Bart
In ordinary usage, quotation marks around a word followed by ‘sic’ in brackets implies literal attribution to a source.
I’ve looked so far as I’m able through everything I’ve written since hitting upon this interpretation.. and cannot find “naturallness” in any entry.
In ordinary usage in the part of world I live in, (sic!) refers to the word immediately preceding it which was in this case “market”.
As for “naturalness”, I precisely put “” around it because I wanted to suggest that the idea was definitely there (e.g a natural market) but I was not sure whether the word itself was used as such.
However as I also said, I don’t understand most of what you are writing. Now this is a perturbing thing because I am generally able to understand and synthetise quite fast many of really complex texts (f.ex in the field theory or fluid mechanics).
And I have a correct knowledge of economy too.
As a plus to The Chief’s readings is that I did read Marx.
But that was only because I was forced to – there were times and places where and when it was mandatory 
So perhaps you don’t really mean that there is a “natural market” and you merely write in such a way that most people think that you do.
Anyway.
Beside the emission certificate system in Europe which is a failure, there was also another law proposal in France.
Once the idea of a carbon tax was shot down because people didn’t want it, the environmentalists came in through the backdoor again and submitted a law called “climate contribution”.
Of course nobody was fooled that replacing tax by contribution and carbon by climate would change the idea.
In practice it should have worked like that:
Any CO2 emision (hardest impact was expected for automobilists because France having 80% of its power generated by nukes, there are few CO2 power plants) would have a price fixed by the government. So this was basically just a tax that didn’t say its name.
Then they added the idea that the money collected from those who emit much would be given to those who emit little.
This added constraint yields an equation which gives as solution the emission level where a person pays nothing and gets nothing.
So basically we had here a wealth redistribution program but one where instead of the standard key which is revenue, one would use tons of CO2 with an arbitrary price. And of course with such a key there is per definition nothing which prevents the poor giving money to the rich.
People living on the campaign then said that they didn’t intend to give money to people living in towns with just the justification that the former needed to use their cars more than the latter.
Followed the Parliament representatives of the rural district and belonging to the majority party who (obviously) said that they didn’t intend to vote such a law.
And the President was reported to have said in private “We don’t need yet another gas plant.”
To understand this quote, one must know that the expression “usine à gaz” designs in French a system which has a property to take something in some initial state and after a very complex and very expensive process leaves it in a final state which is almost equal to the initial state.
And this definitively killed the “climate contribution” too.
Is this kind of “usine à gaz” similar to the things you are trying to promote under the concept of “natural CO2 markets”?