Three Views of Resolution in Carbon Markets Parsing Contractual, Regulatory and Atmospheric Claims

Abstract Carbon markets clear trades, enforce contracts, and satisfy regulatory obligations, yet atmospheric exposure remains open even where actors proceed in good faith. This article develops a typology of resolution—contractual, regulatory, and atmospheric—to explain why market execution and legal compliance do not themselves close the atmospheric exposure emissions create. The distinction matters because market instruments are routinely used to support claims of closure even when transactions resolve only narrower obligations. Contractual resolution resolves private obligations between counterparties without necessarily closing atmospheric exposure. Regulatory resolution extinguishes statutory duties within a jurisdiction although politically constituted constraints may diverge from the global carbon budget. Atmospheric resolution differs in kind. Because long-term warming is governed by cumulative CO₂ and a finite budget, an emission remains a charge against that budget until matched by an equal quantity durably removed and stored. Atmospheric resolution makes that matching a continuing legal duty, paired with a remedy requiring restoration following impairment. When instruments resolving different obligations are accepted as substitutes, markets impose parity on non-equivalent products. The pooled market clears on the least demanding accepted instrument, so prices reflect its supply cost rather than the cost of removal, durable storage, monitoring, and restoration. Only durable removal with that duty and remedy can support closure claims. Reductions and avoided emissions remain valuable because they preserve remaining carbon budget and limit exposure growth, but they cannot close exposure from past emissions. Atmospheric closure is therefore not a matter of improved measurement or more conservative baselines alone, but rather it requires a continuing obligation tied to measured, durably stored removal, and restoration in the case of impairment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Oxford Open Climate Change
Published
2026-10-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgag012
Primary Topic
Climate Change Policy and Economics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Three Views of Resolution in Carbon Markets Parsing Contractual, Regulatory and Atmospheric Claims

Marc Roston, Alicia Seiger, Thomas Heller
Oxford Open Climate Change
Climate Change Policy and Economics
article

Three Views of Resolution in Carbon Markets Parsing Contractual, Regulatory and Atmospheric Claims

Marc Roston, Alicia Seiger, Thomas Heller
article en

Abstract

Abstract Carbon markets clear trades, enforce contracts, and satisfy regulatory obligations, yet atmospheric exposure remains open even where actors proceed in good faith. This article develops a typology of resolution—contractual, regulatory, and atmospheric—to explain why market execution and legal compliance do not themselves close the atmospheric exposure emissions create. The distinction matters because market instruments are routinely used to support claims of closure even when transactions resolve only narrower obligations. Contractual resolution resolves private obligations between counterparties without necessarily closing atmospheric exposure. Regulatory resolution extinguishes statutory duties within a jurisdiction although politically constituted constraints may diverge from the global carbon budget. Atmospheric resolution differs in kind. Because long-term warming is governed by cumulative CO₂ and a finite budget, an emission remains a charge against that budget until matched by an equal quantity durably removed and stored. Atmospheric resolution makes that matching a continuing legal duty, paired with a remedy requiring restoration following impairment. When instruments resolving different obligations are accepted as substitutes, markets impose parity on non-equivalent products. The pooled market clears on the least demanding accepted instrument, so prices reflect its supply cost rather than the cost of removal, durable storage, monitoring, and restoration. Only durable removal with that duty and remedy can support closure claims. Reductions and avoided emissions remain valuable because they preserve remaining carbon budget and limit exposure growth, but they cannot close exposure from past emissions. Atmospheric closure is therefore not a matter of improved measurement or more conservative baselines alone, but rather it requires a continuing obligation tied to measured, durably stored removal, and restoration in the case of impairment.

Oxford Open Climate Change
Palo Alto University (US), Stanford Medicine (US)
Stanford Precourt Institute for Energy
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Climate Change Policy and Economics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.