Categoría: Previous Issues Articles

5 Sep, 2012

Common Sense – Common Accounting

To enable understanding of mitigation efforts by developed country Parties, transparency is critical. The LCA process has already launched a process to clarify Annex I targets. This is a significant step. Developed country Parties should clarify the assumptions that underlie their targets, including:

Emission reduction target (in terms of MTCO2e)
Expected emissions reductions
Base year
Emissions level in the base year (in terms of MTCO2e)
Methodology used to calculate the national inventory in the base year
Target year
Methodology that will be used to calculate the national inventory over the target period
Sectors covered by the target
Gases covered by the target
GWP values
Role of LULUCF, including methodology used to calculate emissions and removals from LULUCF
Use of surplus emissions units, to the extent used in any second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and also used to meet targets under the Convention track
Role of any domestic offsets, international offsets and other marketbased mechanisms:
Methodology used to assess emissions reductions
The percentage of (in terms of both the goal and the reduction effort), as well as the absolute amount (in tons of CO2e), of emissions reductions generated that will be used in achieving their mitigation goals.
Mechanisms used to prevent double counting

Previous Issues Articles

5 Sep, 2012

Markets On Our Mind

While most developed nations remain unwilling to commit to legally binding targets for CP2, discussions about market mechanisms have been (un)surprisingly vivid. The fact that carbon market prices are at a record low and surplus allowances threaten to bring prices near zero hasn’t added much urge to increase ambition.

ECO wonders why the many carbon market industry lobbyists haven’t made it clear yet that markets can only flourish with vigorous demand, which can only be created by binding reduction commitments. Let’s get that right: allowing emissions trading schemes from countries without enough demand to reach their voluntary targets with international offsets won’t help. The recent announcement of the Australian ETS linking up to the EU ETS has stirred worries that the lack of an international accounting framework will create a fragmented market that will undermine the environmental integrity of carbon markets altogether.

My dear negotiators, would you honestly buy the right to pollute with Japanese Yen from an Indian company if you don’t know whether the emissions reductions are calculated in watts, horsepower or feet? ECO presumes not. However, it’s definitely maths time: do the numbers and calculate the emissions reductions you need for your market to work.

Not only that, we also need a common accounting framework (look to your left) that ensures 1 tonne is 1 tonne.
... Read more ...

Previous Issues Articles

5 Sep, 2012

CAN Classifieds

Training available: Advanced deception in the 21st Century.

Canada invites you to a workshop on how creative accounting can enable you to claim greenhouse gas reductions and decieve domestic and international audiences alike. All inquiries to Harper Consultants Ltd.

For sale: Cooking Your Books: 100 delicious recipes.
Umbrella Publishing Group. Be in quick as supplies are limited, unlike our carbon credits.

Training available: Deficit reductions the easy way. Is your carbon deficit looking worse than your financial one? New Zealand and Canada provide you with basic and advanced training in balancing the books while keeping polluters happy.

Cheating 101: Basic introduction to LULUCF rules and effective use of the flexible mechanisms.

LULUCF Accounting 201: Advanced use of LULUCF rules, how to protect your agriculture sector.

Advanced rules 301: Hiding emissions in QELRO rules, target overshoot, advanced deception techniques, strategic use of the flexible mechanisms.

Previous Issues Articles

4 Sep, 2012

The Ugly, the Not So Bad and the Good

ECO listened with great interest to Parties’ expectations of COP18 in Qatar this year. The greatest surprise came from those bottom-up loving Brollies, who mentioned the need to have a significant amount of technical preparation to give Ministers “options” on the Kyoto Protocol. Yes, you heard it, optionSSSSSS. Why do we need plural options? Surely one will suffice? Provisional Application – period.

But it wasn’t all bad, we liked the EU’s call for more creative thinking that shouldn’t just be exclusive to parties. ECO was jumping for joy. We will definitely let our creative juices run wild and are always happy to share these with our European colleagues, as well as others.

But the real music to our ears came from the UAE, which characterized itself, like Qatar, as a small but ambitious country, claiming that many countries in the region have renewable energy initiatives and targets, and hope that Doha can be a chance for these initiatives to get the «international recognition» they deserve. ECO is often wishful, but could this be the onset of support for the Arab countries to submit NAMAs? We hope so.

Previous Issues Articles

4 Sep, 2012

Clarifying Clarifications

The two panels on quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets by developed country Parties left ECO feeling that there was something missing since Bali – like four years perhaps? – or a bit of ambition?

Surely Parties can cite 1(b)(i) from the Bali Action Plan in their sleep (“comparable” – remember)? Yet, as St Lucia pointed out, we still have different base years and metrics. That’s not going to help spotting the loopholes and freeloaders – oh sorry…everyone’s acting in good faith so no need to worry about transparency.

All in all, there are some surprisingly unsophisticated approaches on the table from some rather sophisticated economies – putting forward point targets rather than carbon budgets. And yes, ECO’s talking about those north of Latin America. This includes no clear idea how international credits used by states and provinces are going to affect the national level. ECO was intrigued at issues for California being considered “within the noise” of measurement. Yes, who could possibly be concerned about accounting problems within an economy the size of Australia?

And talking of the latter – ECO believes the EU’s urgings were heard loud and clear. Australia and New Zealand, you’re wanted in the KP. As they say in those parts, “Come on Australia.”
... Read more ...

Previous Issues Articles

4 Sep, 2012

LCDSs: Something For Everyone!

In Cancun, 1.CP/16 paras 45 and 65 respectively stated that developed country Parties “should” develop low-carbon development strategies and plans, and developing countries “were encouraged” to work on such strategies and plans. In Durban, both groups were invited to submit progress towards the formulation of their LCDSs during this year’s workshops. ECO is disappointed that LCDSs were not a strong part of the 1(b)(i) and 1(b)(ii) workshops on Sunday – especially since such plans help fulfil the Convention’s Article 4.1b mandate, respecting “specific national…development priorities, objectives and circumstances”. Although some nations have prepared them or their equivalent, Parties should actually make a strong effort to do this national climate planning, since such plans can cater to the diverse interests, and here is why:

Developed countries: invest in future-proof infrastructure and avoid lock-in

Developed countries need to have achieved near-complete decarbonisation of their economies by 2050. This is not going to happen unless firm foundations are laid now through a vision of the kind of economy, society and environment they are aiming for in the long term, and working backwards to realise this vision. This is not simply a question of technology and infrastructure changes, but also the way to create a just transition for society as the changes are made.
... Read more ...

Previous Issues Articles

4 Sep, 2012

AAU Elephants

Negotiators are truly having a tough time putting the pieces for a second commitment period together. But soon they will face the enormous elephant in the room. A recent UNEP report estimates that up to 13 billion tonnes CO₂ of surplus AAUs could be carried over to the next commitment period. This is almost three times the annual emissions of the EU. With the supply of hot air AAUs much higher than current reduction commitments (that are well under the 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 actually needed), carry-over would lead to no emission reductions compared to business-as-usual emission projections by 2020. As a matter of fact, CP2 commitments as they stand would likely lead to another surplus. This would be the case even if the large quantity of Russian surplus is excluded. Additionally, carbon credits from the CDM and JI that can be carried over would further lower actual emission reduction levels by 2020 by roughly 6%.

But there is hope! A proposal by the G77, which is technically sound and politically feasible in addressing this enormous loophole, could do the trick. Europe showed in Durban that it can pull its weight internationally by being the driving force behind the agreement for a new climate accord by 2015.
... Read more ...