More In This Article
-
Infographic
Illustrations and Charts
As Congress debates how to cut climate-warming emissions, insights drawn from the European carbon market can help. (Because of the timeliness of this issue, the editors of Scientific American decided to publish this article online in advance of its publication in the December issue.)
The odds are high that humans will warm Earth’s climate to worrisome levels during the coming century. Although fossil-fuel combustion has generated most of the buildup of climate-altering carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, effective solutions will require more than just designing cleaner energy sources. Equally important will be establishing institutions and strategies—particularly markets, business regulations and government policies—that provide economies with incentives to apply innovative technologies and practices that reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
The challenge is immense. Traditional fossil-fuel energy is so abundant and inexpensive that climate-friendly substitutes have little hope of acceptance without robust policy support. Meanwhile, for nearly two decades, negotiations on binding treaties that limit global emissions have struggled. But policy makers in Europe and other regions where public concern about climate change is strongest have already implemented significant initiatives to limit release of CO2. Lessons from these endeavors can help governments and world bodies fashion more effective strategies to protect the planet’s climate. Policy makers in the United States, which historically has produced more CO2 emissions than any other nation while doing relatively little to tame the flow, can in particular learn much about creating viable carbon-cutting markets by studying Europe’s recent experience. Based on these insights, we offer several concrete suggestions on how the U.S. should go about constructing an effective national climate policy.
A Global Approach
Until recently, nearly all policy debate about building institutions to protect Earth’s climate focused on the global level. Successful climate policy, thought analysts, activists and politicians, hinged on signing binding international treaties because the activities that cause climate change are worldwide in scope. Such an approach was needed because conventional wisdom assumed that if national governments merely acted alone, without global coordination, industries would simply relocate to where regulation was more lax.
This globalist theory underlay the negotiation of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which called for all countries to work in good faith to address the climate problem and created a new organization to oversee its implementation. That treaty spawned negotiations to produce more demanding agreements, leading to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Under Kyoto, the industrialized states—including the U.S., the European Union (E.U.), Japan and Russia—agreed in principle to individually tailored obligations that, if implemented, would have cut industrial emissions on average about five percent below 1990 levels. But developing countries, which placed a higher priority on economic growth, refused to accept caps on their emissions. They argued that responsibility for greenhouse gas pollution fell squarely on the industrialized world.
Clean Development Mechanism
Without any practical way to force developing nations to control their emissions, the Kyoto signers instead reached a compromise known as the clean development mechanism. Under this scheme, investors could earn credits for projects that cut emissions in developing nations even though the host country faced no binding restriction on its output of these gases. A British firm that faces strict (and thus costly) limits on its emissions at home, for example, might invest to build wind turbines in China. The company would then accrue credits for the difference between the “baseline” emissions that would have been released had the Chinese burned coal to generate electricity and the essentially zero emissions discharged by the wind farm. China would gain foreign investment and energy infrastructure, while the British firm could meet its environmental obligations at lower cost because credits earned overseas are often less expensive than reducing emissions at home.
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentThis type of system will just make undeveloped countries more competitive, now if the credits are only within a country or group it might be OK. In addition positive action to reduce our impact on the environment and to mitigate the effects are required. These credits do nothing in these areas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuestion: To mesh a carbon tax with cap-and-trade, should the government not put a MINIMUM price on carbon, not a ceiling, as the article asserts? (Ref. 3rd para. under 'A Four-Step Plan.')
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisE.D.
Ottawa
Canada
Clicking on the links to the Figures brings one to a slide show on endangered birds!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDeleted and replaced with revised version
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by Duane Pendergast at 12/21/2007 10:36 AM
This is an excellent discussion and review of carbon trading concepts and initiatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is, however, no discussion of market possibilities to encourage removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Perhaps this is a consequence of the common assumption that it is better to capture emissions at source rather than try to deal with them after release.
The sidebar on "The Carbon Trade" focuses on cap and trade and so-called "offset exchange" in connection with the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). I find the use of "offset" in that context somewhat of a misnomer as the carbon emissions discussed may not be offset in the usual sense. In the example discussed, it is implied that emissions from the developed countries will be compensated by reductions in emissions in developing countries. I suspect the reality in practice will be that increasing emissions from the developed countries will support projects in developing countries which will have somewhat lower emissions than might have occurred without CDM. The total net result will be increased carbon dioxide emissions.
There is developing recognition of a concept that would actually remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it to durable char or charcoal, which could then be used to sequester carbon in soil. Some researchers believe the sequestered carbon will play an additional role by significantly improving soil fertility. Interested readers can find information on this concept by searching for "terra preta" on the WWW.
Perhaps policy makers should relax their dogged focus on reducing CO2 emissions and consider the possibility they may constitute an opportunity to enhance the environment for life on earth.
Duane Pendergast
--
Edited by Duane Pendergast at 12/21/2007 10:29 AM
Sorry for double post
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by erichj at 12/22/2007 10:28 AM
I thought this ubiquitous carbon sink might interest you. Here's the current news and links on Terra Preta (TP)soils and closed-loop pyrolysis of Biomass, this integrated virtuous cycle could sequester 100s of Billions of tons of carbon to the soils.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTerra Preta Soils Technology To Master the Carbon Cycle
This technology represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.Terra Preta Soils a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration, 1/3 Lower CH4 & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too.
UN Climate Change Conference: Biochar present at the Bali Conference
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/steinerbalinov2107
SCIAM Article May 15 07;
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=5670236C-E7F2-99DF-3E2163B9FB144E40
After many years of reviewing solutions to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) I believe this technology can manage Carbon for the greatest collective benefit at the lowest economic price, on vast scales. It just needs to be seen by ethical globally minded companies.
Could you please consider looking for a champion for this orphaned Terra Preta Carbon Soil Technology.
The main hurtle now is to change the current perspective held by the IPCC that the soil carbon cycle is a wash, to one in which soil can be used as a massive and ubiquitous Carbon sink via Charcoal. Below are the first concrete steps in that direction;
S.1884 The Salazar Harvesting Energy Act of 2007
A Summary of Biochar Provisions in S.1884:
Carbon-Negative Biomass Energy and Soil Quality Initiative
for the 2007 Farm Bill
http://www.biochar-international.org/newinformationevents/newlegislation.html
If you have any other questions please feel free to call me or visit the TP web site I've been drafted to co-administer. http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node
It has been immensely gratifying to see all the major players join the mail list , Cornell folks, T. Beer of Kings Ford Charcoal (Clorox), Novozyne the M-Roots guys(fungus), chemical engineers, Dr. Danny Day of EPRIDA , Dr. Antal of U. of H., Virginia Tech folks and probably many others who's back round I don't know have joined.
If pre-Columbian Kayopo Indians could produce these soils up to 6 feet deep over 15% of the Amazon basin using "Slash & CHAR" verses "Slash & Burn", it seems that our energy and agricultural industries could also product them at scale.
Harnessing the work of this vast number of microbes and fungi changes the whole equation of energy return over energy input (EROEI) for food and Bio fuels. I see this as the only sustainable agricultural strategy if we no longer have cheap fossil fuels for fertilizer.
We need this super community of wee beasties to work in concert with us by populating them into their proper Soil horizon Carbon Condos.
Erich J. Knight
Shenandoah Gardens
1047 Dave Berry Rd.
McGaheysville, VA. 22840
(540) 289-9750
shengar@aol.com
who can deny the politics behind the science of climate ,and how some thinktanks with funding support from north influence policies .is the finding of IPCC on glcier melts the tip of the iceberg of the science hoodo act to serve the interests of the developed world. why not the north show the lead in changing life styles and social systems to suit the ethics and economics of sustainable resource use and development.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisno one can deny the economic advantage to the west in carbon trade while continuing to pollute.the advantage to the less developed is inflated and projected while the cost benefit in real terms favours the more developed .the developing world is increasingly being depicted as more responsible for future pollution. the science behind the future scenarios are highly dubious and influenced by vested intersts through funding support and peer pressure.
china and india are being shown as villains through data manipulation and GCM computer dta are being used for this jugglery. the world bodies are being hijacked partly for this ,and pachauri is suitably awarded. the very architects of the carbon trading have finally backed out of the protocol so that their interests are best served both ways,and scuttling that of competitors and potential growth centers.the credits are loaded in favour of the west through science and technology fixes . the world bodies are toeing the line for funds. what is needed is not more of the same but a drastic relook at the western model of growth and development through resource exploitation and depletion ,and focus on economics at the cost of ecology ,in real terms ,while making it appear as if the south is more obsessed with growth than environment through a game of data manipulation and jugglery of all sorts.it is high time that the politics of climate is called off through more transparent science. the developing world needs to be equipped and oriented towards this through support structures and a process of relearning
We'll review the basic types of car auctions, give the pros and cons of each auto auction, the scams you may encounter, how to tell if a car has been damaged and repaired, or flooded. We'll help you answer the question "should I try to buy a car from an auto auction?". You'll also find the most comprehensive resource on the web with information on car title checks, spotting stolen cars, flooded cars, and rebuilt wrecks, airbag and other scams to avoid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisauto auctions
<a href="http://www.gov-auctions.org" rel="dofollow">auto auctions</a>
We'll review the basic types of car auctions, give the pros and cons of each auto auction, the scams you may encounter, how to tell if a car has been damaged and repaired, or flooded. We'll help you answer the question "should I try to buy a car from an auto auction?". You'll also find the most comprehensive resource on the web with information on car title checks, spotting stolen cars, flooded cars, and rebuilt wrecks, airbag and other scams to avoid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisauto auctions
<a href="http://www.gov-auctions.org" rel="dofollow">auto auctions</a>