DOCSLIB.ORG

The Evolving Carbon Market

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Evolving Carbon Market RevIeW Article t From kiosks to megastores: The evolving carbon market by Deb Niemeier and Dana Rowan Markets can play a key role in mitigat- ing the effects of climate change by UN Photo/Mark Garten providing added flexibility, allowing emissions reductions to occur at a lower cost while maintaining a set level of emissions reductions. With careful regulatory design, both indus- try and consumers can benefit from low costs. We review the state of car- bon trading globally and in the United States, the West and California. New policies and regulations related to AB32, which mandates reductions in California’s greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, are beginning Globally, carbon trading is expanding rapidly as a means for using markets to reduce to take shape. California has a unique greenhouse-gas emissions. In December 2008, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon opened the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland. opportunity to establish a new ethos for carbon trading by acknowledging trading is substantially greater in the projects certified under the Kyoto unavoidable mitigation costs, and by former than in the latter (fig. 1). Both Protocol, a 1997 international treaty to designing a market-based solution types of markets trade in greenhouse- reduce greenhouse gases. that is fair, equitable and transpar- gas emissions, which include carbon The voluntary carbon market in- ent, and protects the most vulnerable dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur cludes the Chicago Climate Exchange, hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and which allows businesses to voluntarily members of society. perfluorocarbons, and are measured in set a reduction target and trade emis- carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). sions or buy offsets. Individuals and he carbon market is growing expo- When regulated entities are subject businesses can also purchase retail nentially; at $30 billion, worldwide to greenhouse-gas limits, those emit- “over-the counter” greenhouse-gas- tradingT in 2006 was nearly triple that ting less than the cap can theoretically emissions offsets, such as TerraPass. observed in 2005. A carbon market is trade with those emitting above the cap. The voluntary market, which has been created when an emissions cap is set — Carbon trades can also occur with off- referred to as “the Wild West” of offset either through a political or regulatory set projects that reduce emissions from trading (Fahrenthold and Mufson 2007), process — and an emissions allowance unregulated greenhouse-gas-producing currently transacts about 24 MMtCO2e, is then passed down to regulated enti- activities (such as capturing methane and this amount is projected to roughly ties. If the total carbon emissions pro- from cows in California and using it to double by 2011. duced by a company exceeds its cap (or produce electricity), or via unregulated Carbon market history allowance), then the company must pur- carbon-sequestration activities (such as chase credits (or allowances) from those planting trees in Brazil). Voluntary emissions reductions polluting less than their allowance; this The regulated carbon market and offsets can be traced back at transfer is known as a carbon trade. In transacts about a million metric least 20 years, driven by the desire theory, carbon markets allow companies tons of carbon dioxide equivalents to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to choose least-cost methods of com- (MMtCO2e, the standard measure- in the absence of formal regulations. pliance, which results in a net societal ment for amounts of greenhouse gases Nonetheless, the decision to allow off- financial gain when overall emissions emitted into the environment) annu- sets is separate from the decision to im- are reduced to the desired level. Today’s ally, and includes the European Union pose a regulatory cap. In addition, the carbon market can be loosely organized Emissions Trading Scheme, the United types of projects allowed as offsets and into the regulated (or compliance) mar- Kingdom Emissions Trading Scheme, the criteria by which they are evaluated ket and the voluntary (or noncompli- the New South Wales Greenhouse are also policy decisions. When credits ance) market; the volume and value of Gas Abatement Scheme, and offset are generated through offset invest- 96 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 63, NUMBER 2 ments, the transaction costs — the costs of providing the services, information Carbon markets and enforcement required to support $30,098 million a trade — may be much higher than anticipated and are directly related to policy decisions about how to evalu- ate and monitor projects over time (Michaelowa and Jotzo 2005). With the right price signals, both industry and Voluntary market consumers generally benefit from more Regulated market $91 million cost-effective emissions reductions, $29,980 million 23.7 MMtCO2e which might include purchasing or fi- 1,629 MMtCO2e nancing offsets (Wara 2007). The Kyoto Protocol was instrumental in establishing the necessary foundation for carbon markets to develop. Adopted CCX Retail in 1997 at the Third Conference of the $38 million $59.4 million Parties of the United Nations Framework 10.3 MMtCO e 13.4 MMtCO e EU ETS Kyoto CDM/JI 2 2 Convention on Climate Change, the $24,357 million $4,954 million (Allowances) (Project-based) Kyoto Protocol requires that Annex I 1,101 MMtCO2e 466 MMtCO2e nations reduce their greenhouse-gas (Allowances) (Project-based) emissions to 5% below their total 1990 levels over the 2008-to-2012 commit- ment period. Annex I nations include MMtCO2e = million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalents industrialized countries that were in the Organization for Economic Co- Fig. 1. Market trading, 2006. Total carbon market includes smaller market trades not shown; operation and Development (OECD) regulated market includes New South Wales and the U.K. emissions Trading Schemes (eTS). Kyoto CDM/JI = clean development mechanism/joint implementation; CCX = Chicago in 1992, such as the United States, the Climate exchange. Adapted from Capoor and Ambrosi 2007; Hamilton 2007. United Kingdom and countries in the European Community. They also in- clude countries with economies in tran- In nations such as the United States another Annex I party that does not sition (EIT parties) such as the Russian that have not yet ratified the Kyoto expect to meet its assigned target. Federation, the Baltic States, and several Protocol, and so are not bound by it, Joint implementation. Second, the Central and Eastern European states. greenhouse-gas emissions regula- Kyoto Protocol also allows carbon cred- Certain developed nations (OECD mem- tions and trading mechanisms are its from project-based offsets. Article 33 bers but not EIT parties) contribute to also being established at subnational (UNFCCC 1998) allows project-based an adaptation fund to be used in non– scales. These include upcoming limits credits for avoided deforestation, refor- Annex I (developing) nations such as in California and the Northeastern estation and afforestation, which entails China, India and Mexico. The purpose states. In the meantime, unregulated planting forests in places that have not of the adaptation fund is to provide parties, from industries in nonratify- been forested for at least 50 years, to financial assistance to developing coun- ing nations and non–Annex I nations increase carbon stored in or decrease tries that are particularly susceptible to to individual consumers worldwide, carbon released by soils and trees. the effects of climate change, helping still look to a growing voluntary trad- Under Article 3.4, forest, crop and graz- them to address adverse impacts. ing market to mitigate climate change. ing land management can be used to The protocol includes provisions for generate carbon offsets (UNFCCC 2002). Regulated carbon markets trading emissions credits as a mecha- Joint implementation allows an Annex nism to reduce greenhouse-gas abate- Under the Kyoto Protocol, Annex I I party to develop and implement an ment costs, though member states can member states can meet their assigned emissions reduction (or sink) project meet their targets with any combina- targets in three ways: in another Annex I party’s territory tion of direct regulation, incentives, Emissions trading. First, when and receive credit (emission reduction taxes or cap-and-trade. By Oct. 23, 2007, greenhouse-gas allowances are ex- units [ERUs]) toward its own target. 175 countries had ratified the Kyoto changed by emissions trading, an Most joint implementations to date have Protocol (UNFCCC 2007), providing Annex I party that is under its as- targeted economies in transition, but much of the world with a formal mech- signed target may transfer those excess recently a New Zealand wind farm was anism to regulate and trade emissions. credits (or assigned amount units) to implemented jointly. http://CaliforniaAgriculture.ucop.edu • April–June 2009 97 TABLe 1. early greenhouse-gas offset projects Start date Sponsors Location Type Original mitigation estimate MMtCO2e 1989 Applied Energy Services, CARE Guatemala Forestry, agroforestry 60 1990 U.S. Forest Service United States Tree planting (private land) 59–238 1991 World Bank, Global Environmental Facility (GEF) Philippines Geothermal energy —* 1991 UN Development Program, GEF Zimbabwe Photovoltaic energy — 1992 Face Foundation, Innoprise Corp. Malaysia Enrichment planting, forest rehabilitation, 15.6 sustainable timber * Data unavailable. Clean development mechanism. Chicago Climate Exchange. In the in Guatemala.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • T H E Kyoto Mechanisms & Global C L I M a T E C H a N
    T h e Kyoto Mechanisms & Global c l i m a t e c h a n g e Coordination Issues and Domestic Po l i c i e s Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change by Er ik Ha i t es M ARGAR E E C O N SU L TA N TS I N C . Mal ik Amin Asl am E NVOR K R E S E AR C H A N D D EV E L O P M E N T O RGA N I S AT I O N Sept emb er 2000 Contents Foreword ii E xecutive Summary iii I. Introduction 1 A. The Benefits of Emissions Trading 1 B. The Kyoto Mechanisms 2 C. Implementation Issues 4 D. The Kyoto Mechanisms and Domestic Policies 5 E. Equity, Environmental Integrity, and Economic Efficiency 6 II. Proposed Rules for the Kyoto Mechanisms 9 A. Participation by Legal Entities 9 B. Substitution Among Mechanisms (Fungibility) 10 C. Supplementarity 12 D. Penalties, Enforcement, and Liability 13 E. International Review of Projects 15 F. The Need To Demonstrate Additionality 17 G. Approval by Annex B Parties 19 H. Date When Projects Can Begin To Generate Allowances 20 + I. Eligibility of Sink Enhancement Projects 21 J. Levies on Transactions 21 K. Contribution to Sustainable Development 23 III. Coordination of the Kyoto Mechanisms with Domestic Policies 24 A. Potential Purchase and Use of Kyoto Mechanism Allowances by Legal Entities 25 B. Potential Sales of Kyoto Mechanism Allowances by Legal Entities 29 C. Coordination of Domestic Policies with the Rules of the Kyoto Mechanisms 31 + I V.
    [Show full text]
  • EU ETS Handbook ©Istock
    EU ETS Handbook ©iStock Climate Action Contents Using the guide 3 What is the EU ETS? 4 Benefits of cap-and-trade 5 History of the EU ETS 7 EU legislative structure and the EU ETS 9 How does the EU ETS contribute to meeting the EU’s climate policy goals? 12 How does the EU ETS contribute to a competitive economy? 14 How does the EU ETS work? 16 Main EU ETS features over the years 18 Design structure 20 What GHG emissions does the EU ETS cover? 20 What is the cap on GHG emissions? 22 How are allowances allocated? 24 How allocation has evolved 26 Auctioning in the EU ETS 28 Auctioning bodies and venues 29 Distribution of auctioning rights 31 Auctioning in practice 32 Use of auction revenues 35 Transitional free allocation for modernisation of the power sector (Article 10c) 36 NER300 fund for demonstration projects 38 Free allocation in the EU ETS 40 Timing of determining free allocation 41 Free allocation shifts compliance costs 42 From national allocation to EU-wide allocation; NAPs to NIMs 43 Calculating free allocation using benchmarks 44 Limit on total free allocation: Correction factors 46 What is a benchmark? 47 The process of developing the benchmarks 48 Product benchmark curves and values 49 Product benchmark for free allocation 51 Fall-back approaches for free allocation 53 Historical Activity Level 55 Cross-boundary energy - Who should receive free allocation? 56 Capacity changes/Changes in emissions 58 When is an installation a new entrant? 59 Addressing the risk of carbon leakage 60 Addressing the risk of carbon leakage: Compensation
    [Show full text]
  • Titelfolie Logo Dachmarke
    Carbon Markets – General Introduction Urs Brodmann First Climate IATA / IETA Workshop Singapore, 22 March 2017 Your partner for climate protection and sustainability – since 1999 First Climate is a globally leading carbon market service provider. We Our products and develop emission reduction projects, originate and trade carbon credits services at a glance and manage portfolios of carbon assets. We act as a consultant to corporate and public sector clients. CO2-Compliance Services Climate Neutral Services Carbon/Water Project Development Green Energy Services Public Climate Action Carbon Asset Management Water Management Services Pellets2go 2 Facts & Figures Facilitated over VERs retired on More than 500 200,000,000 EUR in behalf of our clients: corporate clients project finance 24.000.000 Generated Renewable energy 32.000.000 We support more than certificates sourced on CERs 200 carbon offset projects behalf of more than 150 clients 3 Outline 1. Introduction to Carbon Markets 2. Key Concepts for Baseline & Credit Mechanisms 3. Credit Types and Standards 4. Carbon Markets to Date; Supply/Demand Considerations 4 Compliance vs. Voluntary Markets • Carbon markets exist both under compliance schemes and as voluntary programs • Compliance markets are created and regulated by mandatory regional , national, and international carbon reduction regimes, such as the Kyoto Protocol an the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) • Voluntary markets function outside of the compliance markets and enable companies, governments and individuals to purchase
    [Show full text]
  • Carbon Markets 101 the ULTIMATE GUIDE to GLOBAL OFFSETTING MECHANISMS
    Carbon markets 101 THE ULTIMATE GUIDE TO GLOBAL OFFSETTING MECHANISMS Version 2.0 July 2020 co2 co2 co2 co2 co2 1 Introduction Contents This briefing gives an overview of the current discussions under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement which establishes the foundation for market-based climate measures after 2020. It lays out key lessons from the Kyoto Protocol markets, highlights essential issues within the Article 6 negotiations, and provides recommendations on how to solve them. It concludes with an overview of non-Article 6 carbon Introduction 3 markets, which have ties to the Article 6 discussions, such as the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), a carbon market specifically designed for airlines. Trading greenhouse gas emissions 3 Distinguishing between two forms of carbon markets 3 Trading greenhouse gas emissions UN carbon markets 4 Carbon markets are one of the tools to tackle the climate change problem, i.e. the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Since we only have one atmosphere, it does not matter where the emissions are released, because they will soon spread around the Lessons from the Kyoto Protocol for the Article 6 markets 4 earth, creating a greenhouse effect. Following this logic, if a group of people, countries or companies agrees to limit their emissions to a certain amount (aka adopt a “carbon budget”), it does not matter how much each person emits, or where they do so, as long as the The Clean Development Mechanism 4 whole group does not emit more than what they committed to. Since it doesn’t matter where we reduce emissions, the argument behind carbon trading is that the best way to take climate action is to reduce emissions where it is easiest (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • The Government of the Republic of Croatia 3940
    THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA 3940 Pursuant to Article 48 paragraph 3 of the Air Protection Act (Official Gazette 178/2004 and 60/2008), the Government of the Republic of Croatia, at its session on 5 December 2008, adopted the following REGULATION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FLEXIBLE MECHANISMS OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 1 (1) This Regulation prescribes the manner of carrying out the procedure for implementing the flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol, the members of the Committee for the assessment of project activities or programmes, and the manner of reporting on their implementation. (2) This Regulation shall apply to the manner of implementing the Kyoto Protocol flexible mechanisms, i.e.: – project activities of the Clean Development Mechanism, – project activities of the Joint Implementation Mechanism on the territory and outside the territory of the Republic of Croatia, –international greenhouse gas emission trading. Article 2 The provisions of this Regulation shall not apply to: – project activities which involve use of nuclear energy, – project activities in relation to land-use, land-use change and forestry if genetically modified organisms or invasive foreign species are used. Article 3 (1) For the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions apply: 1. Annex I Party to the UNFCCC – party specified in Annex I to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as: the UNFCCC) that has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, 2. Clean Development Mechanism – Kyoto Protocol instrument for the implementation of project activities for reducing or eliminating emissions in countries which are not parties to Annex I to the UNFCCC, 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Note 1. Introduction to Cop6 Issues and Glossary to Cop6 Terms
    NOTE 1: NOVEMBER THE EARTH IN BALANCE: BRIEFING NOTES FOR THE INTRODUCTION & 2000 NOVEMBER 2000 CLIMATE SUMMIT GLOSSARY NOTE 1. INTRODUCTION TO COP6 ISSUES AND GLOSSARY TO COP6 TERMS Chris Rolfe, Staff Counsel West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation As a result of decisions made now, changes in global intended to provide an environmental perspective to emissions over the next few decades may, over the next negotiators and educate other participants attending hundred years, inexorably lead to catastrophic climate at the Hague or following the negotiations at home. change like the breakdown of the West Antarctic ice sheets. This introductory note begins with a discussion of the — Stephen H. Schneider, Stanford University Framework Convention under which the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated. It then reviews the basic From November 13 to 24, 2000 the nations of the elements of the Protocol, discusses the key negotiating world will meet in The Hague to decide the fate of the parties and provides a glossary of “climate speak” — Kyoto Protocol. Will the greenhouse gas emission the difficult to penetrate lexicon of climate reductions called for in the Protocol be real reductions negotiators. from business as usual or reductions in form only? Will it be undermined by loopholes? Will the THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE Protocol be enforceable or merely an exhortation that CHANGE is legally binding in form only? Will developing countries block progress out of frustration with The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate developed countries’ failure to implement past Change (FCCC) was one of several key environmental obligations? Will the mechanisms like emission treaties negotiated at the June 1992 Earth Summit in trading provide the flexibility that big emitters like the Rio de Janeiro.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Ghg Emission Reduction Market Opportunities
    90 NSS Ukraine 3. GHG EMISSION REDUCTION MARKET OPPORTUNITIES 3.1. A SSESSMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL MARKETS FOR GHG REDUCTIONS 3.1.1. Rules for the Kyoto Mechanisms and their Implications for International GHG Market Architecture The Kyoto Protocol is a very complex agreement. Defining quantified binding commitments requires clarity concerning the timescales, the range of gases covered, the basis upon which to compare them, and the rules for monitoring, reporting and compliance. In addition, the desire to make the commitments as economically efficient as possible led to the incorporation of a range of mechanisms that are unprecedented in international law. These mechanisms are intended to enable countries to limit the economic impact of their domestic emission obligations through emission credits trading, or through investments in projects in other countries where it might be cheaper to reduce emissions. The details of the rules governing these mechanisms have considerable implications for the real impact of the Protocol. The Protocol includes three mechanisms (see Box 3.1) that allow the Parties to secure reductions in the mos t cost effective ways. In addition, these mechanisms stimulate international investment and provide essential resources to support cleaner economic transition and development: East-West investment through International Emissions Trading and Joint Implementation, and North-South investment through the Clean Development Mechanism. BOX 3.1 THE KYOTO MECHANISMS · Joint Implementation (JI) allows a country to claim credit for emission reductions generated by its investments in another industrialized country. These efforts result in a transfer of equivalent ‘emission reduction units’ (ERUs) between the two countries (Article 6).
    [Show full text]
  • Agreement on a Testing Ground for Application of the Kyoto Mechanisms on Energy Projects in the Baltic Sea Region
    AGREEMENT ON A TESTING GROUND FOR APPLICATION OF THE KYOTO MECHANISMS ON ENERGY PROJECTS IN THE BALTIC SEA REGION Whereas the Governments of the countries in the Baltic Sea Region, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Iceland, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Poland, the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Sweden, hereinafter named as the Parties, have ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and have ratified or are in the process of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC at its third session; Whereas the Ministers of Energy of the Baltic Sea Region decided, in Vilnius in November 2002, to establish the Testing Ground for international cooperation in the use of flexible mechanisms, as envisaged by the same ministers at their Helsinki Conference in 1999, with the objectives to build capacity and competence to use the Joint Implementation (JI) mechanism, to promote the realisation of high quality projects in the energy sector generating emissions reductions, to develop methods and procedures in conformity with the rules and guidelines of the Kyoto Protocol, to collaborate in addressing administrative and financial barriers, and to minimise transaction costs, especially regarding small scale JI projects, to facilitate generation, ensure issuance and transfer of Emission Reduction Units (ERUs) and Assigned Amount Units
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change: a Glossary of Terms
    Climate change: a glossary of terms 5th Edition Climate change 2012 The global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues 5th Floor, 209–215 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NL, United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (0)20 7633 2388 Facsimile: +44 (0)20 7633 2389 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.ipieca.org © IPIECA 2012 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior consent of IPIECA. This publication is printed on paper manufactured from fibre obtained from sustainably grown softwood forests and bleached without any damage to the environment. IPIECA Climate change: a glossary of terms 5th Edition Preface The IPIECA glossary of climate change terms was first printed in June 1999 and defines and explains many of the terms used at the climate change negotiations and more broadly in the field. This fifth edition has been updated following the UN Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa in December 2011 (COP 17 and COP/MOP 7). Some terms have been amended, and new terms and acronyms hav e been added. 1 IPIECA CLIMATE CHANGE: A GLOSSARY OF TERMS Contents Alphabetical section Page number A3 B 13 C 16 D 27 E 30 F 36 G 39 H 43 I 44 J 48 K 49 L 50 M 52 N 55 O 58 P 59 Q 62 R 62 S 65 T 70 U 73 V 76 W 76 Y 77 Summary of terms 82 2 IPIECA CLIMATE CHANGE: A GLOSSARY OF TERMS A AAU See ‘Assigned Amount Unit’.
    [Show full text]
  • Electricity Generation Activities and Emission
    November 2005 DRAFT DRAFTING INSTRUCTIONS CROSS-CUTTING PROVISIONS LARGE FINAL EMITTERS REGULATIONS NOTE: These are proposed drafting instructions for the cross-cutting provisions of the proposed regulations for the Large Final Emitters system. Final regulatory wording may differ from what is found in this document. INTERPRETATION 1. The following definitions apply in these regulations. “Assigned Amount Unit” (AAU) means a unit issued pursuant to Article 3 of the Kyoto Protocol and is equal to one metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent calculated using the global warming potentials as defined in Schedule 1. “Certified Emission Reduction” (CER) means a unit that has been issued pursuant to a Clean Development Mechanism project, as defined by Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol and is equal to one metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent calculated using the global warming potentials as defined in Schedule 1. “carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent” means an amount of a substance listed in column 1 of Schedule 1 multiplied by the Global Warming Potential listed in column 3. “compliance unit” means an eligible domestic credit or an eligible Kyoto unit. “covered activity” means a covered activity specified in any regulation listed in Schedule 2. “eligible domestic credit” means: (a) a tradeable unit issued under any program or measure established under section 322 of CEPA, including a temporary domestic credit and is equal to one metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent calculated using the global warming potentials as defined in Schedule 1; (b) a tradeable unit, equal to one metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent calculated using the global warming potentials as defined in Schedule 1, issued under section 16 of these regulations; or (c) a Technology Investment Unit, equal to one metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent calculated using the global warming potentials as defined in Schedule 1, issued pursuant to the Greenhouse Gas Technology Investment Fund Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Options to Develop International Greenhouse Gas Unit Accounting After 2012
    ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY KEEPING TRACK: OPTIONS TO DEVELOP INTERNATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS UNIT ACCOUNTING AFTER 2012 www.oecd.org/env/cc/CCXG Andrew Prag (OECD), André Aasrud and www.iea.org Christina Hood (IEA) Graphic design: Betrand Sadin May 2011 Unclassified COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2011)1 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 31-May-2011 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ English - Or. English ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY Unclassified COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2011)1 KEEPING TRACK: OPTIONS TO DEVELOP INTERNATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS UNIT ACCOUNTING AFTER 2012 Andrew Prag (OECD), André Aasrud and Christina Hood (IEA) The ideas expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent views of the English OECD, the IEA, or their member countries, or the endorsement of any approach described herein. - Or. English JT03302773 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2011)1 Copyright OECD/IEA, 2011 Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this material should be addressed to: Head of Publications Service, OECD/IEA 2 rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France or 9 rue de la Fédération, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France. 2 COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2011)1 FOREWORD This document was prepared by the OECD and IEA Secretariats in May 2011 in response to a request from the Climate Change Expert Group (CCXG) on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
    [Show full text]
  • Flexible Mechanisms in Support of a New Climate Change Regime
    FLEXIBLE MECHANISMS IN SUPPORT OF A NEW CLIMATE CHANGE REGIME THE CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM AND BEYOND CEPS TASK FORCE REPORT CHAIR: ULRIKA RAAB Senior Advisor Swedish Energy Agency RAPPORTEUR: NORIKO FUJIWARA Head of Climate Change and Research Fellow, CEPS CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES BRUSSELS This report is based on discussions in the CEPS Task Force on The CDM and Future Flexible Mechanisms post-2012. The Task Force met several times over a concentrated period of time from November 2008 to May 2009. Participants included senior executives from a broad range of industry and representatives from business associations and non- governmental environmental organisations. A list of members and invited guests and speakers appears in Annex 2. The members of the Task Force engaged in extensive debates in the course of several meetings and submitted comments on earlier drafts of this report. Its contents contain the general tone and direction of the discussion, but its recommendations do not necessarily reflect a full common position agreed among all members of the Task Force, nor do they necessarily represent the views of the institutions to which the members belong. Christian Egenhofer and Anton Georgiev from CEPS made valuable contributions to the preparation of this report. ISBN 978-92-9079-948-1 © Copyright 2009, Centre for European Policy Studies. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise – without the prior permission of the Centre for European Policy Studies. Centre for European Policy Studies Place du Congrès 1, B-1000 Brussels Tel: (32.2) 229.39.11 Fax: (32.2) 219.41.51 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.ceps.eu CONTENTS Preface.....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]