PES Manifesto

1. Don't Expand the CDM par nanne in berlin le jeudi 13 décembre 2007 à 11h44

The Clean Development Mechanism is a leak in the system of emission caps, because it allows 'reductions' to be achieved through projects in countries that do not have a cap set. There is no guarantee that these will actually achieve a reduction. There are large opportunities for fraud. We need to expand the system of caps to include as many countries as possible. Joint Implementation projects and emissions trading can assure flexibility. The CDM should be stopped.

A better built environment is a great idea. However, redesigning the built environment is a project that is going to take a long time (30 to 50 years) even if we get started right away (as we should). We also need short-term solutions.

2. CDM or not to CDM par taipale le vendredi 14 décembre 2007 à 15h43

Hi Nanne, interesting that you'd support Joint Implementation (JI) and Emissions Trading (ET) but not the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which are the so called Mechanisms under Kyoto Protocol.

In fact, the CDM and the JI are ibasically the same mechanisms, only CDM involves industrialized countries cooperating with developing countries, whereas JI happens between industrialized countries.

I'd definitely agree with you, if there in fact would be a lot of fraud and 'leak'. However, companies are complaining that the project approval process takes far too long, and the burden of proof is far too elaborate, with all its monitoring procedures!

My viewpoint is that the CDM could become a powerful tool in "technology transfer", if that is what we want to call it, or initiating and mainstreaming "good practices" in developing countries. It offers incentives for both parties to initiate CO2 emission reduction projects, which would otherwise not be implemented.

3. CDM and Technology Transfer par nanne in berlin le lundi 17 décembre 2007 à 12h52

I think that technology transfer can and should be organised in a different way than through the CDM.

There definitely are big problems with its implementation, see e.g. this report:

http://community.newvalues.net/2007/11/a_fifth_of_un_carbon_credits_m.html 

These problems exist much less under JI or ET, because these take place within the system of caps. Opportunities for fraud exist everywhere, but the problems of the CDM are more systemic. Any reductions under JI yield real reductions; there is no 'additionality' issue, there is no issue that the reductions are offset by increases elsewhere because that will oblige the selling country to compensate again. Then again, under Kyoto there still is/was the separate issue of 'hot air' in Russia and Eastern Europe. That also needs to be resolved under a new treaty.

In addition, CDM causes the price of emission rights in the countries that have a cap set to be lower. A higher price will drive them towards change quicker.

4. interesting article par Adam B le mercredi 19 décembre 2007 à 18h53

Hello., recently i read that it would mean nothing for private persons to turn off the light or save emissions. This was because the quotas used in the kyoto was made mainly for companies. So, if private persons saved gas for instance, this would just give a larger quota for companies, and not really reducing anything. Can you confirm this and is this something that will be changed?

Furtheremore, will the CDM's be implemented in the ENP agreements? 

5. Answer to Adam B par editor le jeudi 20 décembre 2007 à 16h23

@Adam B 

The quotas for greenhouse gas emissions are focused on energy production as well as other big sources of emissions. Switching of the light or turning down your heating control reduces consumption and thus, if done on a massive scale, also energy production. So, go on switching off your light when not needed, fell good about it and see it as a small contribution.

As for the integration of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP): The application depends on the status of the neighbouring country within the Kyoto agreement. There is, however, a discussion to introduce tradable so-called renewable energy certificates. That’s kind of complicated: renewable energy certificates could be used to develop renewable energy sources in more favourable conditions. This could mean that, for instance, British companies develop and finance biomass power plants in Bulgaria, while getting certificates for the UK within burden sharing agreements in the European Union. Or more simplistic: even though build in Bulgaria, this renewable energy project would be counted within British quotas of renewable energy sources. With binding targets for renewable energies and fines for under-achievers, this sounds like a great idea, which could easily be extended to new neighbourhood countries. There is a downside, however: this would be the end of feed-in tariffs and other forms of subsidies for renewable energies, as used by a number of EU Member States.

Hope this answer helps!