The market for clean development mechanism credits has since exploded in size, accounting for about a third of a percent of world’s greenhouse emissions and around $4.4 billion in annual value.
Making Agreements Stick
Although the Kyoto proceedings rapidly yielded an accord on paper, the real-world impact on global warming is small. Industrialized nations, where the obligations are most demanding, have implemented restrictions in an uneven fashion. Key countries—notably the U.S., but also Australia and Canada—have ignored the Kyoto strictures because they found them too costly or politically inconvenient. The U.S. economy, for instance, grew rapidly in the late 1990s, which raised its emissions output, making meeting the Kyoto targets even harder [see figure 1].
History shows that broad international treaties usually fail to find solutions to difficult problems. That is because these pacts normally reflect the interests of their least enthusiastic members and are often codified through weak commitments with easy escape clauses for governments that will not readily honor their agreements. Pushing tougher constraints on unwilling governments rarely works because reluctant nations can just remain aloof, as most developing countries and the U.S. have in the Kyoto process. (By contrast, the successful efforts to protect earth’s ozone layer were created with U.S. leadership. They also hinged on a special financing scheme to pay recalcitrant developing countries for the cost of instituting deep cuts in emissions, an option that is an essential part of addressing the climate change problem, but one that is much harder to carry out because the price tag is dramatically larger.)
In a few areas of international cooperation, such as the promotion of freer trade in goods and services, this dismal rule has not held because governments have tailored agreements to deliver tangible benefits to all key participants and have continued to work cooperatively over many decades. These instances present some guidance for creating more effective efforts to slow climate change. The World Trade Organization (WTO), for instance, began as a modest set of practical commitments between countries that were interested in expanding trade. As experience and confidence grew in the system, these states invited others to join. Together, they built stronger structures for monitoring and enforcement as well as more sophisticated agreements, which in turn made it easier to insist that every member comply with all commitments—even those that proved problematic. The WTO’s record is by no means perfect, but the relative success of its process is encouraging. And after 50 years of sustained institution building, it today enforces binding obligations concerning complex and divisive economic issues among most countries. In fact, the “organization” in WTO’s name emerged only in the 1990s, four decades after governments negotiated their first trade agreement. Back in the 1940s those same states had tried to create a strong global trade organization, but their efforts failed for reasons quite similar to those of today’s Kyoto process—demanding potential agreements collapsed when powerful countries found them inconvenient, leaving fledgling the institution powerless to impose compliance.
Evaluating Climate Policy
The extended, step-by-step process by which governments established the WTO is only just starting in the field of climate change. Effective policy is emerging from the exertions of a core group of countries that are most committed to regulating emissions. While nearly all of those countries have joined the Kyoto treaty, each has formulated a different strategy to control release of greenhouse gases, which stands in sharp contrast to the integrated, global approach that most analysts have advocated. The variety of plans does not surprise many scholars of international politics, for it reflects the fact that governments harbor deep uncertainties in the best way to manage emissions, and that they also vary widely in their capabilities and styles. Equally unsurprising is that most climate policies were grafted onto existing regulatory institutions. Japan, for example, set policy targets by relying on its traditional process of coordinating of key ministries (notably, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry). Norway, meanwhile, has pursued a different path, levying a carbon tax on its large oil and natural gas industry, a relatively straightforward task given that the Norwegian government owns most of the nation’s petroleum business.
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>