Mispriced energy, misaligned power: Why carbon distortion is a financial system risk

This article is part two of a series. Here is part one

The escalation around Iran is routinely explained as geopolitics driven by oil. That explanation is incomplete. The deeper problem is not oil itself — it is how oil, and carbon more broadly, is priced into the global financial system. Get that wrong, and the instability reproduces itself regardless of which resource is being extracted.

George Monbiot, writing in The Guardian today, argues that Western engagement in the Middle East is inseparable from fossil fuel interests and that reducing oil dependence would weaken the world's most exploitative political systems. He is broadly correct. But the mechanism matters — and the mechanism is mispricing.

This distinction is not semantic. It determines whether policy operates at the margin or at the level of system design.

I. Mis-specification, not market failure

Standard analysis describes fossil fuel markets as exhibiting market failure: competitive markets producing socially suboptimal outcomes due to unpriced externalities. The Pigouvian remedy is familiar — internalise the cost, and markets self-correct.

The evidence points to something more intractable. Carbon mispricing is not a correctable deviation from an otherwise functional system. It is constitutive of the system: woven into regulatory architecture, fiscal design, financial modelling, sovereign governance, and corporate lobbying strategies simultaneously. The rents it generates fund the political economy mechanisms that resist its correction.

The strongest objection is that this is merely market failure by another name. It is not. Market failure analysis implies targeted intervention at the margin. Constitutive mis-specification requires reform across at least five institutional layers — pricing, enforcement architecture, financial risk modelling, governance assessment, and lobbying transparency — with no single instrument sufficient alone. That is a different diagnosis. It demands a different remedy.

II. What the resource evidence actually shows

The resource curse literature — Auty (1993), Sachs and Warner (1995), and the subsequent IMF and World Bank empirical tradition — documents a persistent correlation between resource dependence and governance degradation. But the relationship is neither automatic nor universal.

Norway and Venezuela both built modern states on hydrocarbon revenues. The outcomes diverge entirely: Norway's Government Pension Fund Global is the world's largest sovereign wealth fund; Venezuela's institutional collapse is documented in successive IMF assessments. The difference is not geology. It is institutional design — specifically, whether revenue flows are subject to transparent fiscal rules and democratic accountability.

More analytically precise is the contrast between Botswana and Angola. Similar resource endowments, similar post-independence starting conditions, dramatically different trajectories. Botswana channelled diamond revenues through transparent fiscal rules and a diversification mandate. Angola did not. The divergence is explicable only by institutional choice.

The implication is clear: endowment determines the scale of the problem. Institutional design determines whether it is contained or amplified.

III. Iran: A case study in constitutive mispricing

Iran illustrates the argument in concentrated form. Oil revenues have historically accounted for 60–80% of government revenues and 80% of foreign exchange earnings — the defining features of a rentier state in which the regime distributes resources rather than extracting taxes, weakening the accountability relationship between state and citizen.

Domestic fuel prices have been maintained at heavily subsidised levels for decades, serving a dual political function: population pacification and regime legitimation. When reform was attempted — a 200% fuel price increase in November 2019 — the result was nationwide protests suppressed at significant human cost. The mispricing is not inadvertent. It is constitutive of the political settlement.

The sanctions dimension complicates but reinforces this analysis. Constrained from monetising reserves at market prices since 2018, the regime adapted by deepening rent concentration through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which expanded its economic footprint as oil revenues compressed. Price distortions generate institutional adaptations that outlast the distortions themselves.

One counter-argument must be addressed. Haber and Menaldo (2011, APSR) argued that authoritarian states exploit resources aggressively — making authoritarianism the cause rather than the consequence of resource dependence. Andersen and Ross (2014) identified methodological weaknesses in this analysis and found robust evidence for a causal resource curse in post-1980 data. The most defensible position is bidirectionality: resource rents amplify existing authoritarian tendencies even where they do not originate them. Carbon pricing reform is therefore necessary but not sufficient — governance conditionality and institutional capacity-building must accompany it.

IV. The price gap and why enforcement determines it

The IMF (2023) estimates global fossil fuel subsidies at approximately $7 trillion annually. This figure is routinely misused. Around $1.0–1.3 trillion represents explicit subsidies — fiscal transfers and price controls — addressable through budget reform. The remaining $5.7–6.0 trillion represents implicit subsidies: unpriced externalities that require new price signals, not fiscal surgery. Conflating the two categories produces a misleading policy map.

The most compelling evidence for constitutive mis-specification is the price divergence between compliance and voluntary carbon markets. EU ETS allowances have traded at €60–100 per tonne. Voluntary carbon market credits — purportedly equivalent emission reductions — have traded at $2–15, with project-type variance exceeding 500%.

This is not a measurement quality difference. It is an enforcement difference.

EU ETS depth rests on three features voluntary markets cannot replicate: a statutory penalty of €100/tCO₂ creating a credible price floor; a surrender obligation generating inelastic demand; and exchange-clearing infrastructure enabling financial participation with bid-ask spreads below 1%. Voluntary markets lack all three. Reform efforts have concentrated on improving Measurement, Reporting and Verification on the assumption that better measurement produces price convergence. It does not. Enforcement is what creates tradable value. Even perfect measurement cannot manufacture the institutional scarcity that liquidity requires.

The EU ETS price deterioration of 2024–2025 — driven by weak industrial demand and political uncertainty — demonstrates the corollary: where enforcement certainty is questioned, price collapses. A statutory price floor is not a marginal refinement. It is a structural necessity.

V. Financial system exposure and the UK evidence

The implications are not theoretical. They are already visible in financial system exposure.

Financial models systematically understate transition risk through three errors: assumed policy gradualism; treatment of climate policy as exogenous rather than endogenously driven by accumulating physical damage; and underpricing of correlation structures — transition shocks affect multiple asset classes simultaneously and cannot be diversified away within standard portfolio frameworks.

The UK Climate Change Committee's 2024 Progress Report provides granular evidence on what these failures mean in practice. The UK has achieved all three statutory carbon budgets, with territorial emissions more than halved from 1990. A genuine achievement — and, on the CCC's own assessment, deeply insufficient. Only one third of the emissions reductions required to meet the 2030 nationally determined contribution are covered by credible delivery plans. Offshore wind installations must triple annually; heat pump penetration must rise from 1% to 10% of homes by 2030; new electric vehicle market share must approach 100%. Each year of deferred action compresses the required adjustment and raises the probability of disorderly correction.

The CCC's framing is precise: British-based renewable energy is the cheapest and fastest route to energy security. Transition is financial risk reduction, not environmental obligation. The cost of continued fossil fuel dependence is not future climate damage alone — it is present macroeconomic volatility, embedded in current pricing regimes.

The IEA's Net Zero Emissions scenario requires carbon pricing to reach $130/tCO₂ by 2030 and $250/tCO₂ by 2050. A trajectory of that gradient, implemented from near-zero baselines, would not be gradual in financial terms. It would impose rapid repricing of long-duration carbon-intensive assets at a pace that current financial models — designed around policy gradualism assumptions — are structurally unprepared to manage. The NGFS scenario analysis is explicit: disorderly transition could impose GDP losses comparable to the 2008 financial crisis, concentrated in a five-to-ten year window. This is not an argument against transition. It is an argument that the least stable long-run outcome is continued deferral.

VI. The lobbying trap

Carbon mispricing is self-reinforcing. The rents it generates fund the political economy mechanisms that resist its correction.

Leippold, Sautner, and Yu (2024) demonstrate empirically that firms with carbon-intensive business models invest heavily in anti-climate lobbying specifically to delay regulations that would threaten profitability. The scale of lobbying investment is correlated with the scale of threatened rent loss: the industries most exposed to correct carbon pricing are those with the greatest financial incentive to resist it. In democratic political economies, regulatory capture through organised lobbying achieves structurally comparable outcomes to the governance capture documented in authoritarian rentier states. The mechanism differs; the result does not.

The direct policy implication: revenue recycling arrangements broadening the political constituency for pricing reform; mandatory lobbying transparency requirements making rent-defence strategies visible to regulators and investors; and border adjustment mechanisms neutralising the competitive-disadvantage arguments deployed by incumbent industries against domestic pricing ambition. These are not supplementary measures. They are the political economy layer without which technical pricing reform fails. Carbon pricing is not primarily a technical problem awaiting a technical solution. It is a political economy problem in which the financial interests created by mispricing constitute the primary obstacle to its correction.

VII. What correction requires

Five instruments, addressing distinct institutional layers, are required simultaneously. Sequencing matters.

A reformed EU ETS with a statutory price floor — no less than €60/tCO₂ in 2026 terms, escalating on a pre-announced trajectory — and a strengthened Market Stability Reserve. Without a credible floor, the carbon price signal is vulnerable to exactly the macroeconomic shocks that most demand stable forward guidance for long-duration investment decisions.

The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism extended beyond its current scope. CBAM coverage of steel, aluminium, cement, fertilisers, electricity, and hydrogen is insufficient to prevent leakage through manufactured goods value chains. Extension also directly neutralises the competitive-disadvantage argument mobilised against pricing ambition.

Mandatory climate risk disclosure and binding central bank stress-testing with standardised carbon price scenarios across jurisdictions. Voluntary frameworks have exhausted their effectiveness. Basel climate risk principles require translation into capital adequacy requirements.

Lobbying transparency requirements combined with revenue recycling to carbon-exposed households — expanding the reform constituency while countering regressive-cost arguments.

Governance conditionality in development finance and trade architecture: applying to carbon pricing progress the same frameworks that govern rule-of-law compliance, and extending analogous disciplines to critical mineral supply chains as the transition redistributes strategic resource dependence toward lithium, cobalt, and rare earths — replicating, in different geography, the very concentration risks this article critiques in oil.

Conclusion

The lesson from Iran — and from a century of resource-driven geopolitics — is not that oil causes conflict. It is that mispriced resources create misaligned incentives across markets, states, and institutions simultaneously, and those misalignments fund their own perpetuation. Decarbonisation does not resolve this dynamic automatically. It does so only if the transition is built on correct price signals, credible enforcement architecture, and governance frameworks capable of resisting incumbent capture.

The UK data makes the cost of inaction concrete: a mature regulatory jurisdiction, with a genuine track record of emissions reduction and statutory advisory institutions of the highest quality, is running a two-thirds delivery gap on its 2030 target. The explanation is not technical. It is political economy: insufficient pricing ambition, uncertain enforcement, and organised incumbent resistance operating in the space between stated policy and delivered action.

This is not a choice between climate policy and economic stability. It is a choice between correcting a pricing error now — or allowing it to reappear later as systemic financial stress, political instability, and a disorderly adjustment that imposes far greater costs than the orderly correction deferred. The instruments exist. The evidence is unambiguous. The remaining constraint is political will.

Markets do not correct structural mispricing on their own. They transmit it — until it is forced to correct through crisis.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

See how the companies in your sector perform on sustainability. On illuminem’s Data Hub™, access emissions data, ESG performance, and climate commitments for thousands of industrial players across the globe.