Global carbon trading has gained momentum. The Worldwatch Institute, drawing from various studies, places the total value of the trade in 2007 at $59.2 billion, an 80 per cent increase over 2006. As the 2012 deadline for reducing emission levels approaches, the volume of carbon trading will be enormous. Asian countries are the biggest sellers and western countries the biggest buyers. A World Bank report on the 2007 carbon market shows that China has a market share of 61 pe r cent and India 12 per cent. The Government of India, as a part of its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, set up in 2003 a National Clean Development Mechanism Authority, which has been reviewing proposals for carbon credits. However, the final credits are issued by the Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism at the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC). India has garnered 35 million of the 102 million Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) issued up to January 2008. This augurs well for the country and its entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, a few issues surface time and again to remind us how the system can be improved. The pricing of CERs has become a major issue. Studies by groups such as the Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi and by the New Zealand government on CER pricing have highlighted the lack of transparency. This hinders the just distribution of benefits and paves the way for manipulation. The data available indicate that the price of CERs ranges from $11 to $22 and naturally such wide variation raises troubling questions. Arguments for lower prices emphasise scale, risk, and delay in delivery of CERs as determining factors. However, the sellers who bear the burden of investment and delivery should be able to reap the benefits of better prices where they exist. Information on prevailing prices should be easily and freely available. This becomes important in the context of calls for including community projects in the carbon trade. Whether transparency can be imposed through a regulatory authority or by an alternative method needs to be discussed and quickly settled. Reducing emissions at source is the best option but until that is achieved a regulated carbon market is a necessity. For India, there is yet another issue. To their credit, private entrepreneurs predominate in the list of projects approved by UNFCCC. Government projects and the public sector, which have not shown any serious interest in accumulating CERs, need to be prodded to follow their example.