Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

CFA Institute ESG-Investing Exam - Topic 1 Question 5 Discussion

An emissions trading system (ETS) permits a high allocation of free allowances to energy-intensive companies. The most likely objective of this practice is to:
B) prevent the offshoring of emissions into other jurisdictions.
A) maintain a low unit price for emissions.
C) increase the quantity of emissions allocated to the participants in the ETS.

CFA Institute ESG-Investing Exam - Topic 1 Question 5 Discussion

Actual exam question for CFA Institute's ESG-Investing exam
Question #: 5
Topic #: 1
[All ESG-Investing Questions]

An emissions trading system (ETS) permits a high allocation of free allowances to energy-intensive companies. The most likely objective of this practice is to:

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

Free allowances in an ETS are often allocated to energy-intensive companies to prevent the offshoring of emissions, also known as 'carbon leakage,' where companies relocate to jurisdictions with laxer environmental regulations. (ESGTextBook[PallasCatFin], Chapter 3, Page 153)


by Tuyet at Nov 15, 2024, 05:42 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium ESG-Investing Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Monte
7 months ago
Wow, I didn't realize they give out so many free allowances!
upvoted 0 times
...
Gracie
8 months ago
C sounds like a bad idea, we should be reducing emissions, not increasing them!
upvoted 0 times
...
Rosalind
8 months ago
Really? I doubt giving free allowances helps at all.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dorothy
8 months ago
I think B makes more sense, we need to keep emissions local.
upvoted 0 times
...
Janessa
8 months ago
A is definitely the goal here, keeps costs down!
upvoted 0 times
...
Magnolia
8 months ago
I practiced a similar question where free allowances were linked to maintaining competitiveness, so I might go with A as well.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ronald
9 months ago
Allocating more emissions sounds counterproductive, so I doubt it's C. I feel like A or B are more likely.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dierdre
9 months ago
I remember discussing how free allowances could help prevent offshoring emissions, which makes me lean towards B.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leeann
9 months ago
I think the free allowances are meant to keep costs low for companies, so maybe it's A? But I'm not entirely sure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tayna
9 months ago
This is a good question that tests our understanding of emissions trading systems. I'll draw on the concepts we've covered in class to guide my thinking.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sharika
9 months ago
I'm feeling a bit lost on this one. The wording of the question and the options is tripping me up. I'll need to re-read it a few times to make sure I understand.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sherron
9 months ago
Okay, I think I've got this. The key is to identify the most likely objective behind the high allocation of free allowances to energy-intensive companies.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tori
9 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The options seem similar, so I'll need to carefully consider the nuances of each choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Daniel
9 months ago
This seems like a straightforward question about the objectives of an emissions trading system. I'll need to think through the key factors at play here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laura
2 years ago
Hmm, I'm not sure. But I do know that if I don't pass this exam, my carbon footprint will be the least of my problems!
upvoted 0 times
...
Rikki
2 years ago
I'm going with C. Increasing the quantity of emissions allocated seems like the logical goal here.
upvoted 0 times
Johnetta
1 year ago
I see your point, but I still think A is the most likely objective in this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Margot
1 year ago
C seems like the best option to me. More emissions allocated means more room for companies to operate.
upvoted 0 times
...
Deandrea
2 years ago
I agree with B. We don't want emissions just being moved around to different places.
upvoted 0 times
...
Claribel
2 years ago
I think A makes more sense. Keeping the unit price low is important for the companies.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Mabel
2 years ago
But wouldn't increasing the quantity of emissions allocated to participants in the ETS also be a valid objective?
upvoted 0 times
...
Donte
2 years ago
I disagree, I believe it's to prevent the offshoring of emissions into other jurisdictions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mabel
2 years ago
I think the objective is to maintain a low unit price for emissions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Edgar
2 years ago
I think the answer is B. Preventing the offshoring of emissions makes the most sense as the objective of free allowances.
upvoted 0 times
Makeda
1 year ago
I see your point, it does make sense to prioritize preventing offshoring.
upvoted 0 times
...
Moira
1 year ago
That's true, but I think preventing offshoring is the main goal here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rolf
1 year ago
But wouldn't maintaining a low unit price for emissions also be a valid objective?
upvoted 0 times
...
Artie
2 years ago
I agree, preventing offshoring of emissions is important.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel