At the COPPM, you trade on the outcomes of the Copenhagen Climate Conference (Conference of Parties, COP15).

No real money is used in trading. Instead, Participants trade with Experimental dollars (E$). The three participants who accumulate the largest final portfolio values (final value of shares plus experimental dollar holdings) on each question will be awarded a prize. On behalf of the winners, Baker & McKenzie will offset, using Gold Standard Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs), personal emissions equivalent to twelve months, four months and two months for the first, second and third prize respectively. Calculations will be based upon the world annual average per capita emissions. Winners will receive a certificate which states the offset amount (tonnes of CO2e cancelled).

Upon enrolment, you will be given an experimental cash position of E$5000 and 50 “market bundles”. You can invest this experimental money in shares which represent the possible outcomes of the Conference. Only the shares that corresponds to the true outcome of the Conference pay out.

Good luck and have fun!

Market

Winning share

Ranking

Rationale

COP-NA

1.camilo.terranova

2. King_P

3. vcornes

full ranking

It was discussed that the extension of the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP until COP16 could be interpreted as a deadline. But given the possibility that the working groups are extended again (which happened in Copenhagen) and major developing countries are blocking a legally binding agreement, the expert panel decided that it cannot be interpreted as a real deadline and it was agreed that the winning share is COP-NA.

LONG351-1.6

1. RichardH

2. GrahamP

3. vcornes

full ranking

The Copenhagen Accord states that "increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius." Since the share LONG351-1.6 pays "E$100 if the long-term stabilization goal is greater than 350ppm and/or greater than 1.5º C, but less than 450ppm and/or less than 2º C," it is the winning share.

FIN59

1. RichardH

2. vcornes

3. ERAR_CL

full ranking

The Copenhagen Accord states that "the collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 to 2012." Since it is likely that funding "approaching" an average of USD 10 billion per year will be less than this amount, the expert panel opted for FIN59 as the winning share.

RTD1014

1. timmoore

2. jotzo

3. King_P

full ranking

The expert panel decided that for all pledges made by countries to the UNFCCC, only the lower end of a target range - which is usually the unconditional target - can be viewed as a commitment. Different issues surrounding the calculation of reduction targets, such as LULUCF, hot air or double counting in developed and developing countries by way of flexible mechanisms (cf. Brazil) were discussed. The expert panel decided to use the lower end of the reduction pledges without LULUCF. Based on several studies (e.g. WRI) the aggregate reductions by lower pledges amount to around 10-14% greenhouse gas reductions based on 1990 in 2020.

REDD-NA

1. King_P

2. nosferatu

3. gfoy

full ranking

So far it has only been decided that public money will flow into REDD by way of the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund. However, there might be provisions for private money in the future. Therefore, no conclusive decision on the design of the mechanism has been taken and the panel decided on REDD-NA as the winning share.

CER1112

1. ERAR_CL

2. vcornes

3. jotzo

full ranking

The CER Price on the 21^st of December was &euro 11.15.

SEC-NO

1. King_P

2. vcornes

3. nosferatu

full ranking

There is a vague passage on a carbon market in the Accord, however, there is no real definition. Therefore, the expert panel decided that Sectoral Crediting is not included in the agreement.

AU9

1. King_P

2. colinywain

3. GrahamP

full ranking

The expert panel decided that for all pledges made by countries to the UNFCCC, only the lower end of a target range - which is usually the unconditional target - can be viewed as a commitment. In Australia's case these are 5% on 2000 levels. This is even less stringent if one uses 1990 as a base year.

EU2024

1. vcornes

2. jotzo

3. alliewnuk

full ranking

The expert panel decided that for all pledges made by countries to the UNFCCC, only the lower end of a target range - which is usually the unconditional target - can be viewed as a commitment. In the EU's case these are 20% on 1990 levels.

JP2529

1. vcornes

2. n_watts

3. RichardH

full ranking

The expert panel decided that for all pledges made by countries to the UNFCCC, only the lower end of a target range - which is usually the unconditional target - can be viewed as a commitment. In Japan's case these are 25% on 1990 levels.

RU1519

1. King_P

2. timmoore

3.alliewnuk

full ranking

The expert panel decided that for all pledges made by countries to the UNFCCC, only the lower end of a target range - which is usually the unconditional target - can be viewed as a commitment. In Russia's case these are 15% on 1990 levels.

US04

1. timmoore

2. vcornes

3. electros

full ranking

The expert panel decided that for all pledges made by countries to the UNFCCC, only the lower end of a target range - which is usually the unconditional target - can be viewed as a commitment. In the case of the United States these are 17% on 2005 levels, equal to 4% on 1990 levels.

CN-NO

1.colinywain

2. jotzo

3. King_P

full ranking

Although China has submitted an intensity target, they clearly state that it is "voluntary in nature". The expert panel decided to interpret "binding" as "internationally binding", since conference texts are used as a basis for their decision. China's target is not internationally binding and the winning share is therefore CN-NO. Note however, that many of the policies to achieve the reduction target become nationally legally binding if domestic legislation is passed.

IN-NO

1. King_P

2. jotzo

3. A_Odyssey

full ranking

Although India has submitted an intensity target, they clearly state that it is "voluntary in nature and will not have legally binding character". The expert panel decided to interpret "binding" as "internationally binding", since conference texts are used as < basis for their decision. India's target is not internationally binding and the winning share is therefore IN-NO.

IF 3 (new and existing fund)

1. jotzo

2. nosferatu

3. vcornes

full ranking

A new adaptation fund was established in Copenhagen: the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund. At the same time, the Adaptation Fund established in Kyoto still exists. Therefore, IF3 is the winning share.

TT3

1.jotzo

2. elibernstein

3. vcornes

full ranking

The Copenhagen Accord states that technology transfer "will be guided by a country-driven approach and be based on national circumstances and priorities." The expert panel decided that this is most likely to happen "through technology action plans, a technology fund, or a technology window of a new fund as distinct from mitigation mechanisms such as Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Measures (NAMAs)" and that TT3 is the winning share.

lottery

1. greenlines

2. nosferatu

3. drwood

The winners of Market 17 were determined by a random lottery. Therefore, no full ranking exists.

The expert panel argued that one cannot, at this point, determine the magnitude of loopholes. There was no decision on a second Kyoto period and therefore no decision on Kyoto hot air. There might be Copenhagen hot air through the Russian pledge which is likely to be above BAU and the EU whose emissions were reduced by the financial crisis. However, no one knows if these credits can ever be sold. No accounting rules for LULUCF have been established. One only knows that no loopholes were closed. The expert panel therefore concluded that a lottery was to be held in this market.