Tag: Flexible Mechanisms

Keep the CDM Clean

Submitted by Anonymous on December 7, 2010 - 10:06am

The lack of attention to the environmental integrity of the CDM is a stain on the reputation of international efforts. In December 2009, the CDM Executive Board registered its first coal-fired power project, setting off two reactions: a firestorm of criticism from around the world and a wave of opportunistic applications from other coal projects.
Rather than heed the well-founded alarm of civil society, the EB approved a second 1,100 MW Tirora supercritical coal project under a faulty methodology. With well-documented concerns about the additionality of supercritical coal, and no avenue for addressing the oversight, this sends a sharply negative message about the integrity of the CDM,
As for the CDM coal rush, it is a wonder to behold. Some 20-odd coal based projects – including the 4,000 MW Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project (UMPP) capable of earning almost 4 million carbon credits per year while emitting over 20 million tonnes of CO₂ – now sit in the CDM pipeline. The attempt to  rebrand supercritical coal technology as an additional ‘clean’ energy option seems almost Orwellian. In the case of Sasan, the Indian government has mandated the use of supercritical technology in its Ultra Mega Power Project (UMPP) program, clearly undercutting the additionality claim.
Supercritical coal is a non-additional baseline technology for many rapidly industrializing countries and should not qualify for eligibility under the CDM. This is a climate scandal: carbon credits for a non-additional coal power plant deprive the world of much needed emission reductions, contribute little to sustainable development and lock in fossil fuel infrastructure for decades to come. The EB must remove the stain coal is placing on our efforts here in Cancun.

Tags:

CDM

Topics:

Flexible Mechanisms

Related Event:

COP16/CMP6 - Cancún

Anonymous's blog

CAN intervention - COP Agenda Item 5: Article 17 - COP 16 - 1 December 2010

Submitted by Anonymous on December 2, 2010 - 4:51pm

Madam President, Distinguished Delegates,

My name is Yang Ailun from China. I am speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network, a global network of over 500 NGOs.

Today you have an opportunity to establish a process to resolve one of the many vexing problems that is contributing to the inability of these negotiations to make substantial progress towards a Fair, Ambitious and Legally Binding outcome.

CAN has consistently supported an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol that will establish a second commitment period – thus preserving the legal and institutional structure we have all worked so hard to build.

At the same time, the COP has a chance to establish a contact group to consider the proposals that have been on the table for over a year now, that reflect different approaches to the legal form of the outcome of the LCA negotiations.

We urge you to establish a contact group now to consider these proposals in an open and transparent manner with a view to providing greater focus to the negotiations going into Durban next year.

Without clarity as to where the negotiations are heading, it will be hard to get there.

Tags:

Second comitment period

CAN intervention

COP Agenda Item 5: Article 17

Topics:

Organization:

Climate Action Network

Kyoto

UNFCCC

Related Event:

COP16/CMP6 - Cancún

CAN intervention - CMP Agenda Item 5 - 1 December 2010

Submitted by Anonymous on December 2, 2010 - 4:46pm

Dear Chair,

My name is Irina Stavchuk of the National Ecological Center of Ukraine. I am speaking on behalf of the Climate Action Network.

We are concerned about the carry-over of surplus Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) from the 1st commitment period. Estimates place this surplus at 7 to 11Gt CO2e, or roughly one third of current 2020 emissions reduction targets pledged by Annex I countries. Thus, surplus AAUs have the potential to undermine the environmental integrity and effectiveness of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

This problem can be addressed by replacing Paragraph 13 of Article 3. We advocate setting a stringent discount factor, so that the annual average level of emissions carried over is severely restricted. These limited number of AAUs that have been carried over may only be used domestically in surplus holding countries for compliance in the next commitment period.

Let's be honest: the huge Kyoto surplus in Ukraine and Russia arose from a mistake in the estimate of projected business-as-usual scenario and not due to the implementation of effective climate change mitigation policies.

There are no excuses for not addressing the issue of surplus AAUs here in Cancun.

Tags:

surplus Assigned Amount Units

CMP

CMP agenda item number 5

Topics:

Organization:

Related Event:

Over a Dozen Countries Share Fossils for Carbon Capture & Storage and “Hot Air”

Submitted by MBrockley on December 2, 2010 - 10:56am

Fossil of the Day - Day 3 - Cancun, Mexico COP16 (Dec 1st)

Cancun, Mexico – From Norway to New Zealand and Algeria to Australia, thirteen countries shared the “prize” of two Fossils of the Day for promoting carbon capture and storage in the Clean Development Mechanism, and trying to preserve the “hot air” of surplus Assigned Amount Units in future commitment periods of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Fossils as presented read:

“The 2nd place Fossil is awarded to Ukraine, Russia, New Zealand, and Australia for blocking the discussion of solutions that would prevent surplus Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) from fatally weakening the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Let's be honest: the huge Kyoto surplus in Ukraine and Russia arose from a mistake in the estimate of projected business-as-usual scenarios and not due to the implementation of effective climate change mitigation policies.

If the issue of surplus AAUs is not adequately addressed, developed countries can continue on a business-as-usual pathway. CAN questions the continuation of international emissions trading as a mechanism after 2012 if the Kyoto surplus issue is not fully addressed. This was addressed in Australia’s own draft emissions trading scheme, so it is surprising that they are not working constructively to find a way to ensure that those who have deepened their emissions reductions can be rewarded for doing so in a way that does not compromise the environmental integrity of future commitments.”
“The 1st place Fossil is awarded to Saudi Arabia, Norway, Kuwait, Algeria, UAE, Egypt, Iraq, Qatar, & Jordan for continuing to block progress in the negotiations by proposing the inappropriate inclusion of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol.
This proposal was made in the CMP Plenary by Saudi Arabia and supported by a number of countries including Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, and Jordan. It reflects a similar proposal yesterday supported by Norway.
They claim that CCS is already a proven, viable technology – which it currently is not – whereas the other technologies included in the CDM can facilitate clean and green development for developing countries.”

______________________________________________________________________
About CAN: The Climate Action Network is a worldwide network of roughly 500 Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working to promote government and individual action to limit human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels. www.climatenetwork.org

About the fossils: The Fossil of the Day awards were first presented at the climate talks in 1999 in Bonn, initiated by the German NGO Forum. During United Nations climate change negotiations (www.unfccc.int), members of the Climate Action Network (CAN), vote for countries judged to have done their 'best' to block progress in the negotiations in the last days of talks.

Tags:

Topics:

Organization:

Climate Action Network

UNFCCC

Related Event:

COP16/CMP6 - Cancún

The Climate  Right-to-Know

Submitted by Anonymous on November 30, 2010 - 5:44pm

As the SBSTA opens today, ECO would like to remind delegates of a crucial item on the agenda: the proposal for a technical review of the science relating to long-term temperature increases of more than 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels.
What’s this all about? It’s about clarifying what is really at stake here. It’s about urgently bringing in the latest science to inform the ongoing negotiations, and spelling out the choice that governments now face – a choice between raising ambition to a level high enough to avoid climate chaos, or accepting the devastating consequences of a failure to act in time and at scale.
This issue was first put on the agenda in Bonn in June. There, AOSIS – alarmed by recent reports suggesting that the future of their nations could be at risk even if global temperature rise is stabilized at 2° C – proposed that the Secretariat produce a summary of recent scientific studies.
During the negotiations in Bonn it was clarified that this task lies well within the mandate and capabilities of the Secretariat, and that this by no means would be duplicating the work of the IPCC. With these common understandings in place, the vast majority of governments supported the proposal from the small island states.
In the end, however, a few governments still resisted the idea of an overview of recent science. One even went so far as to suggest that vulnerable countries who wanted to know more about the impacts they are facing from climate change could just use Google.
Cancun must not be the COP where governments decide to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the latest science relating to the consequences of the path they are now taking.
Furthermore, governments must remember that while some countries are confronting imminent threats to their very existence, every last one faces severe climate risk. AOSIS and the rest of the world’s most vulnerable countries are standing at the front of the line, but the rest of the world is right behind.
Clarifying the scientific realities about climate change must not be an issue just for AOSIS to push. Dear governments – speak no evil – don’t block a technical review to clarify the impacts facing us all if we exceed a long-term temperature rise of 1.5° C. Sooner or later all countries are highly vulnerable, and we all have a right to know.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

Tag: Flexible Mechanisms

Pages