Talk:Carbon leakage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

2012 Energy Modeling Forum study
In late-2012 the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF), based at Stanford University, released its EMF29 report titled "The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy". I image this material could be usefully added to the article. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

An example of a Carbon leakage %??
Is this % actually calculated, or is it just academic blah blah? Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)