Solar Renewable Energy Certificates (SRECs) or Solar Renewable Energy Credits are a form of Renewable Energy Certificate or Green tag. SRECs are available in states where a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) exists with a specific allocation for solar energy. SREC programs provide a means for SRECs to be created on behalf of a solar panel owner and sold to state electric suppliers to meet the solar RPS requirement. Electric suppliers are required to use the SREC program to show compliance with this part of the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard.
The SREC is separate from the value of the electricity itself and permits the owner or purchaser to claim the benefits of the clean energy production by effectively subsidizing the cost of the installed system. SRECs are designed to provide individuals and corporations with an economic incentive to investing in solar electric systems which improve the electric distribution grid. They represent the renewable attributes from a solar facility, bundled in minimum denominations of one megawatt hour (MWh) of production. The additional income received from selling the solar certificates increases the economic value of an investment. Instead of up-front subsidies from the state, solar system owners can recover their investment by selling certificates to utilities.
Prices
Typically, there is no assigned monetary value to an SREC. Instead, SREC prices are a function of (1) a state's solar alternative compliance payment (SACP) and (2) supply and demand for SRECs within the relevant state.
SACP The SACP is the fee that energy suppliers must pay if they fail to secure SRECs as required by state regulations called a RPS. A state's ACP therefore generally sets a cap on the value of SRECs because energy suppliers may simply pay the fee if SREC prices approach the fee level. In rare cases SREC prices have approached and even surpassed ACP levels because SRECs can sometimes be recovered by charging more to electricity customers (rate basing), while ACP payments are usually precluded. The SACP fee often decreases over time within each state, thereby putting downward pressure on SREC prices.
Supply and Demand SREC supply in a particular state is determined by the number of solar installations qualified to produce SRECs and actually selling SRECs in that state. As more solar systems are built SREC supply will increase, putting downward pressure on prices.
SREC demand is determined by the state RPS solar requirement, typically a requirement that a certain percentage of the energy supply into a state must originate from qualified solar energy resources. According to Sol Systems, an SREC market maker and one of the largest SREC aggregators in the country, RPSsolar requirements are set to universally increase in the coming decade, as will SREC demand. An increase in demand for SRECs means upward pressure on prices.
Market Outlook In the long run, the glut of inventory for solar panels, technological advances in current technologies, the introduction of new technologies, and sophisticated financing mechanisms may significantly increase solar development and subsequently SREC supply, thereby decreasing SREC values. On the other hand, the recent credit crisis has slowed the construction of large-scale solar projects in many states, limiting the supply of SRECs and therefore stabilizing their value in many states in the near future.
Contract Terms Finally, an important determinant in SREC prices is the length of SREC contracts. Long-term SREC contracts offer customers stability and guarantee long-term revenue streams, but may provide a slightly lower price in exchange. In contrast, spot prices for SRECs may be higher, but can be riskier for system owners. According to SRECTrade, SRECs traded as high as $680 in New Jersey in 2009. Prices in other states ranged from $200-375 dollars depending in large part on the state's individual ACP, according to Sol Systems.
SREC Certification
In order to produce SRECs, a solar system must first be certified by state regulatory agencies, usually public service commissions or public utility commissions, and then registered with a trading platform. Once a solar system is certified with the state agency and registered with a trading platform, SRECs can be issued using either an estimate table or actual meter readings by the trading platform - depending upon state regulations. In some cases, smaller installations may be able to use estimates, while actual meter readings are required for large installations. One SREC is created for every MWh of electricity produced from a qualified solar renewable energy generator. In Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio, Maryland and the District of Columbia solar systems are registered with, and SRECs are issued by PJM-EIS GATS.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Renewable energy payments
Renewable Energy Payments are a competitive alternative to Renewable Energy Credits (REC's).
Although the intent with both methods is the same, to stimulate growth in the alternative and renewable energy space, REP's have proven to offer benefits to local jobs, businesses and economies while making the growth fundable and lendable by financial institutions.
Renewable Energy Payments are the mechanisms or instruments at the heart of specific state, provincial or national renewable energy policies. REPs are incentives for homeowners, farmers, businesses, etc., to become producers of renewable energy, or to increase their production of renewable energy. As such, they increase our overall production and use of renewable energy, and decrease our consumption and burning of fossil fuels.
In a broad stroke, Renewable Energy Payments, sometimes known as a Feed-in Tariff place obligations on utility companies to buy electricity from renewable energy sources, often small, local companies, for a fixed period of time. The underlying premise being that with fixed payments the once volatile renewable energy projects now become lendable and attractive for financing, thus stimulating growth and innovation. Proponents of Renewable Energy Payments argue that this policy has proven to stimulate local economies, innovation and small business growth because in its truest form REP's put everyone, whether small business, individual, or farmers on an equal footing with large commercial titans of industry.
Representative Jay Inslee of Washington says "We can give homeowners, farmers and communities across America investment security that they can take to the bank. We know from experience in Germany, Spain and dozens of other countries around the world that this policy approach spurs unparalleled and affordable renewable-energy development."
The alternative to Renewable Energy Payments are what are called Renewable Energy Credits, which have been likened to the Alaskan Bridge to nowhere in a recent filing by the Florida Alliance for Renewable Energy. (FARE)
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Although the intent with both methods is the same, to stimulate growth in the alternative and renewable energy space, REP's have proven to offer benefits to local jobs, businesses and economies while making the growth fundable and lendable by financial institutions.
Renewable Energy Payments are the mechanisms or instruments at the heart of specific state, provincial or national renewable energy policies. REPs are incentives for homeowners, farmers, businesses, etc., to become producers of renewable energy, or to increase their production of renewable energy. As such, they increase our overall production and use of renewable energy, and decrease our consumption and burning of fossil fuels.
In a broad stroke, Renewable Energy Payments, sometimes known as a Feed-in Tariff place obligations on utility companies to buy electricity from renewable energy sources, often small, local companies, for a fixed period of time. The underlying premise being that with fixed payments the once volatile renewable energy projects now become lendable and attractive for financing, thus stimulating growth and innovation. Proponents of Renewable Energy Payments argue that this policy has proven to stimulate local economies, innovation and small business growth because in its truest form REP's put everyone, whether small business, individual, or farmers on an equal footing with large commercial titans of industry.
Representative Jay Inslee of Washington says "We can give homeowners, farmers and communities across America investment security that they can take to the bank. We know from experience in Germany, Spain and dozens of other countries around the world that this policy approach spurs unparalleled and affordable renewable-energy development."
The alternative to Renewable Energy Payments are what are called Renewable Energy Credits, which have been likened to the Alaskan Bridge to nowhere in a recent filing by the Florida Alliance for Renewable Energy. (FARE)
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Friday, December 18, 2009
Renewable Energy Certificates
Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), also known as Green tags, Renewable Energy Credits, or Tradable Renewable Certificates (TRCs), are tradable, non-tangible energy commodities in the United States that represent proof that 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was generated from an eligible renewable energy resource.
These certificates can be sold and traded or bartered, and the owner of the REC can claim to have purchased renewable energy. While traditional carbon emissions trading programs promote low-carbon technologies by increasing the cost of emitting carbon, RECs can incentivize carbon-neutral renewable energy by providing a production subsidy to electricity generated from renewable sources. It is important to understand that the energy associated with a REC is sold separately and is used by another party. The consumer of a REC receives only a certificate.
In states that have a REC program, a green energy provider (such as a wind farm) is credited with one REC for every 1,000 kWh or 1 MWh of electricity it produces (for reference, an average residential customer consumes about 800 kWh in a month). A certifying agency gives each REC a unique identification number to make sure it doesn't get double-counted. The green energy is then fed into the electrical grid (by mandate), and the accompanying REC can then be sold on the open market.
Background
There are two main markets for renewable energy certificates in the United States - compliance markets and voluntary markets.
Compliance markets are created by a policy that exists in 29 U.S. states, plus the District of Columbia, called Renewable Portfolio Standard. In these states, the electric companies are required to supply a certain percent of their electricity from renewable generators by a specified year. For example, in California the law is 33% renewable by 2020, whereas New York has a 24% requirement by 2013. Electric utilities in these states demonstrate compliance with their requirements by purchasing RECs; in the California example, the electric companies would need to hold RECs equivalent to 33% of their electricity sales.
Voluntary markets are ones in which customers choose to buy renewable power out of a desire to go green. Most corporate and household purchases of renewable energy are voluntary purchases. Renewable energy generators located in states that do not have a Renewable Portfolio Standard can sell their RECs to voluntary buyers, usually at a cheaper price than compliance market RECs.
Critics point out, however, the flaw in this system is that it does not require any proof of displaced polluting power. Since some renewable energy sources, most notably wind power, are intermittent and variable, their production does not displace an equivalent amount of other sources per kW of installed capacity. They do, however, displace, on a per-kWh-basis, electricity from combustion sources, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and byproducts: nitrogen, sulfur, and other oxides and minerals.
Prices
According to the Green Power Network, prices of RECs can fluctuate greatly (2006: from $5 to $90 per MWh, median about $20). Prices depend on many factors, such as the location of the facility producing the RECs, whether there is a tight supply/demand situation, whether the REC is used for RPS compliance, even the type of power created. Solar renewable energy certificates or SRECs, for example, tend to be much more valuable in Northeast markets. In Canada, 2008-09 BCHydro offers $3 /MWh for "green attributes", for long-term contracts, 20 plus years. Many Independent Power Producers believe that this is much less than "fair market value", but have no alternative.
While the value of RECs fluctuate, most sellers are legally obligated to "deliver" RECs to their customers within a few months of their generation date. Other organizations will sell as many RECs as possible and then use the funds to guarantee a specific fixed price per MWh generated by a future wind farm, for example, making the building of the wind farm a financially viable prospect. The income provided by RECs, and a long-term stabilized market for tags can generate the additional incentive needed to build renewable energy plants. One of the few non-profit U.S. organizations that sell RECs, Bonneville Environmental Foundation was instrumental in starting the market for RECs with their Green Tag product. They use the profits from Green Tags to build community solar and wind projects and to fund watershed restoration. Another non-profit currently selling RECs is Conservation Services Group, which sells ClimateSAVE RECs generated from wind, solar, and hydropower. The largest seller of RECs is a company called Sterling Planet, based in Atlanta, GA. Some of their clients include Intel, Pepisco, Harvard, Yale, Duke and over 100 utilities around the country
REC certification
RECs are known under functionally equivalent names such as Green Tags or Tradable Renewable Certificates (TRCs), depending on the market. The U.S. currently does not have a national registry of RECs issued. Several certification and accounting organizations attempt to ensure that RECs are correctly tracked and verified and are not double-counted. Increasingly RECs are being assigned unique ID numbers for each 1,000 kWh produced. RECs are certified by Green-e, and Environmental Resources Trust's EcoPower Program. REC markets are increasingly overseen through regional tracking systems such as WREGIS, NEPOOL, GATS, ERCOT, and M-RETS.
Qualifying technologies
The following generation technologies qualify as producers of RECs:
* Solar electric
* Wind
* Geothermal
* Low Impact Hydropower (small-run-of-the-river facilities, not ones that require large dams and reservoirs, or affecting river flows adversely.)
* Biomass, biofuels and landfill to gas
* Fuel cells (only if powered by hydrogen produced by one of the above approved generators, not from fossil fuels).
RECs and additionality
"Additionality" is the idea that an individual's purchase of a renewable energy certificate forces new renewable energy onto the electricity grid. Another test for additionality is whether or not the project is financially "business as usual". RECs have come under scrutiny in the past with questions of whether or not they provide additionality, or are merely a payment to a project that would have existed even in the absence of the REC sale.
When voluntary REC purchases are made from generators that are not in compliance markets - for example, in a state that does not have a Renewable Portfolio Standard - funds from the sale of RECs are provided to the generators, but don't necessarily cause any additional renewable power to be built. It is difficult to prove that purchases of these RECs provide additionality. But if the following strategy is adopted, additionality works.
An alternative strategy combines REC compliance markets and voluntary markets. In these states that have a Renewable Portfolio Standard, if the RECs are required to come from within the compliance market, a voluntary purchase effectively increases the utilities' minimum renewable electricity percentage by purchasing RECs that the utilities would otherwise have purchased to meet their RPS (if there is not a surplus of RECs. When this occurs utilities must find additional sources of renewable electricity. If the RECs can be purchased from outside the relevant compliance market, as is often the case, additionality is not guaranteed. This site provides a useful flowchart for how voluntary purchases from compliance markets provide additionality.
A popular incentive for buying RECs is to make the claim that your energy use is carbon neutral and hence does not contribute to global warming. However, "off-setting" results in the same amount of pollution (if you buy RECs to cover your usage of electricity and you live in, say, the Southeast United States, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, the Midwest, etc.) you may still be using electricity produced mostly from coal-fired power plants. Others argue that as power from renewable sources enters the market, prices will drop and production from sources that don't enjoy the additional income from RECs will be reduced. Also, as larger and larger numbers of RECs come into demand, renewable energy will become more and more cost effective per kWh in comparison to nonrenewable energy. It can be argued that purchasing RECs is similar to voting. In reality, one single vote has rarely made a difference in the outcome of thousands of elections according to the famous book, Freakonomics. But, if everyone thinks that and stops voting, the voter turnout will fall and the seemingly meaningless behavior of one individual, in aggregate becomes meaningful. RECs are similar. Some think that every single purchase of REC just like every vote cast, counts.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency claims to have the highest percentage use of green power of any federal agency. In 2007, it offset the electricity use of 100% of its offices. The Air Force is the largest purchaser in the US government in absolute terms, purchasing 899,142 MWH worth of RECs. Among colleges and universities, the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia is the largest purchaser of RECs, buying 192,727 MWH of RECs from wind power. The corporate leader is Intel, with 1,302,040 MWH purchased in 2007, and the largest purchaser among retailers is Whole Foods, which purchased 509,104 MWH, or enough RECs to offset 100% of its electricity needs.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
These certificates can be sold and traded or bartered, and the owner of the REC can claim to have purchased renewable energy. While traditional carbon emissions trading programs promote low-carbon technologies by increasing the cost of emitting carbon, RECs can incentivize carbon-neutral renewable energy by providing a production subsidy to electricity generated from renewable sources. It is important to understand that the energy associated with a REC is sold separately and is used by another party. The consumer of a REC receives only a certificate.
In states that have a REC program, a green energy provider (such as a wind farm) is credited with one REC for every 1,000 kWh or 1 MWh of electricity it produces (for reference, an average residential customer consumes about 800 kWh in a month). A certifying agency gives each REC a unique identification number to make sure it doesn't get double-counted. The green energy is then fed into the electrical grid (by mandate), and the accompanying REC can then be sold on the open market.
Background
There are two main markets for renewable energy certificates in the United States - compliance markets and voluntary markets.
Compliance markets are created by a policy that exists in 29 U.S. states, plus the District of Columbia, called Renewable Portfolio Standard. In these states, the electric companies are required to supply a certain percent of their electricity from renewable generators by a specified year. For example, in California the law is 33% renewable by 2020, whereas New York has a 24% requirement by 2013. Electric utilities in these states demonstrate compliance with their requirements by purchasing RECs; in the California example, the electric companies would need to hold RECs equivalent to 33% of their electricity sales.
Voluntary markets are ones in which customers choose to buy renewable power out of a desire to go green. Most corporate and household purchases of renewable energy are voluntary purchases. Renewable energy generators located in states that do not have a Renewable Portfolio Standard can sell their RECs to voluntary buyers, usually at a cheaper price than compliance market RECs.
Critics point out, however, the flaw in this system is that it does not require any proof of displaced polluting power. Since some renewable energy sources, most notably wind power, are intermittent and variable, their production does not displace an equivalent amount of other sources per kW of installed capacity. They do, however, displace, on a per-kWh-basis, electricity from combustion sources, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and byproducts: nitrogen, sulfur, and other oxides and minerals.
Prices
According to the Green Power Network, prices of RECs can fluctuate greatly (2006: from $5 to $90 per MWh, median about $20). Prices depend on many factors, such as the location of the facility producing the RECs, whether there is a tight supply/demand situation, whether the REC is used for RPS compliance, even the type of power created. Solar renewable energy certificates or SRECs, for example, tend to be much more valuable in Northeast markets. In Canada, 2008-09 BCHydro offers $3 /MWh for "green attributes", for long-term contracts, 20 plus years. Many Independent Power Producers believe that this is much less than "fair market value", but have no alternative.
While the value of RECs fluctuate, most sellers are legally obligated to "deliver" RECs to their customers within a few months of their generation date. Other organizations will sell as many RECs as possible and then use the funds to guarantee a specific fixed price per MWh generated by a future wind farm, for example, making the building of the wind farm a financially viable prospect. The income provided by RECs, and a long-term stabilized market for tags can generate the additional incentive needed to build renewable energy plants. One of the few non-profit U.S. organizations that sell RECs, Bonneville Environmental Foundation was instrumental in starting the market for RECs with their Green Tag product. They use the profits from Green Tags to build community solar and wind projects and to fund watershed restoration. Another non-profit currently selling RECs is Conservation Services Group, which sells ClimateSAVE RECs generated from wind, solar, and hydropower. The largest seller of RECs is a company called Sterling Planet, based in Atlanta, GA. Some of their clients include Intel, Pepisco, Harvard, Yale, Duke and over 100 utilities around the country
REC certification
RECs are known under functionally equivalent names such as Green Tags or Tradable Renewable Certificates (TRCs), depending on the market. The U.S. currently does not have a national registry of RECs issued. Several certification and accounting organizations attempt to ensure that RECs are correctly tracked and verified and are not double-counted. Increasingly RECs are being assigned unique ID numbers for each 1,000 kWh produced. RECs are certified by Green-e, and Environmental Resources Trust's EcoPower Program. REC markets are increasingly overseen through regional tracking systems such as WREGIS, NEPOOL, GATS, ERCOT, and M-RETS.
Qualifying technologies
The following generation technologies qualify as producers of RECs:
* Solar electric
* Wind
* Geothermal
* Low Impact Hydropower (small-run-of-the-river facilities, not ones that require large dams and reservoirs, or affecting river flows adversely.)
* Biomass, biofuels and landfill to gas
* Fuel cells (only if powered by hydrogen produced by one of the above approved generators, not from fossil fuels).
RECs and additionality
"Additionality" is the idea that an individual's purchase of a renewable energy certificate forces new renewable energy onto the electricity grid. Another test for additionality is whether or not the project is financially "business as usual". RECs have come under scrutiny in the past with questions of whether or not they provide additionality, or are merely a payment to a project that would have existed even in the absence of the REC sale.
When voluntary REC purchases are made from generators that are not in compliance markets - for example, in a state that does not have a Renewable Portfolio Standard - funds from the sale of RECs are provided to the generators, but don't necessarily cause any additional renewable power to be built. It is difficult to prove that purchases of these RECs provide additionality. But if the following strategy is adopted, additionality works.
An alternative strategy combines REC compliance markets and voluntary markets. In these states that have a Renewable Portfolio Standard, if the RECs are required to come from within the compliance market, a voluntary purchase effectively increases the utilities' minimum renewable electricity percentage by purchasing RECs that the utilities would otherwise have purchased to meet their RPS (if there is not a surplus of RECs. When this occurs utilities must find additional sources of renewable electricity. If the RECs can be purchased from outside the relevant compliance market, as is often the case, additionality is not guaranteed. This site provides a useful flowchart for how voluntary purchases from compliance markets provide additionality.
A popular incentive for buying RECs is to make the claim that your energy use is carbon neutral and hence does not contribute to global warming. However, "off-setting" results in the same amount of pollution (if you buy RECs to cover your usage of electricity and you live in, say, the Southeast United States, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, the Midwest, etc.) you may still be using electricity produced mostly from coal-fired power plants. Others argue that as power from renewable sources enters the market, prices will drop and production from sources that don't enjoy the additional income from RECs will be reduced. Also, as larger and larger numbers of RECs come into demand, renewable energy will become more and more cost effective per kWh in comparison to nonrenewable energy. It can be argued that purchasing RECs is similar to voting. In reality, one single vote has rarely made a difference in the outcome of thousands of elections according to the famous book, Freakonomics. But, if everyone thinks that and stops voting, the voter turnout will fall and the seemingly meaningless behavior of one individual, in aggregate becomes meaningful. RECs are similar. Some think that every single purchase of REC just like every vote cast, counts.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency claims to have the highest percentage use of green power of any federal agency. In 2007, it offset the electricity use of 100% of its offices. The Air Force is the largest purchaser in the US government in absolute terms, purchasing 899,142 MWH worth of RECs. Among colleges and universities, the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia is the largest purchaser of RECs, buying 192,727 MWH of RECs from wind power. The corporate leader is Intel, with 1,302,040 MWH purchased in 2007, and the largest purchaser among retailers is Whole Foods, which purchased 509,104 MWH, or enough RECs to offset 100% of its electricity needs.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI, or ReGGIe) is a regional initiative by states and provinces in the Northeastern United States region to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The RGGI is designing a cap and trade program for greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
Ten states currently participate in the initiative. Pennsylvania, which is a major coal producer and manufacturing state, only participates as an observer.
Current membership
* Participating states and Provinces: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador
* Observer states, provinces and regions: Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, Québec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario.
Implementation
RGGI is implementing a cap and trade system for CO2 emissions from power plants in the member states. Emission permit auctioning began in September 2008, and the first three-year compliance period began on January 1, 2009. Proceeds will be used to promote energy conservation and renewable energy. The system affects fossil fuel power plants with 25 MW or greater generating capacity ("compliance entities").
Climate Change Action Plan
A parallel effort to reduce emissions in the Northeast is the New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan, which calls for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 10% below 1990 levels by 2020. For comparison: the EU aims to reduce emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020.
In addition, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) is building a Regional Greenhouse Gas Registry (RGGR) to help track emissions in the region. This effort is similar to that of the California Climate Action Registry.
Carbon auction
The Memorandum of Understanding commits states to invest 25% of revenue from carbon credits to energy efficiency and strategic energy schemes. This revenue is received by auctioning credits from the state budget to compliance entities. Since signing the MOU in 2005, all ten states have committed in their Model Rule to the sale of the vast majority of the state's carbon budget. This overcomes the problem of opportunity cost associated with the EU ETS, which led to windfall profits for generators.
RGGI sold carbon credits on Thursday September 25, 2008 in the first of a series of quarterly online auctions. 12,565,387 allowances were sold for $3.07 per ton of carbon dioxide, bringing in a total of $38,575,738.09. It was the largest carbon auction at the time. The second auction was held December 17, 2008. 31,505,898 allowances were sold for $3.38 per allowance. In the third auction, held on March 18, 2009, 31,513,765 (2009) allowances were sold for $3.51 per allowance, and 2,175,513 (2012) allowances were sold for $3.05 per allowance. The June 17 saw 30.8 million allowances sold for $3.23 per allowance, and 2.17 million 2012 allowances sold for $2.06.
History
In 2003 George Pataki, then Governor of New York, sent a letter to the governors of Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states seeking "to develop a strategy that will help the region lead the nation in the effort to fight global climate change."
In August 2005, the RGGI staff working group proposed an emissions reduction program that would start in 2009 and lead to a stabilization of emissions at current levels (an average of 2002-2004 levels) by 2015. This would be followed by a 10% reduction in emissions between 2015 and 2020. The proposal would also allow participants to purchase offsets to meet 50% of their emission reductions.
As of December 20, 2005, seven Northeastern US states were involved in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Massachusetts and Rhode Island dropped out at the last minute; Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney objected to a lack of opt-out provisions if energy prices exceeded a certain threshold. He went on to attack Senator John McCain for his positive position on cap-and-trade during the 2008 presidential election. The seven states still involved (Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine) signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" committing themselves to move forward with the program. Special provisions were made in that document for Massachusetts and Rhode Island to join the effort at any time prior to January 1, 2008.
Massachusetts rejoined on January 18, 2007, on the order of newly elected Governor Deval Patrick.
Rhode Island rejoined on January 30, 2007. Governor Donald L. Carcieri used his State of the State address to make the announcement. While he reiterated his concern about the impact on energy costs, he said that "I have been assured that those costs can be offset by credits we will receive from other states."
On April 20, 2007, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed an agreement to join, making Maryland the 10th state to join the initiative.
New Hampshire joined on June 12, 2008, when Gov. John Lynch signed a law implementing RGGI.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Ten states currently participate in the initiative. Pennsylvania, which is a major coal producer and manufacturing state, only participates as an observer.
Current membership
* Participating states and Provinces: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador
* Observer states, provinces and regions: Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, Québec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario.
Implementation
RGGI is implementing a cap and trade system for CO2 emissions from power plants in the member states. Emission permit auctioning began in September 2008, and the first three-year compliance period began on January 1, 2009. Proceeds will be used to promote energy conservation and renewable energy. The system affects fossil fuel power plants with 25 MW or greater generating capacity ("compliance entities").
Climate Change Action Plan
A parallel effort to reduce emissions in the Northeast is the New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan, which calls for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 10% below 1990 levels by 2020. For comparison: the EU aims to reduce emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020.
In addition, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) is building a Regional Greenhouse Gas Registry (RGGR) to help track emissions in the region. This effort is similar to that of the California Climate Action Registry.
Carbon auction
The Memorandum of Understanding commits states to invest 25% of revenue from carbon credits to energy efficiency and strategic energy schemes. This revenue is received by auctioning credits from the state budget to compliance entities. Since signing the MOU in 2005, all ten states have committed in their Model Rule to the sale of the vast majority of the state's carbon budget. This overcomes the problem of opportunity cost associated with the EU ETS, which led to windfall profits for generators.
RGGI sold carbon credits on Thursday September 25, 2008 in the first of a series of quarterly online auctions. 12,565,387 allowances were sold for $3.07 per ton of carbon dioxide, bringing in a total of $38,575,738.09. It was the largest carbon auction at the time. The second auction was held December 17, 2008. 31,505,898 allowances were sold for $3.38 per allowance. In the third auction, held on March 18, 2009, 31,513,765 (2009) allowances were sold for $3.51 per allowance, and 2,175,513 (2012) allowances were sold for $3.05 per allowance. The June 17 saw 30.8 million allowances sold for $3.23 per allowance, and 2.17 million 2012 allowances sold for $2.06.
History
In 2003 George Pataki, then Governor of New York, sent a letter to the governors of Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states seeking "to develop a strategy that will help the region lead the nation in the effort to fight global climate change."
In August 2005, the RGGI staff working group proposed an emissions reduction program that would start in 2009 and lead to a stabilization of emissions at current levels (an average of 2002-2004 levels) by 2015. This would be followed by a 10% reduction in emissions between 2015 and 2020. The proposal would also allow participants to purchase offsets to meet 50% of their emission reductions.
As of December 20, 2005, seven Northeastern US states were involved in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Massachusetts and Rhode Island dropped out at the last minute; Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney objected to a lack of opt-out provisions if energy prices exceeded a certain threshold. He went on to attack Senator John McCain for his positive position on cap-and-trade during the 2008 presidential election. The seven states still involved (Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine) signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" committing themselves to move forward with the program. Special provisions were made in that document for Massachusetts and Rhode Island to join the effort at any time prior to January 1, 2008.
Massachusetts rejoined on January 18, 2007, on the order of newly elected Governor Deval Patrick.
Rhode Island rejoined on January 30, 2007. Governor Donald L. Carcieri used his State of the State address to make the announcement. While he reiterated his concern about the impact on energy costs, he said that "I have been assured that those costs can be offset by credits we will receive from other states."
On April 20, 2007, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed an agreement to join, making Maryland the 10th state to join the initiative.
New Hampshire joined on June 12, 2008, when Gov. John Lynch signed a law implementing RGGI.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
REDD stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). REDD is a set of steps or mechanism designed to use market/financial incentives in order to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from deforestation and forest degradation. Its original objective is to reduce green house gases but it can deliver "co-benefits" such as biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation. REDD credits offer the opportunity to utilize funding from developed countries to reduce deforestation in developing countries.
"Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation" implies a distinction between the two activities. The process of identifying the two is what raises questions about how to measure each within the REDD mechanism, therefore their distinction is vital. Deforestation is the permanent removal of forests and withdrawal of land from forest use. Forest degradation refers to negative changes in the forest area that limit its production capacity.
In recent years, estimates for deforestation and forest degradation were shown to account for 20-25% of greenhouse gas emissions, higher than the transportation sector. Recent work shows that the combined contribution of deforestation, forest degradation and peatland emissions accounts for about 15% of greenhouse gas emissions, about the same as the transportation sector. Even with these new numbers it is increasingly accepted that mitigation of global warming will not be achieved without the inclusion of forests in an international regime. As a result, it is expected to play a crucial role as a future successor to the Kyoto Protocol.
History
In the 1997 global climate agreement, Kyoto Protocol, policies related to deforestation and degradation were excluded because of a possible leakage problem with such policies. After the exclusion, deforestation rose particularly in Brazil resulting in the the Coalition of Rainforest Nations. These nations included Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica and other forest nations.
In 2005, at the 11th Conference of the Parties (COP-11), the Coalition of Rainforest Nations initiated a request to consider 'reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries.' The matter was referred to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA). The United States challenged the proposal but failed in its attempts.
Later, at the 2007 Bali UNFCCC meeting (COP-13), an agreement was reached on “the urgent need to take further meaningful action to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation”. The deadline for reaching an agreement on the specifics of an international REDD mechanism, at least as regards to it being implemented in the short and medium term, is the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP-15) which will be held in Copenhagen in December 2009.
Main actors
REDD activities are undertaken by national or local governments, NGOs, the private sector, or any combination of these. A number of NGOs, development agencies, research institutes and international organizations support developing countries that wish to engage in REDD activities. The World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility World Banks's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, the UN-REDD Programme, Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative are such examples. The genuine actors of REDD, however, will be the populations whose livelihoods derive from forests. Indigenous Peoples and forest-dependent communities will be the front liners of REDD, and the success of REDD activities will largely depend on their engagement.
Active international organizations
REDD has received great support from international organizations. The World Bank presently plays an important role in the progression of REDD activities. The World Bank as one of the financial contributor for the REDD program, has created a $300 million fund, the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF). This fund is aimed towards initiating REDD activities in developing countries. In addition, another World Bank facility, Carbon Partnership Facility (CPF) expected to be use in areas like the power sectors, transportation, urban development and energy efficiently where greenhouse gases are generated.
The UNDP, UNEP and FAO set up the UN-REDD Programme, which is aimed to assist nine developing countries address certain measures needed in order to effectively participate in the REDD mechanism. These measures include capacity development, governance, and technical needs. The selected nine countries include Bolivia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Tanzania, Vietnam, and Zambia. It recently promised US$18 million to five of these countries.
Active governments
In relation with national governments, the REDD mechanism has received positive reactions. At the 2007 Bali Conference, the Norwegian government announced their International Climate and Forests Initiative, which provided $500 million towards the creation and implementation of national-based, REDD activities in the nation of Tanzania. The Norwegian government will work closely with international organizations such as UN-REDD to promote REDD activities in the area. In addition, the Government of Norway and United Kingdom contributed $200 million towards the Congo Basin Forest Fund to aid forest conservation actives in Central Africa. Australia has joined the efforts to promote REDD mechanisms. With its efforts aimed towards their region, areas like Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea, their $200 million International Forest Carbon Initiative focused on developing REDD activities in the region.
Key questions
A number of questions are being discussed and will inform the decisions on REDD at the upcoming 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. They include:
* The structure of funding mechanisms
* Setting reference levels to measure the reduction in emissions. Will it be based on current emissions levels or historical deforestation rates, a business-as-usual scenario? Will countries with different forest covers and historic deforestation rates hold different interests in the way the reference levels are constructed? Involving countries with high forest covers and low historic deforestation rates will be necessary to reduce perverse incentives.
* Monitoring, reporting and verification of forest cover and biomass and other outputs. Current research focuses on ways to remotely monitor the progression of deforestation using satellite data. Such systems include the Center for Global Development's Forest Monitoring for Action (FORMA) and the Group on Earth Observation's Forest Carbon Tracking Portal.
* Participation of Indigenous peoples and Forest-Dependent Communities in the design, implementation and monitoring of REDD activities, and respect for their human rights
* Distribution of benefits: How can the benefits from REDD be distributed to forest communities in a just, equitable way that minimizes capture of the benefits by national governments or local elites?
* Strategies to prevent "carbon leakage", caused by the displacement of deforestation to other areas
* Achieving multiple benefits, for example the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services (such as watersheds), and social benefits (for example income and improved forest governance).
Concerns
* The availability of a large supply of potentially cheap carbon credits could provide an avenue for companies in the developed world to simply purchase REDD credits without providing meaningful emission reductions at home.
* Large number of carbon credits could swamp developing carbon markets...but could also facilitate ambitious emissions targets in a post-Kyoto agreement.
* Putting a commercial value on forests neglects the spiritual value they hold for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
* There is no consensus on a definition for forest degradation.
* Fair distribution of REDD benefits will not be achieved without a prior reform in forest governance and more secure tenure systems in many countries.
REDD-Plus
* In 2007, at the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Bali (COP-13) an agreement was reached called the Bali Action Plan. As defined, its aims are directed toward forest conservation, sustainable forest management and the enhancement of carbon stocks.
* REDD-plus calls for activities with serious implications directed towards the local communities, indigenous people and forests which relate to reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation. Therefore this will involve enhancing existing forests and increasing forest cover. In order to meet these objectives, policies need to address enhancement of carbon stocks by providing funding and investments in these areas.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
"Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation" implies a distinction between the two activities. The process of identifying the two is what raises questions about how to measure each within the REDD mechanism, therefore their distinction is vital. Deforestation is the permanent removal of forests and withdrawal of land from forest use. Forest degradation refers to negative changes in the forest area that limit its production capacity.
In recent years, estimates for deforestation and forest degradation were shown to account for 20-25% of greenhouse gas emissions, higher than the transportation sector. Recent work shows that the combined contribution of deforestation, forest degradation and peatland emissions accounts for about 15% of greenhouse gas emissions, about the same as the transportation sector. Even with these new numbers it is increasingly accepted that mitigation of global warming will not be achieved without the inclusion of forests in an international regime. As a result, it is expected to play a crucial role as a future successor to the Kyoto Protocol.
History
In the 1997 global climate agreement, Kyoto Protocol, policies related to deforestation and degradation were excluded because of a possible leakage problem with such policies. After the exclusion, deforestation rose particularly in Brazil resulting in the the Coalition of Rainforest Nations. These nations included Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica and other forest nations.
In 2005, at the 11th Conference of the Parties (COP-11), the Coalition of Rainforest Nations initiated a request to consider 'reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries.' The matter was referred to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA). The United States challenged the proposal but failed in its attempts.
Later, at the 2007 Bali UNFCCC meeting (COP-13), an agreement was reached on “the urgent need to take further meaningful action to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation”. The deadline for reaching an agreement on the specifics of an international REDD mechanism, at least as regards to it being implemented in the short and medium term, is the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP-15) which will be held in Copenhagen in December 2009.
Main actors
REDD activities are undertaken by national or local governments, NGOs, the private sector, or any combination of these. A number of NGOs, development agencies, research institutes and international organizations support developing countries that wish to engage in REDD activities. The World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility World Banks's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, the UN-REDD Programme, Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative are such examples. The genuine actors of REDD, however, will be the populations whose livelihoods derive from forests. Indigenous Peoples and forest-dependent communities will be the front liners of REDD, and the success of REDD activities will largely depend on their engagement.
Active international organizations
REDD has received great support from international organizations. The World Bank presently plays an important role in the progression of REDD activities. The World Bank as one of the financial contributor for the REDD program, has created a $300 million fund, the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF). This fund is aimed towards initiating REDD activities in developing countries. In addition, another World Bank facility, Carbon Partnership Facility (CPF) expected to be use in areas like the power sectors, transportation, urban development and energy efficiently where greenhouse gases are generated.
The UNDP, UNEP and FAO set up the UN-REDD Programme, which is aimed to assist nine developing countries address certain measures needed in order to effectively participate in the REDD mechanism. These measures include capacity development, governance, and technical needs. The selected nine countries include Bolivia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Tanzania, Vietnam, and Zambia. It recently promised US$18 million to five of these countries.
Active governments
In relation with national governments, the REDD mechanism has received positive reactions. At the 2007 Bali Conference, the Norwegian government announced their International Climate and Forests Initiative, which provided $500 million towards the creation and implementation of national-based, REDD activities in the nation of Tanzania. The Norwegian government will work closely with international organizations such as UN-REDD to promote REDD activities in the area. In addition, the Government of Norway and United Kingdom contributed $200 million towards the Congo Basin Forest Fund to aid forest conservation actives in Central Africa. Australia has joined the efforts to promote REDD mechanisms. With its efforts aimed towards their region, areas like Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea, their $200 million International Forest Carbon Initiative focused on developing REDD activities in the region.
Key questions
A number of questions are being discussed and will inform the decisions on REDD at the upcoming 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. They include:
* The structure of funding mechanisms
* Setting reference levels to measure the reduction in emissions. Will it be based on current emissions levels or historical deforestation rates, a business-as-usual scenario? Will countries with different forest covers and historic deforestation rates hold different interests in the way the reference levels are constructed? Involving countries with high forest covers and low historic deforestation rates will be necessary to reduce perverse incentives.
* Monitoring, reporting and verification of forest cover and biomass and other outputs. Current research focuses on ways to remotely monitor the progression of deforestation using satellite data. Such systems include the Center for Global Development's Forest Monitoring for Action (FORMA) and the Group on Earth Observation's Forest Carbon Tracking Portal.
* Participation of Indigenous peoples and Forest-Dependent Communities in the design, implementation and monitoring of REDD activities, and respect for their human rights
* Distribution of benefits: How can the benefits from REDD be distributed to forest communities in a just, equitable way that minimizes capture of the benefits by national governments or local elites?
* Strategies to prevent "carbon leakage", caused by the displacement of deforestation to other areas
* Achieving multiple benefits, for example the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services (such as watersheds), and social benefits (for example income and improved forest governance).
Concerns
* The availability of a large supply of potentially cheap carbon credits could provide an avenue for companies in the developed world to simply purchase REDD credits without providing meaningful emission reductions at home.
* Large number of carbon credits could swamp developing carbon markets...but could also facilitate ambitious emissions targets in a post-Kyoto agreement.
* Putting a commercial value on forests neglects the spiritual value they hold for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
* There is no consensus on a definition for forest degradation.
* Fair distribution of REDD benefits will not be achieved without a prior reform in forest governance and more secure tenure systems in many countries.
REDD-Plus
* In 2007, at the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Bali (COP-13) an agreement was reached called the Bali Action Plan. As defined, its aims are directed toward forest conservation, sustainable forest management and the enhancement of carbon stocks.
* REDD-plus calls for activities with serious implications directed towards the local communities, indigenous people and forests which relate to reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation. Therefore this will involve enhancing existing forests and increasing forest cover. In order to meet these objectives, policies need to address enhancement of carbon stocks by providing funding and investments in these areas.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Post-Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions
Post-Kyoto negotiations refers to high level talks attempting to address global warming by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Generally part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), these talks concern the period after the first "commitment period" of the Kyoto Protocol, which is due to expire at the end of 2012. Negotiations have been mandated by the adoption of the Bali Roadmap and Decision 1/CP.13 ("The Bali Action Plan").
UNFCCC negotiations are conducted within two subsidiary bodies, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and are expected to culminate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference taking place in December 2009 in Copenhagen (COP-15); negotiations are supported by a number of external processes, including the G8 process, a number of regional meetings and the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate that was launched by US President Barack Obama in March 2009. High level talks were held at the meeting of the G8+5 Climate Change Dialogue in February 2007 and at a number of subsequent G8 meetings, most recently leading to the adoption of the G8 leaders declaration "Responsible Leadership for a Sustainable Future" during the G8 summit in L´Aquila, Italy, in July 2009.
February 2007 Washington Declaration
In the non-binding "Washington Declaration" on February 16, 2007, the G8+5 group of leaders agreed in principle to a global cap-and-trade system that would apply to both industrialized nations and developing countries, which they hoped would be in place by 2009.
33rd G8 summit
On June 7, 2007, leaders at the 33rd G8 summit issued a non-binding communiqué announcing that the G8 nations would "aim to at least halve global CO2 emissions by 2050". The details enabling this to be achieved would be negotiated by environment ministers within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in a process that would also include the major emerging economies. Groups of countries would also be able to reach additional agreements on achieving the goal outside and in parallel with the United Nations process. The G8 also announced their desire to use the proceeds from the auction of emission rights and other financial tools to support climate protection projects in developing countries.
The agreement was welcomed by British Prime Minister Tony Blair as "a major, major step forward". French president Nicolas Sarkozy would have preferred a binding figure for emissions reduction to have been set. This was apparently blocked by U.S. President George W. Bush until the other major greenhouse gas emitting countries, like India and China, make similar commitments.
2007 UN General Assembly plenary debate
As part of the schedule leading up to the September UN High-Level-Event, on July 31 the United Nations General Assembly opened its first-ever plenary session devoted exclusively to climate change, which also included prominent scientists and business leaders. The debate, at which nearly 100 nations spoke, was scheduled to last two days but was extended for a further day to allow a greater number of "worried nations" to describe their climate-related problems.
In his opening speech, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged Member States to work together, stating that the time had come for "decisive action on a global scale", and called for a "comprehensive agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process that tackles climate change on all fronts, including adaptation, mitigation, clean technologies, deforestation and resource mobilization". In closing the conference General Assembly President Haya Rashed Al-Khalifa called for an "equitable, fair and ambitious global deal to match the scale of the challenges ahead". She had earlier stressed the urgency of the situation, stating that "the longer we wait, the more expensive this will be".
The day after the session ended, the UN launched its new climate change web site detailing its activities relating to global warming.
2007 Vienna Climate Change Talks and Agreement
A round of climate change talks under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) concluded in Austria in 31 August 2007 with agreement on key elements for an effective international response to climate change.
A key feature of the talks was a United Nations report that showed how energy efficiency could yield significant cuts in emissions at low cost.
The talks set the stage for the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Bali in December 2007.
September 2007 United Nations High-Level-Event
As well as the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was to hold informal high-level discussions on the post-Kyoto treaty on September 24. It was expected that these would pave the way for the United Nations Climate Change Conference, held in Bali in December 2007. Three Special Envoys on Climate Change, appointed on May 1, 2007, held discussions with various governments to define and plan the event.
In advance of the "High-Level-Event", the Secretary-General hoped that world leaders would "send a powerful political signal to the negotiations in Bali that “business as usual” will not do and that they are ready to work jointly with others towards a comprehensive multilateral framework for action".
September 2007 Washington conference
It emerged on August 3, 2007, that representatives of the United Nations, major industrialized and developing countries are being invited by George Bush to a conference in Washington on September 27 and 28. Countries invited are believed to include the members of the G8+5 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa), together with South Korea, Australia, Indonesia and South Africa. The meeting is to be hosted by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and is envisaged as the first of several extending into 2008. Initial reaction to the news of the conference invitation was mixed.
2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali
Negotiations on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol dominated the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference conference. A meeting of environment ministers and experts held in June called on the conference to agree a road-map, timetable and "concrete steps for the negotiations" with a view to reaching an agreement by 2009.
2008 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznań
Following preliminary talks in Bangkok, Bonn, and Accra, the 2008 negotiations culminated in December with the 2008 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznań, Poland.
35th G8 Summit
September 2009 United Nations Secretary General´s Summit on Climate Change
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon will convene a high-level event on Climate Change on 22 September 2009 to which Heads of State and Government have been invited. This event is intended to build further political momentum for an ambitious Copenhagen agreed outcome to be adopted at COP-15.
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP-15)
Following preparatory talks in Bonn, Bangkok and Barcelona, the 2009 conference will be held in December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark, and the treaty succeeding the Kyoto Protocol is expected to be adopted there.
Potential topics to be discussed include carbon capture and storage, biofuels, adaptation financing, technology transfer, sustainable agriculture, emissions targets, tropical forests and rural and transport electrification (plug-in hybrids)
Development of technologies will be important to reduce carbon emissions. Even if all carbon emissions stopped tomorrow, global warming would continue for the next 30 years. James E. Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy and member of Copenhagen Climate Council said “It is a myth that we have the technologies to do the job. We don’t. New technologies are crucial as is further development of existing technology.”
Some media sources claim that the meeting will lead to empty promises without measurable goals. In a recent meeting of the Group of Eight G8, the world top leaders agreed to halve carbon emissions by 2050; however, they did not set specific targets because they did not agree on a base year.
However members of the climate council acknowledge that action needs to happen fast. “My personal view is that the future of humanity is at stake,” said Tim Flannery, Professor at Macquaire University and chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council, in an interview with chinadialogue.net.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
UNFCCC negotiations are conducted within two subsidiary bodies, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and are expected to culminate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference taking place in December 2009 in Copenhagen (COP-15); negotiations are supported by a number of external processes, including the G8 process, a number of regional meetings and the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate that was launched by US President Barack Obama in March 2009. High level talks were held at the meeting of the G8+5 Climate Change Dialogue in February 2007 and at a number of subsequent G8 meetings, most recently leading to the adoption of the G8 leaders declaration "Responsible Leadership for a Sustainable Future" during the G8 summit in L´Aquila, Italy, in July 2009.
February 2007 Washington Declaration
In the non-binding "Washington Declaration" on February 16, 2007, the G8+5 group of leaders agreed in principle to a global cap-and-trade system that would apply to both industrialized nations and developing countries, which they hoped would be in place by 2009.
33rd G8 summit
On June 7, 2007, leaders at the 33rd G8 summit issued a non-binding communiqué announcing that the G8 nations would "aim to at least halve global CO2 emissions by 2050". The details enabling this to be achieved would be negotiated by environment ministers within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in a process that would also include the major emerging economies. Groups of countries would also be able to reach additional agreements on achieving the goal outside and in parallel with the United Nations process. The G8 also announced their desire to use the proceeds from the auction of emission rights and other financial tools to support climate protection projects in developing countries.
The agreement was welcomed by British Prime Minister Tony Blair as "a major, major step forward". French president Nicolas Sarkozy would have preferred a binding figure for emissions reduction to have been set. This was apparently blocked by U.S. President George W. Bush until the other major greenhouse gas emitting countries, like India and China, make similar commitments.
2007 UN General Assembly plenary debate
As part of the schedule leading up to the September UN High-Level-Event, on July 31 the United Nations General Assembly opened its first-ever plenary session devoted exclusively to climate change, which also included prominent scientists and business leaders. The debate, at which nearly 100 nations spoke, was scheduled to last two days but was extended for a further day to allow a greater number of "worried nations" to describe their climate-related problems.
In his opening speech, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged Member States to work together, stating that the time had come for "decisive action on a global scale", and called for a "comprehensive agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process that tackles climate change on all fronts, including adaptation, mitigation, clean technologies, deforestation and resource mobilization". In closing the conference General Assembly President Haya Rashed Al-Khalifa called for an "equitable, fair and ambitious global deal to match the scale of the challenges ahead". She had earlier stressed the urgency of the situation, stating that "the longer we wait, the more expensive this will be".
The day after the session ended, the UN launched its new climate change web site detailing its activities relating to global warming.
2007 Vienna Climate Change Talks and Agreement
A round of climate change talks under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) concluded in Austria in 31 August 2007 with agreement on key elements for an effective international response to climate change.
A key feature of the talks was a United Nations report that showed how energy efficiency could yield significant cuts in emissions at low cost.
The talks set the stage for the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Bali in December 2007.
September 2007 United Nations High-Level-Event
As well as the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was to hold informal high-level discussions on the post-Kyoto treaty on September 24. It was expected that these would pave the way for the United Nations Climate Change Conference, held in Bali in December 2007. Three Special Envoys on Climate Change, appointed on May 1, 2007, held discussions with various governments to define and plan the event.
In advance of the "High-Level-Event", the Secretary-General hoped that world leaders would "send a powerful political signal to the negotiations in Bali that “business as usual” will not do and that they are ready to work jointly with others towards a comprehensive multilateral framework for action".
September 2007 Washington conference
It emerged on August 3, 2007, that representatives of the United Nations, major industrialized and developing countries are being invited by George Bush to a conference in Washington on September 27 and 28. Countries invited are believed to include the members of the G8+5 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa), together with South Korea, Australia, Indonesia and South Africa. The meeting is to be hosted by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and is envisaged as the first of several extending into 2008. Initial reaction to the news of the conference invitation was mixed.
2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali
Negotiations on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol dominated the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference conference. A meeting of environment ministers and experts held in June called on the conference to agree a road-map, timetable and "concrete steps for the negotiations" with a view to reaching an agreement by 2009.
2008 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznań
Following preliminary talks in Bangkok, Bonn, and Accra, the 2008 negotiations culminated in December with the 2008 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznań, Poland.
35th G8 Summit
September 2009 United Nations Secretary General´s Summit on Climate Change
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon will convene a high-level event on Climate Change on 22 September 2009 to which Heads of State and Government have been invited. This event is intended to build further political momentum for an ambitious Copenhagen agreed outcome to be adopted at COP-15.
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP-15)
Following preparatory talks in Bonn, Bangkok and Barcelona, the 2009 conference will be held in December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark, and the treaty succeeding the Kyoto Protocol is expected to be adopted there.
Potential topics to be discussed include carbon capture and storage, biofuels, adaptation financing, technology transfer, sustainable agriculture, emissions targets, tropical forests and rural and transport electrification (plug-in hybrids)
Development of technologies will be important to reduce carbon emissions. Even if all carbon emissions stopped tomorrow, global warming would continue for the next 30 years. James E. Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy and member of Copenhagen Climate Council said “It is a myth that we have the technologies to do the job. We don’t. New technologies are crucial as is further development of existing technology.”
Some media sources claim that the meeting will lead to empty promises without measurable goals. In a recent meeting of the Group of Eight G8, the world top leaders agreed to halve carbon emissions by 2050; however, they did not set specific targets because they did not agree on a base year.
However members of the climate council acknowledge that action needs to happen fast. “My personal view is that the future of humanity is at stake,” said Tim Flannery, Professor at Macquaire University and chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council, in an interview with chinadialogue.net.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Personal carbon credits
Personal carbon credits are carbon credits created and owned by individuals who reduce their green house gas (GHG) emissions by a real and verifiable amount. Individuals cause GHG emissions from a variety of direct and indirect activities including transportation use, electrical use and home heating and cooling. Verifiable reductions in GHG emissions are aggregated into 1 metric ton increments and they become personal Carbon Credits.
Traditional carbon credits are purchased by GHG emitters to offset the difference between their actual emissions and their allowable limit under a cap and trade type GHG reduction program or to reduce their total GHG emissions under a voluntary limit. These same credits are created when specific GHG reduction projects produce real, additional and verifiable GHG reductions. These carbon projects are typically large in scale and include reforestation, fuel switching and biogas projects.
Personal carbon credits follow the same concept as traditional carbon credits, but these projects are small in scale, developed by individuals and encourage actual reduction in energy demand at the use point. They are applicable globally, wherever the verification requirements can be satisfied.
Personal carbon credits differ from personal carbon trading which imposes a cap or allowance on individual GHG emissions. Personal carbon credits are a voluntary method for individuals to directly reduce energy consumption and the resulting GHG emissions. Successful individual reductions are rewarded through lower utility costs and the value of the created personal carbon credits.
Personal carbon credits were first introduced by My Emissions Exchange in April 2009. Some experts on carbon credit markets have called for inclusion of small scale GHG reduction projects and verification methods that are valid, appropriate and cost effective for projects of this size. Personal carbon credits address this need and create more opportunities for GHG reductions.
Verification
Verification and certification of all carbon credits are necessary to insure real GHG reductions are occurring and to insure buyer confidence in using credits to offset GHG emissions. There are many certification standards in existence today for both the compliance and voluntary credit markets. Personal carbon credits are a new approach to GHG reduction strategies and as such there are no specific protocols existing today within the various certification standards, specifically, because personal carbon credits are so new. However, the proper design of the verification system, such as the use of utility company billing meters and review of historical consumption patterns, can insure that personal carbon credits comply with all the requirements of The Greenhouse Gas Protocol by the World Resources Institute, including additionality.Greater awareness of personal carbon credits will encourage certification organizations to develop specific protocols in the future.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Traditional carbon credits are purchased by GHG emitters to offset the difference between their actual emissions and their allowable limit under a cap and trade type GHG reduction program or to reduce their total GHG emissions under a voluntary limit. These same credits are created when specific GHG reduction projects produce real, additional and verifiable GHG reductions. These carbon projects are typically large in scale and include reforestation, fuel switching and biogas projects.
Personal carbon credits follow the same concept as traditional carbon credits, but these projects are small in scale, developed by individuals and encourage actual reduction in energy demand at the use point. They are applicable globally, wherever the verification requirements can be satisfied.
Personal carbon credits differ from personal carbon trading which imposes a cap or allowance on individual GHG emissions. Personal carbon credits are a voluntary method for individuals to directly reduce energy consumption and the resulting GHG emissions. Successful individual reductions are rewarded through lower utility costs and the value of the created personal carbon credits.
Personal carbon credits were first introduced by My Emissions Exchange in April 2009. Some experts on carbon credit markets have called for inclusion of small scale GHG reduction projects and verification methods that are valid, appropriate and cost effective for projects of this size. Personal carbon credits address this need and create more opportunities for GHG reductions.
Verification
Verification and certification of all carbon credits are necessary to insure real GHG reductions are occurring and to insure buyer confidence in using credits to offset GHG emissions. There are many certification standards in existence today for both the compliance and voluntary credit markets. Personal carbon credits are a new approach to GHG reduction strategies and as such there are no specific protocols existing today within the various certification standards, specifically, because personal carbon credits are so new. However, the proper design of the verification system, such as the use of utility company billing meters and review of historical consumption patterns, can insure that personal carbon credits comply with all the requirements of The Greenhouse Gas Protocol by the World Resources Institute, including additionality.Greater awareness of personal carbon credits will encourage certification organizations to develop specific protocols in the future.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)