Continued from page one:Reducing a Carbon FootprintThe carbon footprint can be efficiently and effectively reduced by using a Carbon Diet or applying the following steps:
Kyoto Protocol, carbon offsetting, and certificatesCarbon dioxide emissions to air (and the emissions of other GHG's) are almost exclusively associated with the conversion of energy carriers like natural gas, crude oil, etc. The Kyoto Protocol defines legally binding targets and timetables for cutting the greenhouse-gas emissions of industrialized countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Accordingly, from an economic or market perspective, one has to distinguish between a mandatory market and a voluntary market. Typical for both markets is the trade with emission certificates: The mandatory marketTo reach the goals defined in the Kyoto Protocol with least economical costs the following flexible mechanisms were introduced for the mandatory market: The CDM and JI mechanisms specify requirements for projects which create a supply of emission reduction instruments, whilst Emissions Trading allows those instruments to be sold on international markets. - Projects which are compliant with the requirements of the CDM mechanism generate Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs). The CERs and ERUs can then be sold through Emissions Trading. The demand for the CERs and ERUs being traded is driven by: - Shortfalls in national emission reduction obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Nations which have failed to deliver their Kyoto emissions reductions obligations can enter Emissions Trading to purchase CERS and ERUs to cover their treaty shortfalls. Nations and groups of nations can also create local emission reduction schemes which place mandatory CO2 targets on entities within their national boundaries. If the rules of a scheme allow, the obligated entities may be able to cover all or some of any reduction shortfalls by purchasing CERs and ERUs through Emissions Trading. While local emissions reduction schemes have no status under the Kyoto Protocol itself, they play a prominent role in creating the demand for CERs and ERUs, stimulating Emissions Trading and setting a market price for emissions. A well-known mandatory local emissions trading scheme is the EU Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS). In contrast to the strict rules set out for the mandatory market, the voluntary market provides companies with different options to acquire emissions reductions. A solution, comparable with those developed for the mandatory market, has been developed for the voluntary market, the Verified Emission Reductions (VER). This measure has the great advantage that the projects/activities are managed according to the quality standards set out for CDM/JI projects but the certificates provided are not registered by the governments of the host countries or the Executive Board of the UNO. As such, high quality VERs can be acquired at lower costs for the same project quality. However, at present VERs can not be used in the mandatory market. The voluntary market in North America is divided between members of the Chicago Climate Exchange and the Over The Counter (OTC) market. The Chicago Climate Exchange is a voluntary yet legally binding cap-and-trade emission scheme whereby members commit to the capped emission reductions and must purchase allowances from other members or offset excess emissions. The OTC market does not involve a legally binding scheme and a wide array of buyers from the public and private spheres, as well as special events that want to go carbon neutral. There are project developers, wholesalers, brokers, and retailers, as well as carbon funds, in the voluntary market. Some businesses and nonprofits in the voluntary market encompass more than just one of the activities listed above. A report by Ecosystem Marketplace shows that carbon offset prices increase as it moves along the supply chain——from project developer to retailer. [1]. While some mandatory emission reduction schemes exclude forest projects, these projects flourish in the voluntary markets. A major criticism concerns the imprecise nature of GHG sequestration quantification methodologies for forestry projects. However, others note the community co-benefits that forestry projects foster. Project types in the voluntary market range from avoided deforestation, afforestation/reforestation, industrial gas sequestration, increased energy efficiency, fuel switching, methane capture from coal plants and livestock, and even renewable energy. Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) sold on the voluntary market are quite controversial due to additionality concerns.[2]. Industrial Gas projects receive criticism because such projects only apply to large industrial plants that already have high fixed costs. Siphoning off industrial gas for sequestration is considered picking the low hanging fruit; which is why credits generated from industrial gas projects are the cheapest in the voluntary market. The size and activity of the voluntary carbon market is difficult to measure. The most comprehensive report on the voluntary carbon markets to date was released by Ecosystem Marketplace and New Carbon Finance in July 2007.[3]. Carbon Labeling
A carbon label,
which shows the life cycle carbon emissions or carbon footprint
embodied in a product in bringing it to the shelf, was introduced in
the UK in March 2007 by the Carbon Trust. The label is closely linked to a collaboration between The Carbon Trust and The British Standards Institute. The label is intended to comply with a new British Standard, PAS2050, ([4]) and is being actively piloted by The Carbon Trust and various industrial partners ([5]). Age-related carbon footprintA number of studies have calculated the carbon footprint of organisations and nations. One UK study by the Stockholm Environment Institute (Gary Haq et al., 2007) examined age-related carbon emissions based on expenditure and consumption. The study found that on average people aged 50–65 years have a higher carbon footprint than any other age group. Individuals aged 50–55 years old have a carbon footprint of approximately 13.5 tonnes/capita per year compared to the UK average of 12 tonnes.[2] Carbon footprint for various types of electricity production
The following table compares the carbon footprint of various forms of energy generation, from a study of full life cycle emissions by the Swedish utility Vattenfall of Nuclear, Hydro, Coal, Gas, Solar Cell, Peat and Wind generation technology ([3] and [4]), from the United States Environmental Protection Agency figures [5] and from various other studies.
The Vattenfall study thus concluded that hydroelectric and nuclear power produced the least CO2 per kilowatt-hour of any of their electricity sources. These figures do not allow for emissions due to accidents or terrorism. Lastly some relatively new green renewable electricity generation methods such as geothermal power emit no carbon during operation, but do leave a minor footprint during construction phase using the cradle-to-grave approach of the complete production life cycle. Carbon footprint for various forms of heat supply for buildingsThe previous table gives the carbon footprint per kWh of electricity generated, which is about half the worlds man made CO2 output. The CO2 footprint for heat is equally significant and is contained in the following table [6] IT shows that using waste heat from power generation has the lowest carbon footprint. Holidays as extra environmental burdenAn analysis of the carbon footprint of Christmas in the UK shows that consumption of items such as food, travel, lighting and gifts at Christmas produces as much as 650 kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per person - equal to 5.5% of the UK annual carbon footprint. Over Christmas, the average person could produce as much as:
Christmas carbon emissions could be reduced by up to 60 percent to about 250 kg. [8]
| 
Check Out Our Green Videos Continued from page one: Carbon credits from forest conservation would crash carbon market, says Greenpeace WWF, a group that actively opposed including forest carbon
under Kyoto on the grounds that it would undermine the carbon market
and give polluters an easy way to avoid reducing industrial emissions,
changed its position on REDD last year.
Supporters of a market-based, but regulated, REDD mechanism say it could generate billions of dollars for forest conservation and sustainable development while helping mitigate climate change and preserving biodiversity. More than two dozen rainforest countries have signaled interest in participating in forest conservation schemes put forth by the U.N. and World Bank. Greenpeace says the basis for its initiative would be "Tropical Deforestation Emission Reduction Units" (TDERUs), newly defined units that would be used for compliance with emission obligations agreed upon in future international climate treaties. Industrialized nations would be required to meet a certain percentage of their emissions obligations using TDERUs purchased from the mechanism. In effect, these countries would pay into a fund to reduce deforestation in tropical nations. The fund would aim to raise $10-15 billion per year — the amount estimated by the UK government's Stern report on climate change to reduce tropical deforestation by half. Greenpeace says that funds generated from a Tropical Deforestation Emission Reduction Mechanism (TDERM) would be used for "capacity-building efforts and for national-level reductions in deforestation emissions." The group believes national-level reductions in emissions would help prevent "leakage" or the shifting of deforestation from one part of a country to another. Greenpeace claims that Forests for Climate is "the only mechanism that involves local and indigenous forest peoples' representatives to ensure their rights and livelihoods are respected." Indigenous rights' have been a key stumbling block in avoided deforestation discussions. Many forest peoples' groups believe they are being left out of international negotiations that will affect their use of, and rights to, the forests they have depended upon for generations. Still, some indigenous groups — including tribes in the Amazon — have already lined up their own REDD projects. Deforestation and forest degradation is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, a larger source than all the world's cars, trucks, planes, and ships combined.
|
(c) 2009-2010 Our Green Planet
