clear it made also he conversation, our During meeting: larg a account brief a of me gave EMCEF the front from interviewee in concerns its of ignorance ETUC’s raise could EMCEF the when moment a was Katowice in its revise to refusal ETUC’s the with met were they w position posi EMCEF’s the its presenting letters present of number EMCEF the did then Only EMCEF. the w meeting a to Dupressoir invited it when September You heard what our affiliates thought about it. And it. about thought affiliates our what heard You agnly ae fud n rfeto o ta day, that of reflection any 2009) March Brussels, (Interview, September.” found I presentat today’s have your marginally in But somewhere. it prese include next your in that suppose would I affiliates, E the from are mess clear a is You there if and ETUC the to affiliated then. saying were affiliates our act you if worried, bit little a am as I So September. presentation same the exactly giving are you and presentation there. You saw the presentation of our of presentation the saw You there. presentation rsn a or xctv Meig n etme 11 September on Meeting b Executive now, our surprised at present bit a really am I “Sophie, said: I ons’ concerns. However, he was he However, concerns. ons’ losed. And the EMCEF would in would EMCEF the And losed. e srn oinain f the of orientation strong new also the time when the ETUC the when time the also March position. The meeting The position. March an industrial company, would industrial an company, te oils fato, also fraction, socialist the m ith the General Secretary of Secretary General the ith iue n ilge ih the with dialogue in ailure green NGOs were not the the not were NGOs green ually understood what understood ually Union Institute (the ETUI) ETUI) (the Institute Union age coming from your from coming age ere sent to the ETUC but but ETUC the to sent ere O ad er mr from more learn and GOs of his presentation at that that at presentation his of r no’ adec. My audience. union’s er now it is November is it now ever, as my interviewee interviewee my as ever, General Secretary. General tto yu would you ntation objectives towards the towards objectives th cue o were you ecause in Cneunl, a Consequently, tion. Yu ae your gave You . you did on 11 11 on did you o, o even not ion, TUC, we are are we TUC, f h 11 the of 257 CEU eTD Collection way: this on commented ETUC the from Dupressoir Summit. befor problems social and environmental employment, the Alliance Spring of The Platform. Social the comprised and Bureau Alliance Spring a of co-founder a M dialogue. social sectoral the through facilitated feder feder employers’ European industry to closer European getting started other as well as EMCEF, The (Interview, controlled Bru and regulated protected, in plant asbestos this have to prefer would he that labo European the i no with services of economy an as Europe imagined in people of number growing a was e ETUI the to listened he when that concluded EMCEF industrie the t by provided want documents read not to refused did He reasons. risk the of because down fo pleaded he speech emotional an In dilemmas. such environmen and health the from case this solving in representat a that recalled He asbestos. of impacts en and employees protect to adopted measures safety gave also companies the by delivered Documentation processes thosecompanies. of production to alternative no was there that proving expertise him, of front in hand, other the On asbestos. using environmen and health of aware was he hand, one the a was it that recalled He down. them close to plans productio for used was asbestos where Poland in one two defend to had he when case one about me told He e, tik t a ral a taey f h EU t ETUC the of strategy a really was it think I Yes, omn oiin ae. o e, hs s o i start it how is co this a yes, was So paper. There position windjobs. common the on conference the with ti that at there not was I development. sustainable eanwhile, the ETUC has become has ETUC the eanwhile, ssels, March 2009). March ssels, part took who ETUI, the of ive difficult situation for him. On him. for situation difficult tal perspective, did not have not did perspective, tal ndustries. And he concluded concluded he And ndustries. is a platform for addressing addressing for platform a is e a pls f companies’ of piles had he Europe where its use was was use its where Europe tos I ws institutionally was It ations. s. My interviewee from the the from interviewee My s. h ue f sets n the in asbestos of use the n against the Commission’s Commission’s the against n vironment from damaging damaging from vironment r the factory to be closed closed be to factory the r factories in Germany and Germany in factories European Environmental Environmental European ec Erpa Spring European each e initiative in the following following the in initiative he and persuaded be o vdne f l srs of sorts all of evidence with associated risks tal sat okn on working start o pr, e huh there thought he xpert, me but it started started it but me r raiain who organizations ur ations, like the EMF, EMF, the like ations, ed and then it it then and ed nference, a a nference, 258 CEU eTD Collection As my interviewee from the EMCEF pointed out, it wa it out, pointed EMCEF the from interviewee my As

akd upesi wy ol te TC ed coopera need ETUC the would why whatof it movementkind benefits and environmental Duppressoir asked I between the ETUC and the federations that communica that federations the and ETUC the between poin some At feeand fields policy-making.playing the loyalties, theconcepts, European of field wider fe industry the and ETUC’s the between reshufflings culminat a been have to seems ETS the on debate The you say: sustainable development. We need to broade to need We development. sustainable say: you and and recovered only it and years some for quiet remained March. (Interview, Brussels, April 2009)Brussels, (Interview,April March. S the to prior statements common adopt to continued investments, sustainable around like Dublin campaign in big launched really any have sto not did never we it though and declaration yearly small this with and debate the to then contributed really ETUC The mosbe o ae omn rud wt bsns org business with 2009) Brussels, April (Interview, grounds be failed, common it have agreement to an impossible to come to tried we time s very not is it but NGOs unions, labour companies, brings which Environment, for Partners European the ex had We organizations. business with work to than exte certain to NGOs, with work to easier is it say difficulty any raised never It them. with cooperate issu other view, of points other include to need we housing, sustainable housing. So it is really an al an really is it So on housing. sustainable housing, poverty, like issues on legitimacy and expertise becau useful very also is movement Social audience. learn to credible, be to movement environmental the comp natural our of issue an not is environment The ol Decallion Joël h ws n hre f h Ssanbe Development. Sustainable the of charge in was who lings of urgency were so different different sowere urgency of lings brought: derations’ positions within a a within positions derations’ liance you need when need you liance within the ETUC. I’d ETUC. the within ion of these organizational these of ion s difficult to talk because because talk to difficult s es. It was natural to natural was It es. nt with those NGOs those with nt tion became challenging. challenging. became tion uccessful and each and uccessful se they bring some bring they se etence so we need need we so etence when I was hired was I when s te agae the language, the ts, nry poverty, energy we started again started we t bodn our broaden to , pd Ad even And pped. n our scope and and scope our n pring Council in Council pring eine within perience oehr some together fewrs we afterwards ht n we one that cause it was was it cause anizations. in ih the with tion 259 CEU eTD Collection ‘Dialogue Table’. Six follow-up tables, one for eac for one tables, follow-up Six Table’. ‘Dialogue bring change, climate on dialogue social tripartite competitiv to related those particular in Protocol, tha effects adverse potentially the reduce or avoid governments. In March 2005, in the UK, a national national a UK, the in 2005, March In governments. starte also has It meetings. and forums union trade systema has jobs’ ‘green of concept the 2005, Since educationprograms. training and employment, created, be to job’ ‘green for called organizations o O1 i Mnra, n aaa on Canada, Transition Employment& Social Cohesion: Community in Montreal, in COP11 to is TUAC), (the OECD the to Committee Advisory Union F of Confederation theUnion Trade European ICFTU/ITUC), Confederation International the I policies. organizations, climate EU’s the to respect with labour st best their find to trying confused are Europe in that shown has Directive ETS the on debate 2008 The 76 Conclusion workers. f more caring started it because NGOs environmental error an making was ETUC the that thought EMCEF The to supposed were they since sectors particular from by error an making was EMCEF the fu that thought was ETUC counterpart the that convinced was side each chaired by a Government Minister and a Trade Union Union Trade a and Minister Spain Government a by Unio chaired Trade The change. set was TUSDAC) (the Committee Advisory Development climate and energy including engagement policy and workplace unions’ strengthen uni government-trade joint a by hosted sectors,was servi and industries from unions trade to addressed Saih rd Uin (CO UT, oenet and government UGT), & (CCOO Unions Trade “Spanish 76 s nte eape f ntttoaie daou on dialogue institutionalised of example another is

eness and employment established a platform for platform a established employment and eness ing the three Parties together under anumbrella anumbrella under together Parties three the ing h industrial sector have been organised, along along organised, been have sector industrial h t could result from compliance with the Kyoto Kyoto the with compliance from result could t rvnig irpin Enhancing & Disruption Preventing rategy to represent problems of problems represent to rategy d to bring together unions and unions together bring to d business organizations to prevent, prevent, to organizations business on committee. The goal was to was goal The committee. on be ‘unions’ natural enemies’. natural ‘unions’ be n fr h ceto o re- of creation the for and ces in the public and private private and public the in ces 20, he tae union trade three 2005, n in sustainable development, sustainable in ial be rfnd within refined been tically trade union organizations organizations union trade for Climate ChangeClimatefor sued a common statement statement common a sued (the ETUC) and the Tradethe and ETUC) (the ree Trade Unions (the (the Unions Trade ree or environment than for for than environment or dmnal wog The wrong. ndamentally GreenWorks up in 1998 and is jointly jointly is and 1998 in up allying with employers employers with allying by getting so close to close so getting by s o Sustainable for ns eea Secretary. General sustainable conference, . Union Union . 260 CEU eTD Collection o got i tre oe ra: h rnwbe energ renewable the areas: core three in growth job FutureProspects While the places of job losses are identified – Hun – identified are losses job of places the While collected evidence of the already-existing green jo green already-existing the of evidence collected powe purchasing the increase also they but security not efficiency energy through fuels saved addition, p than le or industries labour-intensive fuel-based fossil and conventional more be to tend produ industries, and industries, energy-efficient and friendly workforce the of sections broad a for opportunities and skill-levels, occupations, of array wide a span employment changes in the lighting industries:lightingthe in changes employment example, For others. in jobs new for opportunities losses job estimated report The efficiency. energy CO i te rmwr o ti tiatt sca di social tripartite this of framework the [email protected]. in CCOO, Allocat National the of effects economic and social commerc residential, the for meeting first the with report a published WWF like NGOs, environmental by also but organizations researche widely became jobs’ ‘green of problem The the unions, between change businesses. climate and development ihyefcet E lms bt hy oty outsour mostly of much course they of thewithin lies EU. potential selling and marketing But firms. but Asian to lamps, manufacturing Eu LED of number highly-efficient marketing a design, product in Meanwhile, involved are China. companies in produced mostly flu compact efficient but industry, lighting EU the j 3,000 50,0 some to total In Poland. 2,000 and Hungary in estimated factories an cost likely will 2012 l incandescent inefficient of phase-out planned The . The report states that evidence to date suggests suggests date to evidence that states report The . Low carbon Jobs for Europe: Current Opportunities a Opportunities Current Europe: for Jobs carbon Low

ion Plan on employment will be undertaken by by undertaken be will employment on Plan ion ial and transport sector. An in-depth study on on study in-depth An sector. transport and ial gary and Poland – it is not clearnot is it – Poland and gary bs and assessments of potential potential of assessments and bs ss energy-efficient products. In In products. energy-efficient ss in some countries while seeing seeing while countries some in aais ptnily offering potentially salaries, I pit ot ht climate- that out points It . h WF eot calculated report WWF the only contribute to energy energy to contribute only r of consumers. The report report The consumers. of r .. h WF I 20 the 2009 In WWF. the e.g. t ascae wt those with associated cts (WWF 2009) d, not only by trade union trade by only not d,

alogue.” More information: information: More alogue.” out ascae with associated roducts sco, rnpr, and transport, sector, y orescent lights are are lights orescent amps in the EU by EU the in amps 00 people work in work people 00 n slig of selling and b, oty at mostly obs, the design, design, the government and and government that green jobs jobs green that ce the the ce ropean ropean 261 nd

CEU eTD Collection os i poue mil a te U n internationa and EU the at mainly produced is jobs’ os faeok em t b to au fr oe f t of some for vague too be to seems framework jobs’ winners: jobs’ as‘green the place may jobs’ ‘dirty of losers the that seems it (CHP) combined of case in Similarly, lamps. LED efficient ma in design, involved countriesare European which n bod seset o te mat f lmt poli climate of impact the of assessments broad and p in engages more and more getting dissatisfaction is ETUC the that A governments. grow is workers industry national representing organizations to left are particu movement. for labour European scenarios the in tension foresee generates to difficult it makes lo be will jobs some that clear it makes report The uoen oiis n fnig esrs A a result a As measures. funding and policies European st its coin to inability its by proved additionally ETU the of weakness The sectors. or countries their anxiety their reduce not does it and organizations A number of European countries use CHP fairly exten fairly CHP use countries European of number A (WWF 2009) (WWF2009) potential market the systems, CHP by met currently el global of percent 8 just that Given systems. CHP o percent 20 than more of share a has instance, for Th capturing Europe. of outside countries in CHP of expansion of terms ca - in facilities building and - developing, designing, benefit to placed well are Eur sales. export in opportunity employment growing supplier at found typically are jobs additional as r be to needs figure This jobs. 260,000 f of estimate this Applying GW. 104 of capacity a has currently ca CHP existing of MW 10 every maintain and operate worke 25 of average an that suggests estimate rough Poland, Germany, Netherlands, the Finland, Denmark, atements and proposals into actual into proposals and atements not necessarily live in the same the in live necessarily not about potential jobs losses in losses jobs potential about t hl ohr gie u it but gained others while st heat and power generation generation power and heat rketing and selling of highly- of and rketing selling lvl ad oiy solutions policy and levels l ing as they start to realize realize to start they as ing a te uoen ee is level European the at C is n aor Te ‘green The labour. on cies te TC eoe more becomes ETUC the , lar Member States. This This States. Member lar egarded with caution caution with egarded The knowledge on ‘green ‘green on knowledge The ia gos rm an from goods pital im. hr i also is There firms. ouig eea figures general roducing ectricity demand is demand ectricity is very substantial. very is e United Kingdom, United e f global exports of of exports global f mn tae union trade among rs are required to required are rs opean companies opean rua ils an yields ormula and Romania. A Romania. and sively, including sively, e TCs member ETUC’s he aiy Europe pacity. contracts for for contracts 262 CEU eTD Collection EMCEF and ETUF-TCL may be the one of the signs of t oftheof one the signs ETUF-TCL may be and EMCEF movement jobs ‘dirty the and movement’ jobs’ ‘green m movement labour European the localities, specific to jobs’ ‘green of framework the elaborate to mange S Union Emission Trading European theto regulation did they but States Member some in measures policy oenet t tk ses o nue ht industrial that ensure to development. steps sustainable manage resource natural sustainable and eradication take and to employment governments of problems 77 developmen frameworkthesustainable of into labour mo labour international and European the of work of e movement the make future the in may disagreements Directiv ETS new the the included which package, energy brought of negotiation have 2008 The crosswords. to the to movement seems change fragmentation Climate the to movement. leads this And limits. employe certain the of concerns take to ready are Employers i which companies, industry of associations to turn jobs’. ‘dirty represent which organizations, union betwee relation the in visible particularly is This workers ofin problems rootgrassfromthe distant n 02 drn te ol Smi o Ssanbe De Sustainable on Summit World the during 2002, In

ment. ment. velopment, unions started to reflect on on reflect to started unions velopment, development contributes to poverty poverty to contributes development te TCad nuty trade industry and ETUC the n This makes the industry unions industry the makes This Europe. Europe. The Summit called on national national on called Summit The include concerns of unions in in unions of concerns include s not a good solution either. either. solution good a not s t vement to bring problems of of problems bring to vement cheme. If the ETUC does not does the cheme.If ETUC 77 ’. The merger of the EMF, EMF, the of merger The ’. his split. his in the European labour labour European the in e, has shown that internal that shown has e, ven weaker. Several years Several weaker. ven resulted in someconcrete in resulted ay split into a European European a into split ay h Ciae hne and change Climate the s n or ol within only board on es not bring labour-related labour-related bring not European labour labour European 263 CEU eTD Collection 0322 ws hfe ad onre, hc fulfille which countries, and shifted was 2013-2020 fo year base the Also 66). p. 2009/29/EC, Directive pri market at capita per GDP average the of percent mar at capita per GDP the thirdly, and fuel, fossil to had electricity of percent 30 than more 2006, in t to connected poorly be to had network electricity Member those on conditions several put it time same system auction full the from out opt to possibility market price did not exceed 50 % of the average GDP theaverage of % 50 exceed not did marketprice prod was electricity of % 30 than more 2006, in (c) less of capacity with a line single a through UCTE n was o was network theelectricity national in 2007, (b) network electricity national the for Union by the operated system interconnected the 2007, in (a) met: is conditions following phy was process investment operati the which for production in production electricity for installations 78 mod the for allocation generation free transitional for option the was It Directive. ETS the to added was article Europea the of Council December the during However, no be economies. national would there words, other In 65). (p. States” sc Community the under differently sectors economic is it EU, the in economy carbon low a to transition highe the ensure to and competition intra-Community o in that said which Directive, ETS the of proposal reit also text The 64-65). (p. remained allocation allowance auctions Community, the of scheme trading amen 2009 greenhou the extend and April improve O to as 23 so 2003/87/EC 2009/29/EC of COUNCIL DIRECTIVE THE new OF the AND PARLIAMENT of text final the In Conclusion y eoain rm ril 1a1 t () Mme S Member (5), to 10a(1) Article from derogation By 78 p 7) Te ril 1c rne sm Mme States Member some granted 10c Article The 76). (p.

nly directly or indirectly connected to the network the to connected indirectly or directly nly n y 1 eebr 08r o ntlain fr elect for installations to 2008or December 31 by on than 400 MW; or MW; 400 than Coordination of Transmission of Electricity (UCTE) Electricity of Transmission of Coordination uced from a single fossil fuel, and the GDP per cap per GDP the and fuel, fossil single a from uced sically initiated by the same date, provided that o that provided date, same the by initiated sically per capita at market price of the Community.theof marketprice at capita per ot directly or indirectly connected to the network network the to connected indirectly or directly ot tates may give a transitional free allocation to to allocation free transitional a give may tates between 2013 and 2020. At the At 2020. and 2013 between erated the conclusion from the from conclusion the erated he international grid. Secondly, grid. international he Article 10c, which provided an provided which 10c, Article r emission reductions between reductions emission r ket price could not exceed 50 50 exceed not could price ket rder to avoid distortion in the in distortion avoid to rder found inappropriate to “treat “treat to inappropriate found d conditions outlined in the the in outlined conditions d e rdcd rm single a from produced be st economic efficiency in the in efficiency economic st States. Firstly, the national the Firstly, States. heme in individual Member individual in heme e f h Cmuiy (ETS Community the of ce rfrnil ramn for treatment preferential se gas emission allowance allowance emission gas se riain f electricity of ernisation Uin a important an Union, n h bsc rnil of principle basic the F THE EUROPEAN EUROPEAN THE F ig Directive ding

operated by by operated ih a with ne of the the of ne ; ricity ricity ita at at ita 264 CEU eTD Collection verified emissions in 2005-2007” (ETS Directive 200Directive in emissions2005-2007” (ETS verified e their for base-year the as take could 10c Article er e b te yt Protocol Kyoto the by set year e aohr hne nrdcd o h fnl et of text final the to introduced change another Yet at least 20 % below their emissions in the base yea base the in emissions their below % 20 least at Stat Member amongst distributed be should auctioned eeal eeg fr 00 xed , % f D. fu A GDP. of % 0,7 exceed 2020 measures for packag implementation energy renewable overall of the package of the costs accompanying direct the where except avera the than higher % 20 than more is that capita pro growth high and head per levels income low with f t es 2 pret n rehue a emissions gas greenhouse in percent 20 least at of i which States, Member the to cap emission EU total redi for provision the was It Poland. to beneficial levels of income per capita in 2005 and the growth and 2005 in capita chang per income levelsof climate of effects solidarity the to of adapt and purpose emissions the for States Member certain according to their relative share of emissions in t in emissions of share relative their to according 79 pockets of the utility companies. utility theof pockets windfal new preventing at aimed which IFIEC-method, rul this officials, Polish to According pric allowances. w it because market electricity of the price the passing to allowances from companies sector power i was rule This 10(2).” Article to pursuant auction Memb respective the that allowances of quantity the al free “transitional the that said 10c Article The elaboration of rules of the game, the delimitation delimitation the game, the of rules of elaboration framing including activities, design these uncertaint without all of purged and mark mechanized “no routinized, carbon (2009), Callon European to the According stage. that experimental clear it made b a process as result negotiation the heralded media Polish Membe European Eastern and intotakeCommissiontheir notaccount did European Central other and Poland from 2005 to 2007, whichever one is the highest. 10 highest. isthe whichever one 2007, to 2005 from 8 o te oa qatt o alwne t b auc be to allowances of quantity total the of % 88

79 Ti ws rsos t ojcin md by made objections to response a was This . r applicable to them under the Kyoto Protocol. Protocol. Kyoto the under them to applicable r he Community scheme for 2005 or the average of the the of average the or 2005 for scheme Community he prospects of Member States, and be higher for Membe for higher be and States, Member of prospects % of the total quantity should be distributed to t to distributed be should quantity total the of % ge in the Community should contribute to this distr this to contribute should Community the in ge . h dsrbto o ti 1 % hud ae no a into take should % 10 this of distribution The e. spects. Member States with an average level of inco of level average an with States Member spects. es, the greenhouse gas emissions of which were, in were, which of emissions gas greenhouse the es, and growth in the Community, to be used to reduce reduce to used be to Community, the in growth and e estimated in the Commission’s impact assessment assessment impact Commission’s the in estimated e tioned should be distributed amongst Member States States Member amongst distributed be should tioned te 2 o te oa qatt o alwne t be to allowances of quantity total the of % 2 rther for the EU’s objectives on climate change and and change climate on objectives EU’s the for locations shall be deducted from from deducted be shall locations mission reductions the “average “average the reductions mission rfetd h picpe f the of principle the reflected e of agents to take into account, account, into take to agents of and qualification of goods, the goods, of qualification and ntroduced in order to prevent to order in ntroduced stribution of 2 percent of the the of percent 2 of stribution 9/29/EC, p.51). 9/29/EC, s o alwd o el these sell to allowed not as Kyoto reduction Kyotoefforts. n 2005 achieved a reduction a achieved 2005 n oprd o h reference the to compared ig success but the whole whole the but success ig ta i cn niey do entirely can it that y r tt wud otherwise would State er market is so stabilized, stabilized, so is market the ETS Directive was was Directive ETS the pois oig o the to coming profits l e of free emission emission free of e t a sil n an in still was et Sae ta the that States r he benefit of of hebenefit ibution, ibution, r States States r me per per me ccount ccount period period 2005, 2005, 265

CEU eTD Collection codn t Clo e a. 20) cnrvril cl controversial (2009), al. et Callon to According eiiae a ad te patcs ol bcm ill become would practices other and way legitimate negotiatio practices some which ETS within fields The over boundaries re-negotiated. were fields these wh pract of fields actors, various to relation in heterogeneous organization of networks the were these foru ‘hybrid various within with dealt are concern’ economi political, as classified and ordered become w communication Through alliance. solid c a in a result is There int of juxtaposition claims. and simplification their adjustment, for approval some brings framing their if see to audiences their probe often em Thi 2009). Callon 2005, Latour (see them articulate of aspects different about concerned become They Bolta (see worth’ of ‘orders various within operate be also political is trade emission of Organization in inscribed politics. thus is trade emission of development represented be to and markets on position dominant lat the to turn former the whereby 2001), Fligstein co between relations close involves it because also parliaments, governments, national by approval for for unanimity, for need the by limited was thus and ins forumsand various political within place takes disagree of space a as indexed been has negotiation p is it and 270), p. 2002, (Barry institutions” and techni of set a as – “politics of many sense traditional in political is trade emission p of organization dissertation this in examined negotiation ETS The full negotiation was fact. ETS The this of evidence tr and NGOs governments, businesses, by out carried ( equipment.” calculative their of construction the cal practices, forms of knowledge knowledge of forms practices, cal olitical in the sense that the ETS the that sense the in olitical ice. Simultaneously, relations in in relations Simultaneously, ice. of controversies.of titutions of the European Union, European theof titutions nski and Thevenot 1999, 2006). 2006). 1999, Thevenot and nski mpanies and governments (see (see governments and mpanies rss wih a o my not may or may which erests, p. 540). The massive lobbying lobbying massive The 540). p. s is not always easy and actors and easy always not is s c, environmental, societal, etc. societal, environmental, c, ter for support to secure their their secure to support for ter etc. Emission trade is political is trade Emission etc. took It 2002). Barry (see ment cause it engages actors who who actors engages it cause a majority of votes, the need the votes, of majority a of problems resonates and and resonates problems of in political negotiations. The negotiations. political in ess I i pltcl n a in political is It senses. s. n h eaie case, examined the In ms’. assifications of ‘matters of of ‘matters of assifications ith other actors, concerns concerns actors, other ith could be carried out in a a in out carried be could oint to the fact that the the that fact the to oint institutionalized forms of of forms institutionalized ade unions gave a clear clear a gave unions ade sin rd ad r to try and trade ission as poue new produced also n ertain process of the the of process ertain ngtae te ETS the negotiated o gtmt. hs new These egitimate. 266 CEU eTD Collection various actors were often re-framed in the course o course the in re-framed often were actors various to evidence gave this and minor were 2008, January one way of bringing thepotential bringing theofofpolitical way one ac the in them enact they how and them justify they act how on focus A results. its in neutral never is alwa is It self-evident. and obvious never is frame insid stays What prov politics. and may power for thus accounting economy 2002), to Miller 2003, approach (Fine accusations performativity The one. neutral or process, coercive a be may framing and political o outside reality the of parts some leaving implies enc cannot it because selective is framing economic extra-economic to frame. proposed the up pointedblow to equality solidarity, who actors by challenged of framing the which through processes illuminated Pol by challenged was commodity a as dioxide carbon pr this to central quite were innovations frame and contro many raised ETS the on trade to how and What times at cha may be organization as political trade sho This frameworks. legal European with accordance te efficiency, their of terms in discussed were ETS At perfect’. almost was Commission the of proposal propo Directive, ETS the to introduced changes that a Directive ETS new officia An solution. the efficient most environmentally of text final the presented 2009 May in Brussels in Week Green the During 270). “profoundly is that exercise an expression, (2002) marke make which black-boxes, and technicalities of but construction, markets’ in inherent is Politics Commission governments. and European contro and power of relations structured boundaries performativity approach forward. approach performativity it is often hidden behind the veil the behind hidden often is it ors negotiate these frames, how how frames, these negotiate ors ys a proposal of an order, which order, an of proposal a ys l from the DG Environment said said Environment DG the from l llenging and counterintuitive.and llenging This also points to the fact that that fact the to points also This anti-political in (…) effects” (p. (p. effects” (…) in anti-political ocess. For instance, framing of framing instance, For ocess. tual process of trading may be be may trading of process tual f it. In this sense, frames are are frames sense, this In it. f that meeting, the rules of the the of rules the meeting, that at least it is never a power- a never is it least at t organization, to use Barry’s Barry’s use to organization, t hia faiiiy ad their and feasibility, chnical f the negotiation. The thesis The negotiation. the f ompass everything. Framing everything. ompass ad ht ty otie a outside stays what and e , the European Commission European the , ish actors, and interests of of interests and actors, ish sed by the Commission in in Commission the by sed bten opne, the companies, between l ws that to study emission emission study to that ws ‘the economic’ was often often was economic’ ‘the the fact that ‘the initial initial ‘the that fact the ese i 20. Frames 2008. in versies d u wt a a for way a with us ide a eooial and economically an s esn lk fairness, like reasons dsie numerous despite , 267 CEU eTD Collection of inside the between tension a create they because frames that showing at aimed also dissertation This 1998). (seeCallon also prof but initiating of towards part important an markets is framing the on actions their orient to stab are markets Once compromises. and negotiations marke given a in control of conceptions end, the In (Fligstein change” for coalitions political forward fo identities collective create “they do: movements mark the what of conceptions different with forming si 76), (p. movement” social resemble politics “the (2001) Fligstein way. same the in organization this t and way strategic a in organized are markets that theor different using By moments. such to attention (2009) Callon Both process. organization reflexive t fact the to points also frame-making on focus The preferenand interests, their ofvisions expression creat their for structure 2008 opportunity an the of opening perceived actors Many never’. or ‘now the do to wanted really Commission the unless change to the in down put po was What ETS. the of important working future an was ETS the of architecture general they negotiated, be still would ETS the of details inte my of some though, and negotiated, were scheme momen the was phase policy-making The tactics. main so a persuasion actors, examined elite powerful of traditionally mobilization of case in unlike though, moment the was It negotiation. ETS the of character to pointed framing of processes and frames on focus divid also they but actors, and things incorporated stabili and stability secure to or action, mobilize indu to strategy actors’ an as examined was Framing

ze institutions. Frames linked and linked Frames institutions. ze ces. ces. 2001 p. 76 after Tarrow 1994). 1994). Tarrow after 76 p. 2001 also pointed to the fact that the the that fact the to pointed also stabilizing institutional orders institutional stabilizing nd framing were ones of their their of ones were framing nd and Fligstein (2001) draw our draw (2001) Fligstein and hat not all actors benefit from from benefit actors all not hat dsaae rus ht push that groups disparate r oie ta i nw markets new in that notices the frame and the outside of outside the and frame the etical approaches they argue argue they approaches etical et will be. This is what social social what is This be. will et ivity, innovativeness, for the the for innovativeness, ivity, are prone to being changed being to prone are it. So for many actors it was it actors many for So it. d n ecue te. The them. excluded and ed t may be results of political political of results be may t nce a lot of new firms are are firms new of lot a nce Directive would be difficult difficult be would Directive hat the ETS is caught in a a in caught is ETS the hat ce processes of change and change of processes ce rviewees agreed that many that agreed rviewees the of rules general when t f ra mblzto and mobilization great of ilized, frames allow actors actors allow frames ilized, h sca movement-like social the il oeet i ws a was it movement, cial t aig Consequently, making. it int of departure for the the for departure of int T ngtain s the as negotiation ETS 268 CEU eTD Collection rules3). (p. European that i solving specializing networks policy of and problem actors, among on put t mainly legal, is political, here emphasis from ranging 3) of (p. level governance” European the at Eu development to and refer emergence (2001) Risse and Caporaso Green-Cowles, processes these of outcomes on conditions domestic studies of proliferation a to led making policy and su of process le the about concerns policy, Initial relations. public in li scholars the scientists, in f political discussed stand widely been may mobilization has of Europeanization ‘Europeanization’ mechanism what a of as understanding framing on focus The negotiations.thesuccess in a i and this and – cause given a for support irrelevant international f became to often framing opportunities nationalistic opened and framing gov nationalistic EU the of conditions institutional and material acros cooperation and communication demanded making w Europe in markets because sustained easily be not nation a that indicated analysis the of parts Other th researched. between f separations various new between propose and mediate them to between able are who actors by St and (Vedres fold structural a in rather or 1995) ac those to compared positio network of type The stable. and unambiguous more do to able be to and more positi from their thrive also may they But clarity. structu some of overlapping the on or proximity its questio and unclear fuzzy, porous, become may times ‘ex-fr is excluded the and included the between and exclude, what and ‘in-framed’ is what between – it on. They may be privileged to seeto beprivileged may They on. alistic framing of interests could interests of framing alistic was the necessary condition for condition necessary the was ark 2010) – which are occupied occupied are which – 2010) ark pranational institution-building pranational a suis n international and studies gal n the creation of authoritative authoritative of creation the n res may be longing for some some for longing be may res hc eaie ipcs of impacts examined which ns – in a structural hole (Burt hole structural a in – ns there is a boundary, which at which boundary, a is there md. rms nld and include Frames amed’. ere open and the EU policy- EU the and open ere (Green-Cowles et al. 2001). al. et (Green-Cowles rac pt iiain to limitations put ernance ned. Actors in this zone, in zone, this in Actors ned. sca isiuin. The institutions. social o nefficient for mobilizing mobilizing for nefficient s national borders. These borders. national s eaue mil among mainly terature, formalizes interactions interactions formalizes ae noain. The innovations. rame os hs lcto is location whose tors ed, rnlt issues translate ields, oenzto a “the as ropeanization m hud e further be should em distinct structures of of structures distinct r Te ocp of concept The or. also furthers our our furthers also 269 CEU eTD Collection dpain n a rcs o lann nw wy o d of ‘ways new learning of process a and Adaptation as it Hedefined Europeanization. of concept (2000) levels, individual and institutional both at place cognitivestructustudyingand actors towards rules fro shift a provides mechanism third The dom processes. of expectations and beliefs of altering studies and resources for compete institutional and actors opportun domestic altering the to points one second institutiona dire particular a prescribing on by focuses institutions one first The 1999). Lehmkuhl and integrati negative integration, positive relations: type ideal three between distinguished Lehmkuhl and For the 1999). namely policy-making, European of form dominant Lehmkuhl and Knill 2005; al. et (Falkner const differentforaccount to strategies and tools come to out set group another Yet 2001). (Schneider domesti of adjus far-reaching to pointed others persistence 1995), Waarden the emphasized scholars Some from transfer models’ institutional the and making in hand went policy-making and politics in Interest 69).(p. policy-making” national part become dynamics economic and political EC that and direction the re-orienting process “incremental to According adaptation. this of aspects processual 1999). (Börzel policy-making European to subjected polic domestic which by process a and 1999) (Lawton s of transfer a as of conceived was Europeanization impac EU the which in ways various describe to used Europeaniz 2000s, of beginning the at (2002), Olsen Mény 1996; al. et Héritier (see expressed was level insti studyof thorough a for need a States, Member Eur of penetration increasing an with however, Soon on and framing integration (Knill (Knill integration framing and on ellations of European integration European of ellations came to the centre of Radaelli’s Radaelli’s of centre the to came res that guide actions.guide their that res mdl b E plcs The polices. EU by models l shape of politics to the degree degree the politicstoof shape a process of “(a) construction, construction, “(a) of process a tutional change at the nationalthe changeat tutional the EU to its Member States. States. Member its to EU the i, uoenzto i an is Europeanization him, tments at the national levels national the at tments si atr twrs policy towards actors estic suyn isiuin and institutions studying m arc (94 emphasizes (1994) Ladrech up with efficient analytical efficient with up ad ih tde o rule of studies with hand t l 19) Acrig to According 1996). al. et of the organization logic of of logic organization the of overeignty to the EU level level EU the to overeignty EU regulatory policy, Knill policy, regulatory EU pa plce it te EU the into policies opean ted on the Member States. States. Member the on ted s of the EU-member states states EU-member the of s power, and the third one one third the and power, t srcue ihn which within structure ity ation was most commonly commonly most was ation y areas were increasingly increasingly were areas y ig hns, hc takes which things’, oing ntne fcsn o a on focusing instance, t hne f domestic of change ct c arrangements (van (van arrangements c 270 CEU eTD Collection become time with may It pieces. and bits accidental of assembled and actors by produced value it but discovered the to similarly Europeanness, The it. for a find, ‘objectively’ can everyone which wa something, European ‘a certainly However, well. as p doubtful legislative European from which and national from which out finding in succeed may we Europeanization sociol a not and legalistic, a take to decide we If the embody which ofthings’. European doing ‘away negotiate who objects specific, and less discourses or experience, more something be to ‘domest European their in adopted European the what imagine be who actors by constructed to actors the for there te European ‘A actors. various between interactions through but diffusion top-down simple a though not v in produced is European’ ‘the that claim I First, pic flat more a in bring and duality this dismantle nati the at ‘adopted further be may level’ European that emphasized is it (2000), European’. Radealli by ‘the proposed and domestic’ ‘the between duality ma one Europeanization, of concepts reviewed the In fram paradigms, legitimacies, identities, political as suchdiscourses normativeaspects, and cognitive R 4). p. 2000, (Radealli EU” the from coming styles maps, cognitive discourses, of levels) subnational politic domestic the in institutionalisation the to p takes which behaviour”, political of logic the in undersc definition His 4). (p. policies” public and i discourses, domestic of logic the in incorporated mak the in consolidated and defined first are which an things’ doing of ‘ways styles, paradigms, policy forma of institutionalisation (c) and diffusion (b) ogical or anthropological, view on view anthropological, or ogical es and narratives (2000).narratives and es l and informal rules, procedures, rules, informal and l al system (at the national and-or national the (at system al lace “through a process leading process a “through lace ores the importance of “change “change of importance the ores arious localities, and it is done done is it and localities, arious on Europe, norms and values, and norms Europe, on nd would know where to look to where know would nd dentities, political structures structures political dentities, inscribed in material objects material in inscribed ing of EU decisions and then and decisions EU of ing ue f h Erpa Union. European the of ture from heterogenous and often and heterogenous from a communicative iteration of iteration communicative a sae bles n norms and beliefs shared d environment, is not to be be to not is environment, ht s cntutd t the at ‘constructed is what omtv faeok and frameworks normative adaelli argues for studying studying for argues adaelli nl ee’ I ol lk to like would I level’. onal pae de nt xs out exist not does mplate’ y notice an insistence on a a on insistence an notice y legal frameworks resulted resulted frameworks legal might be, who expect the the expect who be, might o dig hns i not is things’ doing of y rocesses. But I find this this find I But rocesses. Even in the framework framework the in Even c rcie’ bt t is it but practices’, ic uoen no to Union European refer to their past past their to refer 271 CEU eTD Collection A.L.] interpretative orientations, such that some s some that such orientations, interpretative A.L.] aneffec and produce fields,themto across various [Soci SMO and individual of linkage “the as defined ali ‘frame as conceptualised process the literature f various from coming actors of values and concerns ab are and actors heterogeneous among resonate that an requires also it but 2008), (Pleines skills) new politic to access easier an for necessary resources proc political of understanding an require only not heard beto dialogue, a othersin engage to EU, the capacity the and 1986), al. et Snow (see alignment’ these about bringing for mechanism the that argue I Macenational1997,lines (Dolvikalong gone always i organized among and within drawn being solidarity have studies some However, areas. institutional and Eu and integration European to resistance of source bee have identities national to tied interests that H and (1992) Schlesinger cause. common a for others ef an often is This objectives. and interests their articula fram this use to strategically also may try They European. they if and them analyze interests, similarities express to actors allows which point, Un European The way. ‘European’ a in doing are they fieldwork a claim-making their for this arena an as Union of European mechanism important an is Framing carrie work as theEurope: of power examined be may emp to subject be may power state the out, be pointed (2007) Kowalski rather should European as MacKen act and (see peaks’ w the but ‘agential Commission European the like Europeanness certain also are en There and reshaping of process constant a undergoes it ‘European a time each mobilized and institutions or between them. They gauge their gauge They them. between et of individual interests, values values interests, individual of et ability to come up with frames with up come to ability t of the European Union. European theof t , listened to and followed, does followed, and to listened , al decision-makers (personnel, decision-makers al iin srtg fr mobilizing for strategy ficient to represent one’s interests in in interests one’s represent to gnment’ (Snow et al. 1986) is is 1986) al. et (Snow gnment’ esses and an ability to gather to ability an and esses mil se a a potential a as seen mainly n example’ has to be given, but given, be to has example’ y 1998). y ields. In the social movement movement social the In ields. e to invite actors to re-think re-think to actors invite to e examined as a fieldwork. So fieldwork. a as examined d out in various locations, invarious in locations, out d e omnlte a being as commonalities te nd propose to frame things things frame to propose nd hw nw onais of boundaries new shown ropeanization in the policy policy the in ropeanization ooghe et al. (1999) noticed noticed (1999) al. et ooghe al Movement Organization Organization Movement al new boundaries is ‘frame ‘frame is boundaries new cig y aiu actors. various by acting trss wih ae not have which nterests, ay in which they become become they which in ay ion becomes a reference reference a becomes ion le to associate interests, interests, associate to le Atr cntut the construct Actors . rcl netgto. As investigation. irical i e a. 08 of 2008) al. et zie 272 CEU eTD Collection visions, objectives, identities and problems into n into problems and identities objectives, visions, view on boundary making processes. Callon (1998), a (1998), Callon processes. making boundary on view be “should State the (1991), Mitchell to According t them inviting of mechanism a is It opportunities. them helping ideology by together people and things linking Framing and 464). p. goals, 1986, al. activities, et (Snow complementary” SMO and beliefs and Callon (2009) and Eyal (2009) take another step for step another take (2009) Eyal and (2009) Callon form distinction. of objectified thi or actors between distinction conceptual a only Whi de boundary’. ‘symbolic (1992) a to Lamont’s relation in with boundary’ resonates view This others. it as long as work boundary a is work boundary the discou institutions, various in located and society proces These making. boundary of processes material distin a not is boundary State the 19 (1991), (Mitchell Mitchell object” actual an of border the not is and arrangements such of effect the merely is state conclud he And 94). (p. exist” of to appear structures effect metaphysical powerful, as but structure, and organizational structures. Both scholars are in are scholars Bothstructures. organizational and has which space, material a as fields between space the on (2009), Eyal society. in available are which Framing is frame. the reality outside reality the the of of existence aspects some of framing that fact th rather effect structural a as State the of speak text seminal his In Union? European the is real how I State? the is real how question: the asks (1991) a as State-making of theorization (1991) Mitchell’s be thus may It efforts. framing of lot as involves effe an becomes Union European the approach this In Europe’.to ‘closer understood through the Timothy Timothy the through understood ew directions. It displaces them displaces It directions. ew rses, practices and objects. And objects. and practices rses, o shift their attention, activities, attention, their shift o other hand, is interested in the in interested is hand, other an of state as a realistic entity. realistic a as state of an terested in how ‘the inside’ and inside’ ‘the how in terested would like to ask the question: question: the ask to like would is recognized and accepted by accepted and recognized is does not mark a real edge. It edge. real a mark not does ngs, a ‘social boundary’ is an is boundary’ ‘social a ngs, t hn, u i i a eut of result a is it but thing, ct s ht te onay f the of boundary “the that es eis n aiu requisites, various on relies , Mitchell (1991) proposes to proposes (1991) Mitchell , its volume, actors, practices actors, volume, its ward to a more materialistic materialistic more a to ward to recognize similarities and similarities recognize to 1 p 9-5. codn to According 94-95). p. 91, ct of actor’s practices which practices actor’s of ct e ‘yblc onay is boundary’ ‘symbolic a le structural effect. Mitchell Mitchell effect. structural examined not as an actual actual an as not examined osbe ny u t the to due only possible fter Goffman, points to the the to points Goffman, fter rcie ta mk such make that practices ses are spread throughout spread are ses is thus a mechanism of of mechanism a thus is finition of the ‘social ‘social the of finition are congruent and and congruent are 273 CEU eTD Collection journalists, statisticians, and also academics who who academics also and statisticians, journalists, mo only the not is policy-making above, argued I As constru socio-technically the see to us allows also contro to attention closer pay and actors follow to actor-n the from and research practice-oriented the an from stems that program a is consideration these European of program research The effect. structural which through practices of locations various become t and flat fact in is EU the perspective, this From t for Union, European European theUnion. against the on European, as world the assem to location various in elements collect which Un European the of calculation of centers important po a and disciplining a in acts which and mobilized can which sphere, a becomes EU the 2007), Kowalski Th Union. European the of boundary the producing of t of practices (2009), Eyal by made proposition the the on ‘scholarship as work their tag to themselves various are These Union. European the of production actors, of range a also is there But conversations. gover national in produced is It produced. is Union innat thechanges betweenrelation theand ‘shifts sen make actors when moment the is purification and relati the in changes and shifts when moment the is moment two purification and translation are its These inseparable. has Union European the incl of dissertation production this in examined case The States. polic making of moments the in produced intensively pra actors’ of effect an thus is Union European The eachmaint on totheyother how rely and sustained, f one between distinction the how or outside’, ‘the which seem to specializy in the in specializy to seem which versies in which they engage. It It engage. they which in versies he levels of the EU governance governance EU the of levels he ional and the European’. European’. the and ional cted character of ‘doing things ‘doing of character cted (see Latour 1987). Translation Translation 1987). Latour (see werful way on actors. They are are They actors. on way werful nment, at schools, during daily daily during schools, at nment, hese actors make up the work the up make actors hese ain this separation. this separation. ain ble them anew and present to present and anew them ble etwork-theory which urges us urges which etwork-theory ies that abide all EU Member EU all abide that ies European Union’. Following Union’. European ield and the other field, are are field, other the and ield on between actors are made made are actors between on ization, which emerges from from emerges which ization, anthropological tradition of tradition anthropological tcs wih a b more be may which ctices, rough their ‘fieldwork’ (see ‘fieldwork’ their rough nd e o ocue that conclude to me ined rw budr around boundary a draw ion and the Europeanness Europeanness the and ion h E i poue a a as produced is EU the ment when the European European the when ment e f hs cags s of as changes these of se eiaie, eerd to, referred imagined, be e uoen no or Union European he , hc, n at are fact, in which, s, hn tns NGOs, tanks, think 274 CEU eTD Collection mobil animmutable not is Europeannessthe approach independent reality objective an have things doing the with out setting of instead way’ European a in assumption that such ways of ways such that assumption f cos hmevs I this In themselves. actors of e (seeLatour1987).e 275 CEU eTD Collection Literature: blfa M 1996. M. Abolafia, basy K (d) 2010. (ed.). K. Abramsky, oi M 1988. M. Aoki, Appadurai, A. 1986.A. Appadurai, Economy Albert, M.1991. Albert, 1996. (eds). G. Ilonszki A.; Agh, msin Trading Emissions Former Soviet Union FormerSoviet Variations inUnionEffectiveness. Variations Ce East in Relations State-Labour 2005. S. Avdagic, Akhurst, M.; Morgheim J.; Lewis R. 2003. Greenhouse 2003. R. Lewis J.; Morgheim M.; Akhurst, pio, . 2010. H. ApSimon, Street tuge i te rniin o Ps-erl World Post-Petrol a to Transition AK Press. Edinburgh: the in Struggles Press. Press. Steps Second Buchner, and Carlo Carraro (eds). (eds). Carraro Fairnessand Rents Scheme: Rights, Trading Carlo and Buchner, Denny In: Hungary. 10. Chapter 2006. Istvan. Bart, Athlone The Press. London: 2001 Andrew. Barry, capitalism 2001. P. Barnes, o Logics Geographers. British of Institute Territorial and Regulatory the 2009. S. Governance: Maresh I.; Bailey, amcd, . 2008. M. Balmaceda, in BP. in based on submission from members of the NIAM networfrom on submission NIAM memberstheof based . Cambridge: HarvardPress.University Cambridge: . Energy PolicyEnergy . Cambridge: Cambridge Press.University Cambridge:Cambridge . . Washington: Island Press. .Washington:Island . Budapest: Hungarian Centre of Democracy Studies. Centre Democracyof.Budapest:Studies. Hungarian Capitalisme contreCapitalismeCapitalisme nomto, netvs ad agiig n h Japa the in Bargaining and Incentives, Information, h on te k? u cmo ast ad h future the and assets common Our sky? the owns Who Junl oplto Ryl egahcl oit wi Society Geographical Royal Compilation Journal . The social life of thingsof life social The 31(7): 657–663. . London: Routledge. . London: Information Requested Concerning the PRIMES Model: Model: PRIMES the Concerning Requested Information Making Markets: Opportunism and Restraint on Wall Wall on Restraint and Opportunism Markets: Making nry eedny Pltc ad orpin n the in Corruption and Politics Dependency, Energy oiia mcie: oenn tcnlgcl society technological governing machines: Political Sparking a Worldwide Energy Revolution: Social Social Revolution: Energy Worldwide a Sparking Scales and Networks of Neoliberal Climate Climate Neoliberal of Networks and Scales Socio-Economic Review Socio-Economic alaet ad raie Itrss The Interests. Organized and Parliaments loain n h Erpa Emission European the in Allocation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Cambridge Cambridge: . , [manuscript] pp. 329-355. [manuscript] pp. , . Paris: Le Seuil. Paris: . ta Erp. Explaining Europe. ntral . lemn Braa K. Barbara Ellerman, A. Gas Emissions Trading Emissions Gas k . Okad C and CA Oakland, . 3(1): 25-53. Erpa Union European f h the th nese 276 of . . CEU eTD Collection

EconomicLife. Living in a material world: economic sociology meet sociology economic world: material a in Living oiy aig Mre Bsd ntuet bten Ac between Instruments Based Market Legitimacy – Making Policy Journal of Social TheorySocialof Journal itr M 2010. M. Bitter, 1996. Press. Cornell N.Y.: University Ithaca, (eds). R. Dore, S.; Berger, (ed.). D. Stark, o Ecology in: Cognitive Room, The 2009. D. Stark, D.; Beunza, ess review Markets". Make a markets: Re-imagining 2008. D. Beunza, studies. of Sociology Material Arbitrage. a Price A 2006. D. MacKenzie, I.; Hardie D.; Beunza, Global of Dimensions Human the of Germa Bonn, 27-30 April, Community, Research Change Meeting Open gases2009 greenhouse for systems trading emissions of 2009. M. Hoffmann, M.; Betsill, 39Studies International of ena D; tr, . 08 “ol o te rd: th trade: Pinch In: the room.” trading of Street Wall “Tools a 2008. in arbitrage D. Stark, D.; Beunza, Boehm, S.; Dabhi, S. (eds). 2009. (eds). S. Dabhi, S.; Boehm, Environmenta 38 Panel Power and Legitimacy Power, Discourse, 25.6.2 and 23.- Practices Cardiff Politics, in Analysis Policy Interpretive the EU’s Eastward Expansion. Eastward EU’s the Transnational Hegemony, Neoliberal 2006. D. Bohle, Markets Carbon of Copenhagens: Carbon Markets and Climate Governance. Climate and Markets Paterson, Carbon Copenhagens: M.; Hoffmann, M.; S.;Betsill, Bernstein, 20. 20. Khan. Sajida Activist African South Kills Letha Turns Air the of Privatization 2007. P. Bond, 2006. Press. University Princeton Princeton: L. Thévenoth, L.; Boltanski, of Sociology The 1999. L. L.;Thévenoth, Boltanski, Cambridge: MIT Press, USA, pp. 253-290. Cambridge: Press, USA, MIT Ppr rprd o te t Itrainl Conferen International 6th the for prepared Paper . Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, Princeton University PrincetonOxford: and Journal of cultural economyculturalofJournal h Erpa Mdriain gna n Ciae Chang Climate and Agenda Modernisation European The . . London: MayFly. 2(3):359-377. (1): 161–173. (1):161–173. The Sense of Dissonance: Accounts of Worth in in Worth of Accounts Dissonance: of Sense The Capital and Capital Class “Constructing “Cap and Trade”: The evolution evolution The Trade”: and “Cap “Constructing Organization StudiesOrganization Upsetting the Offset: The Political Economy Political The Offset: the Upsetting ainl iest ad lbl Capitalism Global and Diversity National n utfcto: cnme o Worth of Economies Justification: On Capitalism Nature Socialism Nature Capitalism 1(1): 93-100. , 88(Spring): 57-86.88(Spring): , Critical Capacity. Capacity. Critical l: ‘Pay to Pollute’ Principle Principle Pollute’ to ‘Pay l: is a Social Thing: Towards Thing: Social a is Ppr rprd o the for prepared Paper . M. 2010. A Tale of Two Two of Tale A 2010. M. s science and technology and science s 1: icrie Spaces. Discursive 011: T; wdeg R (eds) R. Swedberg, T.; , Capital and the Terms of Terms the and Capital 27(5): 721-745. 27(5): 721-745. a Abtae Trading Arbitrage an f ny. ay of "Do Economists Economists "Do of ay scotcnlg of socio-technology e

Millennium – Journal Journal – Millennium Mre Space(s): Market l uuain and cumulation Environmental Environmental pp. 118-153. pp. European 18(4): 5- 18(4): ce in in ce 277 e . . . CEU eTD Collection

Academic Press. Academic Event ut R 1992. R. Burt, osrit ad ietrt Te i te mrcn Ec American the in Ties Directorate and Constraints aikn K 20. rc a a akt eie Cotton Device: Market a as Price Exchange. Mercantile 2007. K. Caliskan, an Rights Property 1990. State. theby EconomicActivity L. Lindberg, J.; Campbell, Mass.: Harvard Press. University Cambridge, ut R 1983. R. Burt, gover the and institutionalism Policy European ofJournal Public Market. European New 1998. S. Bulmer, Brown, W. 2003. Neo-liberalism and the End of LiberofEnd the and Neo-liberalism 2003. W. Brown, Organizations and Societyand Organizations The role of policy networks, knowledge and policy e policy and knowledge networks, policy of role The trading emissions of evolution The 2009. M. Braun, 37(4):573-596. Spain’. and Germany in Europeanization Ins Europe? in convergence Towards 1999. T. Börzel, S 1996. (eds). Globalization D. Drache, R.; Boyer, Chicagoof Press. University 1992.L. Wacquant, P.; Bourdieu, Press 1991. Pierre. Bourdieu, Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Pierre. Bourdieu, Mass.: Harvard Press. University Cambridge, oriu P 1984. P. Bourdieu, Press. od P; aa R 20. dah n ubn Capital Durban: in death A rubbis forresponsibility our and gimmickry warming 2007. R. Dada, P.; Bond, Bourdieu, P. 1998. P. Bourdieu, oriu P 1977. P. Bourdieu, . 7(1): 1-19. 7(1):1-19.

. . London:Routledge. oprt Pois n Cotto: ewrs f Marke of Networks Cooptation: and Profits Corporate tutrl oe: h sca srcue f competiti of structure social the holes: Structural State nobility: Elite Schools in the FieldPowerofthe in Schools Elite Statenobility: itnto: sca ciiu o te uget f t of judgment the of critique social a Distinction: uln o a hoy f Practice of Theory a of Outline The Sociological Review Sociological The Homo Academicus. Cambridge HomoAcademicus. agae n Smoi Power Symbolic and Language 34: 469-487. 34:469-487. American Sociological Review American Sociological An Invitation to Reflexive Reflexive Sociologyto An Invitation ae aant akt: h Lmt of Limits The Markets: against tates Journal of Common Market Studies Market Common of Journal 55(2): 241-260. 55(2): 241-260. ntrepreneurs. ntrepreneurs. h. 5(3):365-86. al Democracy. al n h uoen no - Union European the in Cmrde University Cambridge . , Polity., UK: Agenda73. iuinl dpain to adaptation titutional te raiain of Organization the d s ptirh, global patriarchy, ist nance of the Single Single the of nance Hrad University Harvard , onomy rdn i Izmir in Trading 55(5): 634-47. Nw York: New .

Accounting, Theory and , Polity. , . Chicago: . aste 278 on t . . . . , CEU eTD Collection

Environmental Planning D Planning Environmental Information Information vivo experiments. experiments. vivo Oxford: Oxford Press University Press. Press Oxford University Oxford: otniy n Cag i Lt-nutilzn ad P and Late-Industrializing in Change 2001. and Continuity (eds). R. Sil, C.; Candland, Societyand aln . Mnea F 20. cnmc akt a Ca as Markets Economic 2005. Devices. F. Muniesa, M.; Callon Callon, M.; Meadel, C.; Vololona, R. 2002. The Econ The 2002. R. Vololona, C.; Meadel, M.; Callon, aln M 20. iiiig akt: abn trading Carbon markets: Civilizing 2009. M. Callon, aln M; a, . 05 O qaclto, agency, qualculation, On 2005. J. Law, M.; Callon, rbeai Ntok: n nrdcin o owr An Co-word to Introduction An Networks: Problematic Bauin, A.; W. Turner, J.-P.; Courtial, M.; Callon, counter-enrolment. and their and interests On 1982. J. Law, and M. Callon, pp.paul,277-303. Kegal Macro-Sociologi and Micro of Integration an Towards (eds). Cicourel V. A. To and Cetina Them Help Sociologists How and Reality Structure Lev Big B.the Latour, M.; Unscrewing 1981. Callon, Review. Sociological Hassard (eds). (eds). market the Hassard – theory Actor-Network 2004. M. Callon, (ed.): Review. Sociological Publishers/The Callon Michel in: of economics, embeddedness The Introduction: 1998a. M. Callon, (ed.): Callon Michel Review. Sociological Publishers/The Blackwell in: sociology, by revisited overflowin and framing on essay An 1998. M. Callon, knowledge?ofnew sociology a belief: and the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In Bay. Brieuc St of fishermen the and scallops the tr of sociology a of elements Some 1986. M. Callon, 369398.- economization. of processes towards economy the part Economization, 2009. M. Callon, K.; Calıskan, Organizational Studies Organizational , 31(2): 194–217., 22(2): 191-235. 22(2):191-235. co Ntok hoy n After and Theory Network Actor Accounting, Society Organizationsand Social Studies of ScienceofStudies Social 23 (5):23717–733. 26(8): 1229-50 Advances in Social Theory and Methodology. Methodology. and Theory Social in Advances h Pltc o Lbu i a lbl Age. Global a in Labour of Politics The h Lw o te Markets the of Laws The London: Routledge, pp.196-223 London:Routledge, S. 1983. From Translations to Translations From 1983. S. 12: 615-625. 12:615-625. Economy and Society Society and Economy h Lw o te Markets the of Laws The Bakel Publishing/The Blackwell . : J. Law (ed.) Law J. : transformation: enrolment enrolment transformation: anslation: domestication of of domestication anslation: iathan: How ActorsMacro-iathan: omy of Qualities. Qualities. of omy 1: shifting attention from from attention shifting 1: between in vitro and in in and vitro in between g: economic externalities externalities economic g: es s-oils Economies.ost-Socialist et I: . a ad J. and Law J. In: test. . London: Routledge & Routledge London: . economic markets in in markets economic o o I: . Knorr- K. In: So. Do alysis. alysis. 34(3/4):535-548. lculative Collective Collective lculative and otherness. otherness. and oil Science Social Power, action Power, . Blackwell Blackwell . Economy Economy 38(3): 279 . .

CEU eTD Collection

Analysis of the 2008 EU Policy Package on Climate C Climate on Package Policy EU 2008 the of Analysis Energy PolicyEnergy Industrial Relations Industrial Economics NTUA Europeanization and Domestic Change.Domestic and Europeanization Environmental Politics Environmental 137. greenbacks and gold in postbellum America. inpostbellum gold and greenbacks mon ofcolor The 1996. B. Sarah, and B. Carruthers, 2010. Analysis of the EU policy package on climate climate on package policy EU the of Analysis 2010. N.; Tasios, L.; Parousos, L.; Mantzos, P.; Capros, – NTUA. E3Mlab ovr, . . 09 RfetosTe mrig Liter Emerging Reflections—The Europe. in 2009. Trading J. F. Convery, uoen Countries. European Relation Tripartite of Experiences 2000. G. Casale, os, . . 90 Te rbe o sca cost. social of problem The 1960. H. R. Coase, http://www.proinwestycje.pl/raporty/raportco2_11_07 Vulne and Adaptation Impacts, Accessed2008. at: March Press, – 2007 Change Climate as EU The 2003. Policy Climate J. Wettestad, happen it did how trading: emissions gas greenhouse C.; A. Christiansen, ars P; ato, . Ppnro, . Tso, N. Tasios, V.; Papandreou, L.; Mantzos, P.; Capros, ars P 2005. P. Capros, Society& Technology Capros, P. P. Capros, 2001. (eds). T. Press. Risse, M.; Cowles, J.; emissions Caporaso, international on position Union European chang preference and entrapment Norm 2005. L. Cass, n C 2 msin Ted t 22: RMS oe v.2 model PRIMES 2020: to Trends Emissions 2 CO and Petrellis, L.; Vouyoukas, L.; Mantzos, P.; Capros, AthensofUniversity Technical . The PRIMESEnergy System Model: Summary Description, Summary Model: System PRIMESEnergy The 3: 1-44. 3:1-44. 39(3): 1476-1485. 3(1):3–18. e PIE Bsln Seai fr G RN EMa – E3Mlab TREN, DG for Scenario Baseline PRIMES New 16(2). Review of Environmental Economics and Policy Policy and Economics Environmental of Review nentoa Junl f oprtv Lbu Lw and Law Labour Comparative of Journal International 19(6): 474-492. 19(6):474-492. 5(2): 38–60. 5(2):38–60. . European Commission Joule-III Programme. European Joule-III Commission . Ithaca and London: Cornell University Cornell London: and Ithaca AJS 101(6):1556-91. 101(6):1556-91. Klaasen, G.; Van Ierland, T. Ierland, Van G.; Klaasen, . 99 Erpa Energy European 1999. D. ey and the nature of value: of nature the and ey h Junl f a and Law of Journal The s in Central and Eastern Eastern and Central in s and will the EU succeed? succeed? EU the will and _2008.pdf _2008.pdf hne n renewables. and change hange and Renewablesand hange rnfrig Europe: Transforming e: the evolution of the of evolution the e: 2008. . . tr o Emissions on ature aiiy Cambridge rability, Bulletin of Science Science of Bulletin fotunr on frontrunner a trading. trading. Model-based National 3(1):121- Global 280 .

CEU eTD Collection

rne n h riwy age railway the in France Analysis Rev. Rev. akt n cin Lsos rm h Frt rdn Pe Trading First The From Lessons Action: In Market Approach. Approach. Emissions Trading SchemeTrading Emissions erpltn ein Cs Suy Dat ) n h de the in 4) (Draft Study Case Region) Metropolitan Dennis, N. 1969N.[1950]. Dennis, DiMaggio, P. 1985. Structural Analysis of Organizat of Analysis Structural 1985. P. DiMaggio, 1980-1990. Characteristics the of Analysis Dynamic A Control: and Theory Organization 1992. S. Stout, G.; Davis, ok Aln 20. msin ihs Fo csls a costless From rights: Emission 2009. operations. Allan. Cook, University Press. University obn F 1994. F. Dobbin, DiMaggio P. and Powell W. (eds). 1991. (eds). W. Powell and P. DiMaggio rce, . . 96 Te tutrn o Atmospheric of Structuring The (e Norton W. and Harold 1966. W. Wolozin, H. In: Systems. D. T. Crocker, pollution ar, . Mne, . . 03 Eisos rdn at trading Emissions 2003. L. P. innovation. Union toresistance Mendez, C.; Damro, Society Post in weaknessPerspective. Comparative and Labor Legacies Historical Explaining 2004. S. Crowley, . Cvr F J; e etus . (Eds). C. Perthuis de J.; F. Covery D.; the of Development and Origins 2010. J. F. Convery, 22, 2010). February (Accessed iago . Pwl W 18. h Io Cg Revisite Cage Iron The 1983. Organizat in W. Rationality Collective and Powell Isomorphism P.; DiMaggio http://clio.cul.columbia.edu:7018/vwebv/holdingsInf http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/45130 2001. R. Katz, F.; Convery, based Instruments for Environmental Policy Environmental forInstruments based ovr, . . Elra, . . D Prhi, . 20 C. Perthuis, De D.; A. Ellerman, J.; F. Convery, 48:147-60. , 18(3): 394-429. 18(3): 394-429. , . Chicago: University Chicago Press. Chicago .UniversityChicago: , pp. 61-86. ,pp. Research in Organizational Behavior inOrganizational Research Accounting, Organizations and Society Accounting, Organizations Administrative Science Quarterly Science Administrative ogn idsra plc : h Uie Sae, Brit States, United the : policy industrial Forging Coal is our is LifeCoal . Cambridge, S. 9–31.Cambridge, . . Cambridge, England; New York, NY: Cambridge Cambridge NY: York, New England; Cambridge, . Environmental Politics Environmental i Eisos rdn i Cie (Santiago Chile in Trading Emissions Air . Routledge Kegan & Paul; edition. &Kegan 2 Routledge . New Institutionalism in Organizational Organizational in Institutionalism New rcn Cro. h Erpa Union European The Carbon. Pricing , Washington D.C.: World Bank. World D.C.:Washington , 37(4): 605-33. o?bibId=386192 /2008-002.pdf?sequence=1 8:335-70. 34 (2009):34 456–468. East European Politics and Politics European East of Large Takeover Targets, Targets, Takeover Large of 08. 08. ional Fields: A blockmodel blockmodel A Fields: ional the Market for Corporate Corporate for Market the EU ETS. In: Ellerman, A. Ellerman, In: ETS. EU ds). ds). oa Fields. ional 12(2): 71–94. 12(2):71–94. sign anduse of Market Market of anduse sign The European Carbon Carbon European The id Itrm Report Interim riod. Cmuit Europe: -Communist The economics of air of economics The Pollution Control Control Pollution tvt t market to ctivity Kyoto: from EU EU from Kyoto: . . d: Institutional Institutional d: mr Soc. Amer.

i, and ain, 281 . . CEU eTD Collection

EconomicsReview Accessed at: at: Accessed Framework o Application A EU: the of Scheme Trading Emissions EU Harmonization and Soft Law in the Member States. Member the in Law Soft and Harmonization EU yl G; uhoz L 21. rm h Scooy of Sociology the From 2010. and Interventions. Sociology L. Buchholz, G.; Eyal, 24:Vol.313-343. Sociology of Review a as Commensuration 1998. M. Stevens, W.; Espeland, Societyand Organizations td o hw opne lan o con fr carbon. for account to learn companies how of Sch Trading Emissions study European The 2009. A. Engels, Norms. Social of Market The 2001. C. R. Ellickson, 11.and 1 Chapter FAIRNESS, R RIGHTS, SCHEME: TRADING EMISSIONS EUROPEAN THE IN C. Carraro, K.; Buchner, A.; Barbara, D.; Ellerman, expertise 2011. G. Pok, G.; Eyal, and the Europeanization of Trade Unions in the 1990 the in Unions Trade of Europeanization the and 2000. Mo R.; Schmalensee, L.; P. Joskow, D.; A. Ellerman, greenhouse policy step. step. policy greenhouse CO2 new Offsetting 1990. A. LeBlanc, J.; D. Dudek, Dreger, J. (2008): J. Dreger, Taboo and Douglas, Mary. 1991. Mary. Douglas, 5/97. s_to_a_sociology_of_expertise.pdf/ http://cast.ku.dk/papers_security_expertise/Eyal__2 Antitrust That Market The t 1825 Acquisitions, Railroad and Coercion, Private 2000. TJ. Dowd F, Dobbin Dolvik, J. E. 1997. E. J. Dolvik, 631-57. Falkner, G.; Treib, O.; Hartlapp, M.; Leiber, S. 20 S. Leiber, M.; Hartlapp, O.; Treib, G.; Falkner, Press. Press. Markets for clean air clean for Markets . . . London and New York: New Routledge. and. London . Brüssel. . 3(1):1-49. The Influence of Environmental NGOs on the Design o Design the on NGOs Environmental of Influence The Redrawing Boundaries of Solidarity? ETUC, Social Di Social ETUC, Solidarity? of Boundaries Redrawing Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concept of Pollut of Concept of Analysis An Danger: and Purity ContemporaryEconomic Policy rm scooy f rfsin t a oilg of sociology a to professions of sociology a From 34: 488-498. 34:488-498. . Cambridge UniversityCambridge Press.. Annual Review of Sociology ReviewSociology ofAnnual

011_From_a_sociology_of_profession 05. 05. o 1922. 1922. o (eds). 2006. ALLOCATION 2006. (eds). emissions: a rational first rational a emissions: s ntero, J.-P.; Bailey, E. M. E. Bailey, J.-P.; ntero, , Oslo, Arena Report No. Report Arena Oslo, , f the Advocacy Coalition Advocacy the f Complying with Europe: with Complying Social Process. Annual Process. Social 8:29–42. Cambridge University University Cambridge nelcul ad the and Intellectuals 36:117-137. m: n exploratory An eme: Built: Public Policy, Policy, Public Built: mrcn a and Law American Amer. Soc. Rev. Rev. Soc. Amer.

Accounting, Accounting, ENTS AND ENTS alogue f the f 282 65: ion CEU eTD Collection

European Journal of Journal RelationsIndustrial European Regime for Greenhouse Gases in the in EC Gases Greenhousefor Regime Available at: Available wobec rynku i demokracji], Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. WydawnictwoNaukowe i demokracji], rynku wobec 1996. J. Gardawski, aesa K 20a Te mrec o a uoen Pro European a of Emergence The 2008a. K. Gajewska, BookEuropeStuttgart, 5, Series, Ibidem: Changing S Member Post-Socialist from Unions Trade (eds). H. Market Internal the in Services on Directive EU the Euro the for Unions Trade Polish 2008. K. Gajewska, 108(3 Countries. FourAJS Neoliberalismin to Paths Rebi The 2002. L. S. Babb, M.; Fourcade-Gourinchas, compet ‘the beyond future Studies 32:165-185. International a competit there international is state, globalization: The 2006. T. Fougner, Press. Chicago Fligstein, N. 1990. N. Fligstein, ocut M 19. oenetlt. n Bcel G. Buchell, (eds). In: Governmentality. 1991. M. Foucault, Typescript. Action. Strategic of Political-Cultura A 1993. D. McAdam, N.; Fligstein, http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/145-07.p 2000. FIELD. 478-484. Disentanglement. A Callonistics: 2003. B. Fine, lgti, . 1997. N. Fligstein, Institutions. Institutions. Politica A Politics: as Markets 1996. N. Fligstein, University Press. Harvard ‘New Institutionalism.’ ‘New for the Annual Review of Sociology. ReviewSociology. of Annual thefor 2006. L. Dauter, and N. Fligstein, societies capitalist twenty-firstcentury 2001. N. Fligstein, Berkeley.of University California, Politics. The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. in Studies Effect: Foucault The Amer. Amer. Soc.Rev. einn Otos o Ipeetn a Eisos Tra Emissions an Implementing for Options Designing The transformation of corporate controlcorporate of transformation The ils Pwr ad oil kl: Ciia Analysi Critical A Skill: Social and Power, Fields, The architecture of markets: an economic sociology sociology economic an markets: of architecture The lmtd consent limited A Working Paper, Center for Culture, Organizations, Organizations, Culture, for Center Paper, Working 61:656-73. The Sociology and Markets.and Sociology The . Princeton: Princeton University Press. Princeton:University Princeton . [Przyzwolenie ograniczone: robotnicy robotnicy ograniczone: [Przyzwolenie .London. ,14(1): 104-21. df

l Cultural Approach to Market ApproachMarket to Cultural l Economy and Society Society and Economy ): 533–79. 533–79.): l Approach to the Problem Problem the to Approach l pp. 89-104. pp. . In: Kusznir J. and Pleines Pleines and J. Kusznir In: . pean Cause. The Case of of Case The Cause. pean rth of the Liberal Creed: Liberal the of rth Gro, . Mle, P. Miller, C.; Gordon, ; tates in EU Governance Governance EU in tates to sae? eiw of Review state’? ition vns ad neoliberal and iveness Chicago: University of University Chicago:

. Cambridge, Mass.:Cambridge, . test Movement? Movement? test Paper prepared Paper s of the the of s 43(3): ding and 283 of of CEU eTD Collection

Jour. Of Econ.PerspOf Jour. Journal of Material Culture6(1): Material of25-47. Journal Europeanization and Domestic Change. Domestic and Europeanization American Journal of Sociologyof Journal American Political Studies Political American Sociological Review Sociological American Granovetter, M. 2005. The Impact of Social Structur Social of Impact The 2005. M. Granovetter, (ed.).Market.M.the ofCallon Laws Oxfor In: U.S. an ofI Making The 1998. P. McGuire M.; Granovetter Soc. of91:481-510. Amer. Jour. Embeddedness. cont St Social and Action Economic of1985. M. Granovetter, study a job; a Getting HarvardMass.,:Press.University Cambridge, 1974. M. Granovetter 7.Currents Critical How trading: Carbon 2009. O. Reyes, T.; Gilbertson, re-ols M, aoao J; is, . es. 20 (eds). T. Risse, J.; Caporaso, M., Green-Cowles, Geismar, H. 2001. What’s in a Price? An Ethnography An Price? a in What’s 2001. H. Geismar, ue, . 2004. J. Guyer, Press. Gąciarz, B. 2001. B. Gąciarz, Pańków Publicznych). A.; Mokrzyszewski B.; Gąciarz J.; Gardawski, Affairs/Friedrich Public Eb of Institute rozdrożu], 2001. J. Gardawski, atou: wąk zwdw w opdre prywatyzow gospodarce w zawodowe związki bastionu?: Hall, P.; Soskice, D. 2001. D. Soskice, P.; Hall, aitn G; igr, . 98 Mres Clue a Culture, Markets, Organization and 1988. Management N. of Analysis Biggart, Comparative G.; Hamilton, Advantage Comparative of al P; alr R 19. oiia Sine n Th and Science Political 1996. R. Taylor, P.; Hall, Chicagoof Press. University cec: tan ad neet i Poesoa Ideo Professional in Interests and Strains science: Demarcati the and Boundary-work 1983. F. T. Gieryn, 2009.A. Giddens, fikcja czy szansa], Institute of Public Affairs, WaAffairs, Instituteczyszansa],Public of fikcja , XLIV,pp. 5-24. , agnl an: oeay rnatos n tatc A Atlantic in Transactions Monetary Gains: Marginal The Politics of Climate ChangeClimateof Politics The Social dialogue the Polish wayPolish the dialogue Social . . 19:33-50. rd uin a te crossroads the at unions Trade . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Oxford . Oxford: University Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundati Institutional The Capitalism: of Varieties , 48: 781–795. ,48:781–795. 94 (supplement):94 S52-S94. Ithaca and London, Cornell University Cornell London, and Ithaca rsaw. . Press.. Cambridge: Polity ert Foundation, Foundation, ertWarsaw. [Dialog społeczny po polsku- po społeczny [Dialog d: Blackwell. d: ree New Institutionalisms. Institutionalisms. New ree 00. 00. e on Economic Outcomes. Economic on e it works and why it fails. it why and works it

ndustry: Electricity in the Electricity in ndustry: of Tribal Art at Auction. Auction. at Art Tribal of Zizi aooe na zawodowe [Związki on of Science from Non- from Science of on ructure: The Problem of of Problem The ructure: Transforming Europe: Europe: Transforming logies of Scientists. Scientists. of logies anej . 1999. W. in the Far East. East. Far the in acts and careers. careers. and acts nd Authority: A A Authority: nd (Instytut Spraw Spraw (Instytut Rozpad Rozpad frica 284 on . CEU eTD Collection

Economic and Industrial DemocracyIndustrial Economicand euaoy optto ad eeiiin f h Stat the of Redefinition and Competition Regulatory otoes, ncin n Opportunity and Inaction Controversy, in an Emerging Polity. anEmerging in 2001. (eds). S. Tarrow, D.; Imig, 2011. IEA. (eds). A. Ferner and R. and Identities Union Trade Changing 1994. R. Hyman, Press. 2009. Mike. Hulme, Societyand Organizations owo, . . 09 Acutn ad h environment the and Accounting 2009. G. A. Hopwood, 195. of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs). Quotas Transferable Individual of making fish, Framing 2007. N. K. Nielsen, P.; Holm, 225–243. pp. Press, University Princeton (eds). (eds). MacKe D. In: Callon? is Up Way Which 2007. P. Holm, econo an Assembling 2007. D. MacKenzie, Fund. Hedge a ofagencement I.; Hardie, Hyman, R. 2005. Trade Unions and the Politics of th of Politics the and Unions Trade 2005. R. Hyman, Blackwell.Basil Oxford: Hardy, J.2009. Hardy, 14(2), 133-158.14(2), ofa, . . 01 Lnig raiainl n fie and practice. organizational environmental corporate Linking of diffusion 2001. J. A. Hoffman, 371. Manageme of Academy industry. chemical U.S. the and and evolution Institutional (1999). J. A. Hoffman, Germany. In: perspective. Partial of Privilege the and Science The Knowlegdes: Situated 1989. D. Haraway, éiir A; nl C; igr S 1996. S. Mingers C.; Knill A.; Yor Héritier, New Norms. Social 2001. K.-D. Foundation. Opp, M.; Hechter, ofworldthe science modern in nature Do Economists Make Markets?: On the Performativity Performativity the On Markets?: Make Economists Do Walter de Gruyter & Co.GruyterWalter & de Energy and CO2 Emissions Scenarios Poland.ofCO2 Emissions and Energy

Poland’s New Capitalismy. NewCapitalismy. Poland’s Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Change: Climate about Disagree We Why Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Littlefield. Rowmanand Lanham: 34(2009): 433–439. 34(2009):433–439. e Fotes n uoen nutil Relations. Industrial European in Frontiers New The Sociological Review Sociological The Contentious Europeans: Protest and Politics Politics and Protest Europeans: Contentious 26(1). . New York: Routledge.York: New . Cmrde Cmrde University Cambridge Cambridge: . The Sociological Review Sociological The Pluto Press. Pluto ign te hne i Europe: in Changes the Ringing Primate visions: gender, race, and race, gender, visions: Primate raiain Environment & Organization hne Environmentalism change: markets: the construction construction the markets: e European Social Model. Social European e 55(1): 57-80. nzie, F. Muniesa, L. Siu L. Muniesa, F. nzie, Strategies. In: Hyman In: Strategies. nt Review, 42(4), 351- 42(4), Review, nt dlvl nlss the analyses: ld-level usin n Feminism in Question . rti, France, Britain, e. : usl Sage Russell k: mic actor: the the actor: mic . f Economicsof 55(2): 173- 55(2): Accounting, 285 . .

CEU eTD Collection

Accessed at: at: Accessed tha theof Relationships Organizationsand Analysis esp B 20. rnig h Sae ak n Yt Ag (Yet In Back State the Bringing 2001. B. Jessop, institutional Institutions, 1991. L. R. Jepperson, Economics and Politics Economicsand Governance EU in States Member Post-Socialist akwk, . 08 “ait nreyzo klimatyczn energetyczno “Pakiet 2008. B. Jankowski, A Denny In: Poland. 12: Chapter 2006. B. Jankowski, auik S 20. restłei skoa elektroe sektora Przekształcenia 2009. S. Jakubiak, nxHys J 20. h Acietr o Cro Mar Carbon of Architecture The 2009. J. Knox-Hayes, case of France. France. ofcase polit domestic of Europeanization 1994. R. Ladrech, Governance. in EU States 2008. (eds). H. Pleines J.; Kusznir, no' sces r alr?] Bdna ytmw „E Systemowe pa Badania failure?”], energy or and success [“Climate Union's Unii?” i Polski zwycięstwem Warsaw. Europeanization. Europeanization. D Matters. Europe How 1999. D. Lehmkuhl, C.; Knill, Redirections.and Rejections, n W W Pwl, n P J DMgi (eds). DiMaggio J. P. and analysis organizational Powell, W. W. In: Unions at the EU Level. In Kusznir J. and Pleines H Pleines Polish, and J. Kusznir In of Level. EU the at Visibility Unions and Presence 2008. B. Krech, In: landmarks. R 82-104.York: London, New Calhoun, C. and Sennett historic cultu of work: field survey as French power State 2007. A. Kowalski, Trading Scheme and Lessons for Global Policy Policy Global for Lessons and Decentralisati Scheme 2007. W. Trading Pizer W.; Oates J.; Kruger, 89-104. Stuttgart, 5, pp. Ibidem: Series, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id= Buchner, and Carlo Carraro (eds). (eds). Carraro Carlo and Buchner, Trading Scheme: Rights, Rents and Fairnessand Rents Scheme: Rights, Trading In: Gospodarki. elektroenergetykii Ministra perspektywa Journal of CommonofMarket StudiesJournal European Integration online Integration Papers(EIoP)European , Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar: Warszawa, pp. 80-100 pp. Warszawa, Naukowe Scholar: , Wydawnictwo . London: University of Chicago Press, pp. University Press, 143-163.Chicago ofLondon: . 1(1): 112–133. Changing Europe Book Series, 5, 5, Series, Ibidem: Book EuropeStuttgart. Changing International Review of Sociologyof Review International Trade Unions from Post-Socialist Member Post-Socialist from Unions Trade loain n h Erpa Emission European the in Allocation rp itrsw prywatyzacja a interesów Grupy , [manuscript] pp. 393-437. [manuscript] pp. , rciig culture Practicing 1395312 h nw ntttoaim in institutionalism new The effects, and institutionalism. institutionalism. and effects, 32(1): 69-88. tMarket.the Build . (eds). (eds). . Review of Environmental Environmental of Review Changing Europe Book Book Europe Changing nergetycznego w Polsce – – Polsce w nergetycznego . . zc ad lvk Trade Slovak and Czech i) Rves Revisions, Reviews, ain): n n h E Emissions EU the in on ics and institutions: The The institutions: and ics outledge. re and practice in the the in practice and re ifferent Mechanisms of of Mechanisms ifferent . Ellerman, Barbara K. K. Barbara Ellerman, . nergSys kg: oads and Poland's ckage: 3(7). Trade Unions from Unions Trade kets: Institutional Institutional kets: prżą czy porażką y 11(2): 149-153. 11(2): 149-153. eie b R. by edited ,

h Sp. z o.o.: o.o.: z Sp. h

. . 286

CEU eTD Collection

Review Review Accessed at: at: Accessed Business of Global Environmental Governance Environmental Global ofBusiness The cases of carbon and cost-benefit.and carbon ofcases The envi different Toward2008. L.in debatea Lohmann, Privatisation Power. and Change, L..2006. Lohmann, Latour, B.2004. Latour, Harvard England:Massachusetts, London, Cambridge, 1999. B. Latour, University Press. Harvard Economy: A Dyad Analysis IntercorporateofTies. Dyad Economy: A 1992. Keire Gerlach, P. Takahashi, J., M.; Lincoln, Studies CommonMarket airline policy. airline fo Conditions skies: the Governing 1999. T. Lawton, Law, J. 1992. Notes on the Theory of the Actor Netw Lanca CentreHeterogeneity. Studies Sciencefor Actorand the of Theory the on Notes 1992. J. Law, Pas of Science Press. Paradigm The Anthropolo 2010. Economic Tarde’s Gabriel A. to Introduction V. Lépinay, B.; Latour, ey D L 20. uies n te vlto o the of Evolution L the David Levy, In: and Strategies. Corporate of Dynamics Business 2005. L. D. Levy, Sustainable Development: Normative Power Europe in in Europe Power Normative Development: Sustainable Unio European The 2005. J. Burchell, S.; Lightfoot, Environment Global Theory the and Social Red M. In: Union. European the in policy-making and int the warming: global Facing 1994. A. Liberatore, http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/law-no 1993. B. Latour, University Press. Harvard 1993. B. Latour, society through 1987. B. Latour, 57(5): 561-85. Journal of Public JournalPolicy Public of . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Harvard MA: University Cambridge, . PoliticsNatureof adr’ Hp: sas n h Raiy f cec St Science of Reality the on Essays Hope: Pandora’s e ae ee Be Modern Been Never Have We cec i Ato: o t flo sinit ad eng and scientists follow to How Action: in Science h Pserzto o France of Pasteurization The Carbon Trading: a Critical Conversation on Climate Conversation Trading:aCritical Carbon 43(1): 75-95. The DagCentre.The Hammarskjöld . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Harvard MA:Press. Cambridge, . 19(1): 91-112. Accounting, Organizations and Society Society and Organizations Accounting, . London: Routledge, pp. 190–204. pp. Routledge, . London: . Cambridge, pp. 73–104. pp. Cambridge, . tes-on-ant.pdf/ Cmrde Massachusetts: Cambridge, . Cmrde Massachusetts: Cambridge, . tsu Networks in the Japanese the Networks in tsu American Sociological American Sociological n and the World Summit on on Summit World the and n eractions between science science between eractions ronmental ronmental accounting: . /Newell Peter (eds). (eds). Peter /Newell . ster University.ster te uoensto of Europeanisation the r clift and T. Benton (eds). (eds). Benton T. and clift gy. Chicago, Ill.: Prickly Ill.: Chicago, gy. ork: Ordering, Strategy Ordering, ork: University Press.University lmt Rgm: the Regime: Climate sionate Interests: an an Interests: sionate

Action? ora of Journal ineers udies The 287 . . CEU eTD Collection

Review Of Books 29 Books Of Review Markets Nature, SocialismNature, Administration Review Administration Society forEssay Draft Markets”, Carbon of Politics the Gases, Same: the Things “Making 2008. D. MacKenzie, politics of carbon markets. carbon of politics Gases, same: the things Making 2009a. D. MacKenzie, 2009. Constructed D. MacKenzie, aKni, . 07. h Pltcl cnm o Carbo of Economy Political The 2007a. D. MacKenzie, aKni, . 07 Fnig h Rtht Te Politi forDraft essay Trading. The Ratchet: the Finding 2007. D. MacKenzie, MacKenzie, D. 2006. D. MacKenzie, Sociology of Ignorance: Ten examples. examples. Ten Ignorance: Trading, 2008a.L.ClimateJustice Carbon Lohmann, in press). (article On the Performativitythe EconomicsofOn 2007. (eds). L. Siu, F.; Muniesa, D.; MacKenzie, consumption? D.2008. Bulkeley, Liverman, H.;Car A.; H. Lovell, Crisis. N 2011a.L. Ecosystem One Markets: Lohmann, Service the historical sociology of a financial derivatives financial a of sociology historical the ma a Constructing 2003. Y. Millo, A.; D. MacKenzie, technologies. technologies. D.Understandin (in press) H. Liverman, and Lovell, Fields and the Structuration Perspective: Analytica StructurationPerspective: the and Fields R.;G.;Filho,Ross C.Edson, L.; Machado-da-Silva, Lohmann, L. 2011. The Endless Algebra of Climate MaAlgebraof The2011.L. Climate Endless Lohmann, (2009):499-534. cost-benefit.and carbon ofcases The envi different Toward2009. L.in debatea Lohmann, Food Ethics . . . Mit Mit Pr. . . Oxford University Press. University Oxford . 109:107–145. New Political Economy. Political New Environment and Planning A Planning and Environment 22(4): 93-116. Summer 2011. (7),29–31. An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Models Financial How Camera: a Not Engine, An 3(2): 32-56. London ReviewOf BooksLondon Material Markets: How Economic Agents are are Agents Economic How Markets: Material Development Accounting, Organizations and Society Accounting, Organizations . Princeton: Princeton University Press. University Princeton Princeton: .

Accounting, Organization Society and Organization Accounting, 00:1-7. 41(10): 2357-5379. 41(10):2357-5379. Accounting, Organizations and Organizations Accounting, exchange 1. 1. exchange Do economists make markets? make economists Do . . oni, L. 2006. Organizational L. oni, bon offsetting:sustaining lPossibilities. g carbon offset gcarbon ronmental ronmental accounting: and the ofProduction and rket, performing theory: theory: performing rket, rkets. emission rights and the and rights emission cal Economy of Carbon Carbon of Economy cal eoliberal Response to eoliberal Response msin ihs and Rights Emission n Trading. Trading. n Capitalism, Capitalism, American Journal Journal American Brazilian Brazilian 34:440-455. London 288 34

CEU eTD Collection

Multinational Companies. Multinational Agenda. Agenda. Journal of Common Market Studies CommonofMarket Journal Relations Impact of the European Union on NationalUnionon European Institutio theof Impact Europeanization ofAgendastheto National National Europeanization Unionand Women’sRigh The 1998. S. European Macey, 85-109. UniversityOxford . Studies Management Lecturesin markets:con are economic Material how agents (eds) D Beckert, of J.; In: sociology arbitrage. material 2008. D.;price I. Hardie, A Beunza, D.; MacKenzie, Industrial Relations towards the EU. EU. the towards Relations Industrial Americani the for Horse Trojan The 2002. G. Meardi, eri G 2000 G. Meardi, 119. Mintz, B.; Schwarz, M. 1985. M. Schwarz, B.; Mintz, 218-233. Miller, D. 2002. Turning Callon the Right Way Up. Up. Way Right the Callon Turning 2002. D. Miller, ąnwAaó-oi S” in: elektroenergetyki SA”, Pątnów-Adamów-Konin prywatyzac a zwodowe „Związki 2009. P. Matuszewski, and Relations Industrial Labour Law Comparative anr, a. 02 Nraie oe Erp: Contr A Europe: Power Normative 2002. Ian. Manners, tblzto Plc i Cnrl n Esen Europe. Bargain Eastern and Tripartite Central in 2005. Policy Stabilization P. Terletzki, C.; Matther, Publications, pp. Sage 506-526. Dehli: New London, Mar E. Pinch Trevor Gerald Jasanoff, Sheila In: Making. Decision Knowledge Scientific 1995. E. Richards, B.; Martin, Present State and Future Development. Development. Future Central and in Dialogue State Social 2004. Present J. Due M.; Mailan, éy Y; ulr P;Qemne J-. es. 1996. (eds). J.-L. Quermonne, P.; Muller, Y.; Mény, 8(1)March. it, . 99 Smlrt o Pltcl eair am Behavior Political of Similarity Corporations. 1989. B. Mintz, Chicagoof Press. University Journal of European Public Public Policy European ofJournal 10(2) July. adok f cec ad ehooy Studies Technology and Science of Handbook AmericanSociologyofJournal , Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar: Warszawa 2009, pp. 1 pp. 2009, Warszawa Scholar: Naukowe Wydawnictwo , rd Uin ciit, at n Ws. oprsn in Comparison West. and East Activists, Union Trade Aldershot: Ashgate. Ashgate. Aldershot: Power Structure of American Business American of Structure Power 40(2):235-258. European Journal of Industrial Relations Industrial of Journal European Grupy interesów a prywatyzajcja prywatyzajcja a interesów Grupy 5(1) March. 95(2): 401-24. European Journal of Industrial Industrial of Journal European iaz-Bone, R.; Ganßmann, H. H. R.;Ganßmann, iaz-Bone, 21(3). Economy and Society Society and Economy is a social thing: towards socialthing:a towards is a ns and Policies.and ns

ization of European European of ization , Controversy, and Public Public and Controversy, , Press, Oxford, UK, Press, Oxford, pp. dutn t Erp: The Europe: to Adjusting structed. Clarendon Clarendon structed.

zation of Europe? Polish Polish Europe? of zation n ad t Ipc on Impact its and ing l, ae C Petersen, C. James kle, nentoa Junl of Journal International and Eastern Europe. Europe. Eastern and ts:From ja Zespołu Elektrowni Elektrowni Zespołu ja n Lre American Large ong adiction in Terms? Terms? in adiction Tosn Oaks, Thousand . Routledge. . Chicago: . 31(2): 31(2): 289 02- ,

CEU eTD Collection

Europe. Market Studies Market aet J F; nel C K 19. out cin an Action Robust 1400-1434. 1993. K. C. Ansell, F.; J. Pagett, Lang. Peter the (ed.). C. Phelan, and In: Europe. Eastern Legacies Postcommunism. After 2006. D. Ost, s, . 2006. D. Ost, O’Neill, J.2007. O’Neill, Olsen, J. 2002. The Many Faces of Europeanization. Europeanization. of Faces Many The 2002. J. Olsen, F. Muniesa; Y. Millo and M. Callon (eds) M. Callon andMillo Y. Muniesa; F. introdu An 2007. M. Callon, Y.; Millo, F.; Muniesa, Stu Longitudinal Directorates. Interlocking A 1988. L. Stearnes, M.; Mizruchi, Mitchell, T. 1991. The Limits of the State: Beyond Beyond State: the of Critics. Their Limits The 1991. T. Mitchell, North, D. 1990. D. North, System Allocation Other and Markets Karl of Polanyi. Challenge 1977. D. North, Economy Press. Global the of Transformation 2010. M. Paterson, P.; Newell, eel P; aesn . 98 A lmt fr Busines for Capital.and State Climate A 1998. M. Paterson P.; Newell, Publications, pp. Sage 444-457. Dehli: New London, M Pinch Trevor E. Gerald Jasanoff, Sheila In: States. United the Dynamic The Controversies: Science 1995. D. Nelkin, M. (eds) M. C the of Politics The 2009. M. Paterson P.; Newell, and Symbolic Politics. Symbolic and T Emission UK the Creating 2008. S. Owens, M.; Nye, Press. University Cambridge Cambridge: Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press.NY,CornellUniversity Ithaca, The Politics of Climate Change: A A Change:of SurveyThe Climate Politics AJS The American Political ScienceAmerican The Political Review adok f cec ad ehooy Studies Technology and Science of Handbook h Dfa o Sldrt. ne ad oiis n Pos in Politics and Anger Solidarity. of Defeat The 40(5) December. 40(5)December. 98(6): 1259-1319.98(6): Markets, deliberation and Markets,environmentdeliberation Institutions, Institutional change, and Economic Pe Economic and change, Institutional Institutions, Review of International Political Economy Political ReviewInternational of European Environment European Administrative Science Quarterly Science Administrative Quarterly Journal ofJournal Economic History European lmt Cptls: lbl amn ad the and Warming Global Capitalism: Climate The Future of Organised Labour Organised of Future The Market DevicesMarket Cmrde Cmrde University Cambridge Cambridge: . 18:1-15. . London, pp. 80–99. London, pp. . arbon Economy. In: Boykoff, In: Economy. arbon ction to market devices. In: In: devices. market to ction d the Rise of the Medici, Medici, the of Rise the d rl, ae C Petersen, C. James arkle, 85(1): 77-96. rading Scheme: Motives Motives Scheme: rading tts Apoce and Approaches Statist dy of the Formation of of Formation the of dy : lbl amn, the Warming, Global s: o Pbi Dsue in Disputes Public of s . London: Routledge. London: . . Wiley-Blackwell. Wiley-Blackwell. . Future of Unions in in Unions of Future Journal of Common Common of Journal s in History: The The History: in s 33(2):194-210. 5(4):679–704. Tosn Oaks, Thousand . 6: 703-16. 6:703-16. tcommunist tcommunist rformance , Oxford: , 290 . . CEU eTD Collection

Accessed at: at: Accessed June 2011. June Fight to Save the Earththe Save to Fight Accessed at: at: Accessed Sociologyof Journal Review Energy EnvironmentEnergy Review Emission Trading Scheme.Trading Emission public lifepublic 1995. T.M. Porter, Gliwice. Parr, Mike. 2010. Mike. Parr, aesn M 21. eiiain n Acmlto in Accumulation and Legitimation Governance. 2010. M. Paterson, http://euractiv.blogactiv.eu/2010/09/17/energy-tren U.S Large of 1960s. Acquisition Predatory and Friendly The 1995. Y. Soysal, X.; B.; Zhou, Barber, D.; Palmer, dalej? dalej? Pearce, D. 2002. An Intellectual History of Environ of History Intellectual An 2002. D. Pearce, Popczyk, J.2006. Popczyk, oon, . 93 A ttsBsd oe o Mre Co Market of Model Status-Based A 1993. J. Podolny, 17-31 Stuttgart,5,pp. Ibidem: Book Series, Europe oly E 2010. E. Pooley, Polanyi K. 1957. K. Polanyi 2010). 24, http://www.pointcarbon.com/events/conferences/cmi20 Point Carbon.2010. Point Pearson, A. 2010. A. Pearson, Trade Unions from Post-Socialist Member States in E J. in States Member Post-Socialist from Unions Kusznir Trade In: Framework. Post-Socialist Analytical from An Unions Governance. Trade 2008. H. Pleines, (eds.) H. Pleinesand H.-H. Hörmann, wirtschaftspolitischen in Akteure nicht-staatlicher gra und Oligarchen Sozialpartner, 2003. H. Pleines, Referat wygłoszony podczas Konwersatorium Energetyk Konwersatorium wygłoszony Referatpodczas American Sociological ReviewSociological American . Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress. UniversityPress. Princeton . Princeton: New Political Economy New Political Thetransformation great Sytuacja w energetyce. Nieadekwatność strukturalna strukturalna energetyce. w Nieadekwatność Sytuacja Energy trends to 2030 or energy fantasy 2030? fantasy to trends energy 2030Energy or h Ciae a: re eivr, oe Boes and Brokers, Power Believers, True War: Climate The The Carbon Rich List: The companies profiting from profiting companies The List: Rich Carbon The Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity, insc objectivity, of pursuit The numbers:Trust in Carbon Market InsightsMarket Carbon 2010 98(4): 829-72. . Hyperion. . Sandbag. Sandbag. 27:57-81. 27:57-81. 15(3): 1–23. 60(4): 469-99. . . Boston:Press. Beacon ds-to-2030-or-energy-fantasy-2030/ The Other Contested Terrain: Terrain: Contested Other The . . Entscheidungsprozessen. In Entscheidungsprozessen.

mental Economics. mental e mnne. u Rolle Zur Eminenzen. ue U Governance U 10/ (Accessed February (Accessed 10/ ebr tts n EU in States Member and Pleines H. (eds). (eds). H. Pleines and . Corporations in the the in Corporations . mpetition. lmt Change Climate a a Przyszłości, PWR. . Changing Changing . ience and and ience American American i co i the EU EU the Annual the 291 , , CEU eTD Collection

Accessed at: at: Accessed Environmental Politics Environmental in Social SciencesResearchSocial in Schlesinger, P. 1992. “Europeanness” – A New Cultur New A – “Europeanness” 1992. P. Schlesinger, 27-50. pp. 2009, elektroenergetyki prywatyzajcja neeó. n uzosi P ad ótwc, . (eds A. Wójtowicz, and P. Ruszkowski, elektroenergetyk In Transformacja interesów. 2009. P. Ruszkowski, 6359. uoen no Laesi i Ciae hne Mitigat Change Climate in Leadership Union European Re Multi-Level 2007. Y. Tiberghien, A.; M. Franc Schreus, Germany, in (2001).T.Risse,(eds) TelecommunicationsCowles, & J., M. Caporaso, Redimen Sector: the and Public Europeanization 2001. V. Schneider, Achievements. to Policy and Progra Involvement Change Stakeholder Climate Strategies European The 2010. Protest? M. Rusche, or Lobbying 2001. (eds TarrowS.D. & ImigIn Policies. Environmental D. Rucht, t beyond government. power Political 1992. P. Miller, N.; Rose, J.1980. Robinson, (eds Ilonszki Europe. andA. CentralG. In Agh, and T Corporatism. without Tripartism 1996. W. Reutter, zarz_uprawnieniami.pdf uprawnieniami. 2008. Zarządzanie Regulski. or Solution Europeanization. 2004. 8(16): Papers 1-23. Online Integration M. C. Concept Radaelli, Europeanization? Whither 2000. onlinePape Integration changeEuropean substantive C. Radaelli, Sociologyof sciences.American life Journal the in Owen-Smi W.; interor of K. growth The Koput, evolution: field and R.; dynamics D. White, W.; W. Powell, analysis 1991. J. P. DiMaggio, W.; Powell, . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Chicagoof UniversityChicago: . The British Journal of SociologyBritishJournal The Collected Economic Papers. Cambridge CollectedEconomicPapers. 7(4): 19-46. 5(2). Wdwito akw Shlr Warszawa Scholar: Naukowe Wydawnictwo , h Nw ntttoaim n organizational in institutionalism New The 43(2): 173-205. 43(2): 173-205. 110(4): 1132-1205. ) (1996).) ) (2001).) he State: problematics of of problematics State: he ganizational collaboration ganizational rs (EIoP) 4(8): (EIoP) rs 1-28. nry Policy Energy al Battlefield. Battlefield. al inforcement: Explaining Explaining inforcement: ae nos n Eastern in Unions rade ). h J 20. Network 2005. J. th, i a branżowe grupy grupy branżowe a i , Ma.,Press. , MIT Problem? European European Problem? inlzto o the of sionalization m: A Evaluation of of Evaluation A m: rp itrsw a interesów Grupy ad tl. In: Italy. and e tecig and stretching Influence EU EU Influence ion. ion. 8 6349– 38: Innovation Innovation Global 292 CEU eTD Collection

Vertebrate Zoology. Social Studies of ScienceofStudies Social 19(3) Zoology. Vertebrate Studies CommonofMarket Journal Accessed at: at: Accessed Envoronment Street trading room. trading Street socio-techn the trade: the of Tools 2004. D. Stark, Ber in Professionals and E Institutional Amateurs 1989. Objects: R. J. Boundary Griesemer, L.; S. Particip Star, Movement and 198 S. 51(4): Review Sociological 464-481. Micromobilization, Worden, B.; Rochford, Processes, R.; Benford, D.; Snow, isRedoff target.K. Offset 2008.standard Smith, Watch. Trade Carbon Sins. Ind OffsetMyth: Neutral Carbon The 2007. K. Smith, 101–123. Environ Global Changes. Post-2012 the Understanding EU the Fixing 2010. J. Wettestad B.; J. Skjaerseth, Emissions EU 2008. J. Wettestad Farnham/Surrey. and Implementation. Decision-Making B.; J. Skjaerseth, Stark, D. 2009. D. Stark, E the of Policy Climate The 1994. B. J. Skjaerseth, tvn, . . 1988. N. R. Stavins, Press. University Princeton Princeton: 69–88. gra trading. allowance the 2 from SO learn from Lessons we can What 1998. N. R. Stavins, Historical Perspective. In: Candland, C. & Sil, R. & Sil, R. In: C. Candland, Perspective. Historical E Post-Socialist and a Late-Industrialization Legacies Labour. Institutional 2001. C. Candland R.; Sil, Within the EU, Glasgow University, 2 Glasgow University, EU, the Within Sus A Creating CEE: in Strategies Energy – Workshop ae td o Poland of study case http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/Monographs_& 2012. D. J. Sharples, 1995.R. W. Scott, . . The Sense of Dissonance: Accounts of Worth in Econo in Worth of Accounts Dissonance: of Sense The Institutions and OrganizationsandInstitutions Industrial and Corporate Change Change Corporateand Industrial Ppr rsne a te RESAssig Accession CRCEES/Assessing the at presented Paper . The role of Russia in Central European energy secur energy European Central in Russia of role The rjc 8: ansig akt ocs o rtc the Protect to Forces Market Harnessing 88: Project 32(1): 25–45. nd March 2012. The Journal of Economic Perspectives Perspectives Economic of Journal The _Reports/Project_88-1.pdf . Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage.Hills, Beverly Calif: . (eds)(2001). Pepper, 3 April Pepper, 2008. Emissions Trading System? Trading Emissions ology of arbitrage in a Wall a in arbitrage of ology : 387-420. 387-420. : conomies in Comparative Comparative in conomies nd the Transformation of of Transformation the nd ulgences for your Climate your for ulgences ooy ‘rnlto’ and ‘Translation’ cology. 13(2):369-400. Handle? to Hot Too C: tainable Energy Future Energy tainable

nd policy experiment? experiment? policy nd etl oiis 10(4): Politics mental 6. Frame Alignment Alignment Frame 6. keley’s Museum of of Museum keley’s rdn. Initiation, Trading. to. American ation.

mic Lifemic

293 ity: ity: . .

CEU eTD Collection

Magazine, October 15October Magazine, Accessed at: at: Accessed Environment Transition in Environment Us dpin f msin Trading Emissions of Adoption EU's Era of Progress and Prosperityofand Progress Era 20Protect%20the%20Environment.Chapter.NYU%20Press.1 http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/Papers/Harne 88: Project 1988. R. Stavins, Theodor In: Poland. for Permits Tradeable Designing Poli Environmental 1995. T. Zylicz, N.; R. Stavins, http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2005-1/environment/2 Allowance SO2 from Learnt Lessons 2005. R. Stavins, Studies Association 51 Association Studies Stephan, B. 2010. B. Stephan, Working Class HistoryClass Working Stern, N. 2009. N. Stern, Integration and Trade Union Renewal in Europe. Europe. in Renewal Union Trade and Integration So or Partner Social 2002. A. Mathers, & G. Taylor, Composit a (eds)S. (2001). Tarrow, in Politics Contentious 2001. S. Tarrow, trade. CO2 global 9(6):232-37. of idea The 1999. T. G. Svendsen 17:251- 276. Sociology Soc Economic in Traditions Major 1991. R. Swedberg, Tilly, C. 1995. Globalization Threatens Labor’s Rig Labor’s Threatens Globalization 1995. C. Tilly, and Japan, Korea France, in Tiberghien, Y. 2007. Entrepreneurial States: Reform States: Entrepreneurial 2007. Y. Tiberghien, Mater Exchange, Objects: Entangled MA: Cambridge, Harvard Pacific.in the Colonialism 1991. N. Thomas, Mitologiacieplarnianego. 2009.Insty efektu Teluk. alr G; ahr, . 02. h Pltc o Euro of Politics The 2002a. A. Making?theLabour Movement in European Mathers, G.; Taylor, 93-108. . . The Global Deal: Climate Change and the Creation of Creation the and Change Climate Deal: Global The The Power in Carbon. A Neo-Gramscian Eyplanation fo Eyplanation Neo-Gramscian A Carbon. in Power The th 47 (Spring): 1-23. (Spring): 47 st

Annual Conference, 16.-20. February. New Orleans. February. Conference,16.-20. Annual . . . Ithaca, NY: Cornell.NY: Ithaca, . . New York:Affairs. New . Public ansig akt ocs o rtc the Protect to Forces Market Harnessing Ppr rsne a te International the at presented Paper . Capital Classand Capital ssing%20Market%20Forces%20to% 005-1-11.htm Labor Studies JournalStudies Labor cy in a Transition Economy: Economy: Transition a in cy hts. hts. tut Globalizacji. Globalizacji. tut University Press. ing Corporate Governance Corporate ing cial Movement? European European Movement? cial 995.pdf Plt. n Ii, . & D. Imig, In: Polity. e iology Annual Review of Review Annual iology International Labor and Labor International uoen EnvironmentEuropean pean Integration: A A Integration: pean e Panayotou (ed.). (ed.). Panayotou e Trading. Trading.

a Clue and Culture, ial 78(1): 39-60. Choices a New a 27(1): r the the r 294

CEU eTD Collection

Velthuis, O. 2003. Symbolic meanings of prices:meanings Symbolic2003. Con O. Velthuis, VEDRES, Balázs and STARK, David. 2010. Structural f 2010.David. Structural Balázsand STARK, VEDRES, So Strategic Pacify. and Divide 2006. P. Vanhuysse, van Asselt, H. 2010. Emissions Trading: the enthusi the Trading: Emissions 2010. H. Asselt, van Velthuis, O. 2005. Talking Prices: Symbolic Meaning Symbolic Prices: Talking 2005. O. Velthuis, olr J 20. h Erpa Cnrbto t Globa to Contribution European The 2005. J. Vogler, Victor, D. G.; House, J. C. 2006. BP's emissions tr emissions BP's 2006. C. J. House, G.; D. Victor, Business Political Activity in the U.S. and U.K. U.K. and U.S. the in Activity Political Business Internationalisation and Economic Policy Response.EconomicPolicy and Internationalisation of Journal RelationsIndustrial European disruption in overlapping groups. AJS 115(4): 1150-AJS overlapping groups. in disruption zi . 96 Te ore ad osqecs f embed of consequences and network sources The organizations: of performance The economic 1996. B. Uzzi Press. zi . 04 Ebdens ad rc Frain n t in Formation Price and Market. Embeddedness 2004. B. Uzzi I in Competition Embeddedness.of Paradox and Structure Social 1997. B. Uzzi 61:674-98. 144. 32(2): 181-215. 32(2):181-215. gallerie York AmsterdamNew and in art contemporary Protests in Post-Communist Democracies. CEU-Press, Post-CommunistDemocracies.CEU-Press, in Protests ntuet I: odn Ade/utm Dv/a Ass Adaptati and Mitigation of Dave/van Dilemmas the Confronting Andrew/Huitema (eds). Frans Jordan, Tim/Berkhout In: instrument. 34: 2100-2112. 34:2100-2112. (1995). (1995). the Institutional Foundations of Stylesof Foundations Institutional the Waarden van, F. 1995. 1995. F. van, Waarden For Contemporary Art. Princeton University Press. PrincetonPress. University Art. ForContemporary Governance. Governance. se, . 1984. 1995. M. Useem, (eds). F. Waarden, van B.; Unger Str Labour: of Europeanization The 1996. L. Turner, Amer. Soc. Rev. Amer. Soc. International Affairs Affairs International h Inr ice Lre oprtos n te ie o Rise the and Corporations Large Circle: Inner The National Regulatory Styles. A Conceptual Scheme and Scheme Conceptual A Styles. Regulatory National 69: 319-44. Admin. Sci. Quart. Quart. Sci. Admin. lmt Cag Plc i te uoen Union. European the in Policy Change Climate 81(4):835–850. . In: Unger B. & van Waarden, F. (eds) F. Waarden, van & B. Unger In: . 2(3): 325-344. 42: 35-67. 42:35-67. e Yr: xod University Oxford York: New Convergence or Diversity? Diversity? or Convergence ading system. ading 90. 90. Aldershot: Avebury. Aldershot: structing the value of value the structing astic adoption of an 'alien' an of adoption astic s Of Prices On The Market The On Prices Of s cial Policies and Political and Policies cial on? Budapest. olds: generative olds: nterfirm Networks: The The Networks: nterfirm s. Theory and s.Theory Society and effect. effect. ucture before Action. Action. before ucture Cambridge, pp. 125– pp. Cambridge, e oprt Law Corporate he elt Harro/Rayner Harro/Rayner elt l Environmental Environmental l ens fr the for dedness Amer. Soc. Rev. Soc. Amer. Energy Policy Energy 295 f

CEU eTD Collection

ai, . 00 Te oe f h E i Ciae Negot Climate in EU the (eds). of Michael Role Joyeeta/Grubb The 2000. F. Yamin, Accessed at: at: Accessed Relief, and Other Other and Currencies Relief, Politics Politics Zelizer, V. 2005.V. Zelizer, States United the White, H. 2002. H. White, University Press. University ol Bn. 01 Tasomca keuk gospodar kierunku Polsce. w Transformacja 2011. Bank. World cohesi EastBusiness 1992. Sa R. in Asia. Systems Whitley, and scale Micro-dynamics, 10&Theory Organization Mathematical Computational organizations: and W. Powell, J.; Moody, J.; Owen-Smith, R.; D. White, Press. PrincetonN.J.:University Princeton, United States United Zelizer, V. 1994. V. Zelizer, Children 1985. V. Zelizer, Zelizer, V. 2010. V. Zelizer, afl P, n M Vii. 2002. Vainio. misconceptionshistoryand M. trading emissions and P., Zapfel, RoleEurope?for Sustainable Zelizer V. 1983. V. Zelizer eie, . 1979. V. Zelizer, http://www.feem.it/userfiles/attach/Publication/NDL proficie entrepreneurial to due process ultra-quick emiss EU 2003 the of making The 2005. J. Wettestad, Wesselink, B.; Sebastian K.; Alyssa G.; Blok, K. 20 Blok, K. G.; Alyssa K.; Sebastian B.; Wesselink, White, H. 1981. Where do MarketsFrom?Come Where 1981.do H. White, Tr theto sector electricity applied Emissions EU the in allowances CO2 of allocation 5:1–23. . Pinceton University Press.University .Pinceton . New Brunswick:Books.Transaction New . Markets from networks: socioeconomic models of pro of models socioeconomic networks: from Markets Morals and markets: the development of life insuran life of development the markets: and Morals The Purchase of IntimacyofThe Purchase Economic Lives: How Culture Shapes the Economythe Shapes Culture How EconomicLives: . Columbia University Columbia Press. . The Social Meaning of Money: Pin Money, Paychecks, Paychecks, Money, Pin Money: of Meaning Social The oas n Mres Te eeomn o Lf Insuran Life of Development The Markets: and Morals rcn te rcls Cid Te hnig oil Va Social Changing The Child: Priceless the Pricing . Basic Books. Basic . Dordrecht, pp.47–65. Dordrecht, . Ecofys Netherlands BV,March. Netherlands Ecofys . lmt Cag ad uoen edrhp A Leadership: European and Change Climate ahas o uoen rehue gas greenhouse European to Pathways . Princeton University .Press. University Princeton . . 2002/NDL2002-085.pdf Amer. Jour. of Soc.of Jour. Amer. 08. 08. ncy?. ncy?. ge Publishings Ltd. ge W. 2004. Networks, fields Networks, 2004. W. The IFIEC method theIFIEC for The ions trading directive: an an directive: trading ions ading Scheme a review review a Scheme ading (1): 95-117. Global Environmental Environmental Global ki niskoemisyjnej w w niskoemisyjnej ki ain. n Gupta, In: iations. e embeddings. ve

87:517-47. 87:517-47. . Princeton . ce in the in ce duction u of lue e in ce Poor 296 . CEU eTD Collection

Environmental Protection Environmental Actors, Union. European the in Policy Environmental York: St. Martin’s Press. St. York: pel o h Erpa Cmiso t luc negotia launch to Commission European the to Appeal Accessed at: at: Accessed Documents: Case of Poland. In: In: Poland. of Tradable Implementing Case of Obstacles 2000. T. Żylicz, Press.JAI Cambridge: economy.the capital of Structures 1990. P. DiMaggio, S.; Zukin, 241–255. pp. London, Processes. itr o te otoesa Cro Tx I: Jordan In: Tax. Carbon Controversial the the of into Environment History the Integrating 2002. A. Zito, io A 2000. A. Zito, Greece. Santorini: Or in Process Theorizing on Workshop Summer Studies http://www.carbontradewatch.org/downloads/publicati Woods’. dyn power field “Organizational work our revisiting 2005. I. M. Winn, C.; Zietsma, attempt 2011. Watch. Trade Carbon Coor Package, Energy and Climate November2008.13th Poland, EMCEF the about partners coe 20 etbihn a cee o genos g and greenhouse for Parliament scheme a European establishing 2003 October the of 2003/87/EC Directive D Council amending and 23.10.2001. Brussels, Community the within trading greenhouse for scheme a establishing Council the of th of Directive a for Proposal final. 581 COM(2001) 8.3.2000. Union, European Brussels, the e gas greenhouse on Paper Green final, 87 COM(2000) t –anEU Change Towards Climate Parliament: European to Commission the from Communication 353. COM(98) . . nulse Mnsrp, rsne a te h First The the at Presented Manuscript, Unpublished

raig niomna Plc i te uoen Union European the in Policy Environmental Creating , OECD Proceedings, pp. 147-167. Proceedings, OECDpp. , mlmnig oetc rdbe emt for Permits Tradable Domestic Implementing EU Emission Trading System: failing at the third the at failing System: Trading Emission EU Reflections on process and process theorizing: theorizing: process and process on Reflections ons/ETS_briefing_april2011.pdf : The social organization of organization social The : e European Parliament and Parliament European e amics and the ‘War of the of ‘War the and amics a eiso allowance emission gas Pollution Permits: the the Permits: Pollution uoen no: The Union: European missions trading within trading missions Post-Kyoto Strategy. Post-KyotoStrategy. as emission allowance allowance emission as in wt te social the with tions ganization Research, Research, ganization f h Cucl of Council the of e oni ad the and Council he dination Office of of Office dination Institutions and and Institutions irective 96/61/EC, 96/61/EC, irective Ade (eds). Andrew , Organization Organization . . New New 297

CEU eTD Collection

Impact Assessment: Document accompanying the Packag the accompanying Document Assessment: Impact 2020 http://www.proinwestycje.pl http://www.proinwestycje.pl 2008. EnergSys. improve of to scheme 5.6.2008.theofUnion, European Journal Officlam trading as allowance emission so gas 2003/87/EC greenhouse Directive amending 2009 and Parliament European the of 2009/29/EC Directive 25.10.2003.Union, theof Journal European Official D Council amending and Community the within trading ulse b te uhrt o te os o Lrs L Lords, of House the 10.12.2008. OfficeLimited, of Authority the by Published System: Trading Emission's EU's the of Revision The Repo “33rd Committee Union European Lords: of House People How Coal: Nove thetheforFuel, Fossil Price Dirtiest Paying of Cost True The 2008. Greenpeace. 2008. Group. EffortGreen http://www.proinwestycje.pl/artykuly/informacjapras 2008. Information. Group. EffortGreen measures for the EU’s objectives on climate change change climate on objectives EU’s the for measures Green Effort Group Report. 2008.Report. Group EffortGreen 179)(EC. Brussels in March a change the of Committee Executive Climate the by adopted the Position on position ETUC’s 2008. ETUC. Brussels. Mechanisms". Work ECCP Report: Final 2001a. Commission. European Recor Summary Environmentand Industry Meeting (with Consultation Chairman's 2001. Commission. European (NTUA), July 2008.July Technica (NTUA), National E3Mlab, Scenarios, Energy 5: PRIMES Task The Technology: Clima and Pollution Air of Modelling for Modelling Consortium on Report Interim , SEC(2008) 52, Brussels, 23.1.2008 Brussels, 52, SEC(2008) , Raport2030

The ETS DictionaryETS The . . mber 2008. mber

owag6.doc te Strategies – EC4MACS, EC4MACS, – Strategies te and renewable energy for energy renewable and ETUC at its meeting of 4 of meeting its at ETUC al NGOs). NGOs). al Report with Evidence”, Evidence”, with Report the Council of 23 April April 23 of Council the ondon: The Stationary Stationary The ondon: Uiest o Athens of University l rt of Session 2007-08: 2007-08: Session of rt irective 96/61/EC, in: in: 96/61/EC, irective ing Group 1 "Flexible "Flexible 1 Group ing the Community, in: in: Community, the n te lnt are Planet the and d nry package, energy nd e of Implementation of e n etn the extend and Model: European European Model: d of Stakeholder Stakeholder of d 298 CEU eTD Collection

Accessed at: at: Accessed Accessed at: at: Accessed 2010. January 1170911056314/3428109-1174614780539/SternReviewEng. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINDONESIA/Res Executive Summary. Review, Stern of system trading allowance 23.1.2008 Brussels, COM(2008)final, 16 emission gas impr greenhouse to as so 2003/87/EC Directive amending COUNCIL PARLIAMENT EUROPEAN THE OF DIRECTIVE a for Proposal em gas greenhouse Community’s the Brussel COM(2008)final, 302020,to up commitments th meet reduce to to States Member emissions of effort the on PARLIAMENT COUNCIL EUROPEAN THE OF DECISION a for Proposal Design Model: System Energy – ICCS/NTUA. E3Mlab 2 Version MODEL, PRIMES 2008.30thJuly Katowice, Security, Social Workers Commi C European Tripartite The package, the energy and change of Climate proposal a regarding Position Coordinati 2008, 2008.7th October Katowice, October Pola package, – energy EMCEF and of change Office Coordination the of Con Position National the package, energy 2008. Wadowice,October “Solidarność, and change So Climate of Congress National the XXII the of 10 Position Eur on auctioning of impact “The post-2012” prices (2008) electricity Finance Carbon New red for approach twin-track 2000. March 8 Brussels, advocates and Programme Euro launches Commission change: Climate IP/00/232, Prospects. Prospects. Oppo Current Europe: for Jobs Carbon Low 2009. WWF. The U.K. Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme 200 Scheme Trading Emission Gas Greenhouse U.K. The and Impact Environmental Regulatory Scheme. Trading Aff Rural and Food Environment, for Department U.K. ources/226271- pdf ianś cnenn the concerning lidarność airs. 2001. UK Emissions UK 2001. airs. s, 23.1.2008 s, ommission for the Mine Mine the for ommission Assessment. London. London. Assessment.

d bu te Climate the about nd en lmt Change Climate pean 2, Consolidated Rules Consolidated 2, so kon s the as known ssion EMCEF, Council on rtunities and Future and rtunities ove and extend the the extend and ove eir greenhouse gas gas greenhouse eir the Community, Community, the cn emissions, ucing pa wholesale opean ission reduction reduction ission gress of NSZZ NSZZ of gress and Features, Features, and AND OF THE OF AND N O THE OF AND 299 CEU eTD Collection

cja_prasowa.pdf cja_prasowa.pdf http://www.mos.gov.pl/2aktualnosci/informacje_rp/zd Accessed2007.at: Press Release. GREENPEACE http://www.cire.pl/item,44047,1.html http://www.cire.pl/item,44047,1.html lata na CO2 allocat Accessed2009. at: 2008-12.”]. allowances emisji new a planów for Poland nowych asks Commission Polski od żąda “KE 2009. Release, Press April 16IFIEC 2006. Release, Press September 28IFIEC F Cloud. 2006. Release, Press September 29IFIEC a Under 2009. Crooks. Ed 2009. 16, November and Fiona Harvey, 5.11.2008. bloc in included security energy want newcomers “EU than rather 8 Agence system”,trading Europe, carbon EU revised benchmarking wants Poland “EU/Climate: Agencji 2008.July11 Prasowej, Polskiej for challenges negotiations, in breakthrough a for dl wyzwania negocjacyjnego, przełomu potrzeba „CO2: Exemption ETS Poland 20.11.2008. offers France CHANGE: “CLIMATE Pygmäen”, 2008. Tenbrock.Angst der and “Die Claas strug Times. 30.10.2008. Financial Uphill 2008. Chaffin. Joshua and Jan Cienski, breakthrough http://www.proinwestycje.pl/prezentacje/co2zkopczyn ne a for przełomu at: Accessed 2008. need Ag Polskiej Prasowe potrzeba a Centrum Poland]. [CO2: for challenges CO2: Polski dla 2008. wyzwania Tomasz. Chruszczow, widens” plans climate 6.11.2008. EU of parts against “Alliance opportunities-and-future-prospects http://greenjobs-ap.ilobkk.or.th/resources/low-carb Media materials: Media

on-jobs-for-europe-current- Poland”], Centrum Prasowe Centrum Poland”], jecia/14.03.2007/informa gle for coal-fired Poland. Poland. coal-fired for gle skim/chruszczow.pdf skim/chruszczow.pdf .11.2008. .11.2008. Die10.06.2008. Zeit. a Polski” [„CO2: a need need a [„CO2: Polski” a nj Paoe, 1 July 11 Prasowej, encji ED Erp Daily, Europe ENDS , k's climate deal”, AFP, deal”, climate k's ion plan for the years years the for plan ion nry utos in auctions energy 2008-12.” [„The [„The 2008-12.” in negotiations, negotiations, in inancial Times, Times, inancial .” Europolitics. Europolitics. .” gocjacyjnego, gocjacyjnego, 300 CEU eTD Collection

Accessed at: at: Accessed Accessed at: at: Accessed Ors olceiw 20-02” „h taig peri trading [„The 2008-2012.” rozliczeniowy „Okres climateof states againstparts team pla EU up “New limity-emisji-CO2,12041.html http://wiadomosci.ekologia.pl/srodowisko/Komisja-Eu CO at: emisji limity Polsce CO2emissionnew with Poland grant will Commission przyzna Europejska „Komisja Kmsa uoesa bił Plc lmt msi CO2 emisji limit Polsce 2007. limits.”]. emission CO2 Polish cutCommission obcięła Europejska „Komisja http://www.cire.pl/item,44035,1.html Polsce-limit-emisji-CO2/ http://www.greenpeace.org/poland/pl/wydarzenia/swia the for 2008-2 plan emission lata CO2 Polish na rejects Commission CO2 emisji plany polskie odrzuca „KE energy.”]. 2011. Accessed2011. at: energy.”]. 223 [„Over mocy.” zielonych MW 223 ponad “Przybyło http://www.igcp.org.pl/?q=node/39363 inf - at: Accessed 2009. limits]. CO2 emisji limity o Commissi European the with argumentthe won [Poland KE z spór wygrała „Polska t for allowances 11.11.2008. emission free of offer the e rejects w CO2 emisji darmowych propozycję odrzuca “Polska z_polskie_firmy_wynosil_208_5_mln_ton.html http://forsal.pl/artykuly/406913,polska_chce_aby_ro at: Accessed 2008. to limit emission pol CO2 its wants [„Poland ton.” mln przez CO2 emisji limit roczny aby chce, „Polska loo summit as 20.11.2008. compromise CO2 French rejects “Poland emissions.”onFinan carbon offereda break “Poland retrieved http://www.sgie.pl/aktualnosci,5,99.html, Brussels.”]. in piquette SeptemberAccessed262008. at: Energetyki. [“A Brukseli.” w “Pikieta http://www.kobize.pl/index.php?page=okres-rozliczen

t/Komisja-Europejska-obciela- 28 September282008. be 208,5 tonnes per year.”]. year.”]. per tonnes 208,5 be czny_limit_emisji_co2_prze Accessedat: n.” Reuters.n.” 5.11.2008. he power sector.”]. WNP. WNP. sector.”]. power he cial Times. 18.11.2008. Times. cial ropejska-przyzna-Polsce- iowy-2008-2012 iowy-2008-2012 skie firmy wynosił 208,5 208,5 wynosił firmy skie ertra Grita i Górnictwa Sekretariat years 2008-12.”]. 2009. 2009. 2008-12.”]. years limits.”]. 2010. Accessed Accessed 2010. limits.”]. MW of additional green green additional of MW on about CO2 emission CO2 about on 012.” [„The European European [„The 012.” rue ews CIRE.” serwis ormuje od 2008-12”]. 2008. 2008. 2008-12”]. od nergetyce.” [„Poland [„Poland nergetyce.” . [Te European [„The 2.” .” [„The European European [„The .” s” U Observer. EU ms.” 301 CEU eTD Collection

mjwk, ryzo. 08 “ratruh r breakd or “Breakthrough 2008. Krzysztof. 4,July11:50 CET. EuropeanVoice.com, Żmijewski, 2012,1,56,1.html http://www.egospodarka.pl/32014,Rzad-limity-emisji- for limits Accessed 2008-2012].emission2008. CO2 CO2 emisji limity Rząd: 2008. Aleksander. Walczak, malal,107237_1_0_0.html http://energetyka.wnp.pl/udzial-wegla-w-energetyce- sha [„The 2010. bedecreasing.”]. sectorwill power malał.” będzie energetyce w węgla „Udział Times prices.”Financial energy Poland's to “Threat mocy,137077_1_0_0_0.html http://www.wnp.pl/wiadomosci/przybylo-ponad-223-mw- . 31.11.2008. . bedzie- at: at: CO2-2008- 2008-2012. [Government: [Government: 2008-2012. e f ol sd n the in used coal of re zielonych- own?” 302