Greenhouse gas emissions trading
14 Aug, 2009 05:13 pm
Enlarge text
Reduce text sizeA recent survey found that there was a significant interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but that investment decisions were made without close attention in the emissions trading scheme market. Rather, investment decisions were guided by expectations about the long term development of overall energy costs.
 |
For major emitters, such as heavy industries and power plants, the European Union already has a greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme (ETS) in place. In December 2008 the European Union accepted a ‘climate package’ to achieve a 20% greenhouse gas emission reduction by 2020 and the ETS was hailed as the main instrument for achieving this goal. But will it do so? It would seem that the answer is no.
The first reason for this negative answer is that much of the work expected of ETS, probably over 60%, will in fact be done by the subsidies needed to realize the 20% target for renewable energy. Secondly, under the present European ETS it is allowed that 50% of the emission reduction can be achieved by ‘Cleaner Development Mechanism (CDM)’projects in developing countries. The current price associated with such projects is about 12 euro per ton CO2. This price is heavily inflated as CDM projects in China show. To realize CDM projects in the Chinese chlorofluorocarbon industry, about 4.9 billion euro has been paid for emission reductions which were achieved at a cost of roughly 100 million euro. As a consequence thereof there has probably been a heavy rain in China of Mercedes and BMW-cars. In view of the low costs of CDM projects, it is highly unlikely that emission rights under the European ETS, as currently designed, will cost more than 20 euro per ton CO2.
What this may mean has been looked into by Anders Sandoff and Gabriela Schaad in a paper that is in press in Energy Policy (1). This paper surveyed the investment decisions in Sweden that were actually made under the ETS. The market price at the time of the survey was 20 euro per ton CO2.
The survey found that there was a significant interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but that investment decisions were made without close attention in the ETS market. Rather, investment decisions were guided by expectations about the long term development of overall energy costs.
It would seem that at a price of 20 euro per ton CO2 the European ETS can not be expected to make a major contribution to emission reduction. For a significant impact, the price should probably be substantially over 60 euro per ton CO2 for a sustained period.
Another problem that besets the current European ETS is the emission reduction supposed to come from biomass use by major emitters of greenhouse gases. For instance municipal waste incinerators generating electricity from burning potato peel and other organic kitchen and garden wastes are thought to burn organic material without the emission of CO2. This however is nonsense, as may easily be understood by everyone who has tried to burn potato peel. In practice, usually natural gas has to be used as a fuel to burn the organic waste and the energy efficiency of the incinerator is reduced. Burning organic kitchen and garden waste does not lead to added electricity production by municipal waste incinerators, whereas under the present European ETS it is supposed to generate a considerable amount of electricity. This is not the only example of creative accounting in the European ETS. Burning of palm oil and sewage sludge tends to be ineffective or even counterproductive in mitigating climate change, whereas in the European ETS such burning is supposed to be highly beneficial.
The flaws in the current European ETS are a major problem for the proper mitigation of climate change. It is important to eliminate such flaws if a system for greenhouse gas emissions trading is to be included in the upcoming climate treaty.
(1) A. Sandoff, G. Schaad. Does EU ETS lead to emission reductions through trade? The case of the Swedish emissions trading sector participants. Energy Policy in press
Add to Facebook
Add to Yahoo ! MyWeb
Add to Furl
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Digg
Add to Google Bookmarks
Add to Newsvine
Although apparently brief, the suspension of the Copenhagen climate conference after a walkout by the Group of 77 developing countries confirms that the talks are as much about money as about healing the world's climate. It's not just that the G77 wants the Kyoto limits on the emissions of developed countries enforced, while leaving their own emissions uncapped; it also wants the developed world to kick in sizable sums--much bigger than the 2.4 billion Euros per year offered by the EU--to cover the improvements in energy efficiency and renewable energy that would enable them to tackle the growth of their own emissions. There's a solid argument there, though it is not the guilt-based logic of "carbon debt" that I explored a few weeks ago.
In spite of the recent weeks of roller coaster-like expectations for a positive outcome from the COP15 climate conference that got underway Monday, the sense of urgency is keenly felt here at the Bella Center, home of the climate negotiations and exhibitions for dozens of NGO's and observer organizations.
Forget 80% by 2050 and 17% by 2020. Time to stop fixating on 450 ppm vs 350 ppm. As UN climate talks kick off today in Copenhagen, Denmark, there's only one number really worth the world's attention: $10.5 trillion. That's the additional investment required between now and 2030 to put the world's energy system on a lower-carbon path, according to the world energy watchdog, the International Energy Agency.
I'll discuss the willingness of developing countries to undertake significant emissions reductions on their own that tangibly reduce the growth of their emissions in the near-term (e.g., to 2020) and lay the foundation for even deeper cuts in the medium-term.
Have you heard that we're getting new neighbors? Demographers expect that the number of people living on earth - now about 6.8 billion - will grow to between 8 and 11 billion by 2050. Whether population tops out at the high or the low end of those projections will have a huge impact on climate change. So population control is again claiming a place on the environmental agenda.
Last Thursday, an editorial in the Wall St. Journal referred to a paper in the latest issue of Science entitled, "Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error", which concludes that the manner in which the greenhouse gas impacts of biofuels are currently assessed fails to account for significant emissions that occur outside the envelope normally drawn around an ethanol or biodiesel plant and the farms that supply it with feedstock. And if that omission weren't glaring enough, I ran across another instance in which regulators appear to be turning a blind eye to the full impact of another popular option for addressing climate change, electric vehicles.
The two-week global warming negotiations in Bangkok, Thailand are just wrapping up. There are five key elements to the Copenhagen Agreement.
Even "moderate" cuts in greenhouse gas emissions may be sufficient to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change, says new MIT study. But only if those moderate cuts start now, not in 2020, where many emissions targets take initial aim. Without swift action, even more aggressive cuts may not be enough to stop extreme climate disruption.
I feel like an idiot for not seeing this one coming from either China or India. It's so painfully obvious, in hindsight, that I have to wonder how anyone who follows energy and environmental issues closely could have failed to predict it. What am I babbling about? China is now saying that the endlessly discussed target of keeping global warming below 2°C is not such a big deal.
Yvo de Boer closes Bonn talks with stark warning that the current pace of the Copenhagen negotiations remains far too slow.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported late last week that research by Australian National University scientist Andrew Macintosh indicates that, based on most industrialized nations' stated mid-term commitments, limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius simply "won't work."
Researchers working on a joint World Agroforestry Centre-United Nations Environment Programme project suggest that integrating agroforestry in farming systems on a massive scale would create a vital reservoir for carbon storage. No less than a billion hectares of developing country farmland is suitable for conversion to carbon agroforestry projects, according to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates.
An important recent paper looked at the links between economic prosperity and carbon footprint.[1] It compared the average emissions per head in 73 different countries at all different stages in development. Unsurprisingly, it showed that richer countries have much higher greenhouse gas outputs. The interesting and somewhat depressing finding is that a country with 10% higher GDP per head than another will generally have emissions about 8% higher. The correlation is strong - very few countries diverge much from the norm for their level of income.
Proposals to reduce global warming through giant engineering projects or so-called geoengineering abound. Almost all are in the idea stage. But even if they were ready to deploy today, they would be dangerous for the planet, counterproductive for our energy future and unfair to the public.
Yesterday the International Energy Agency (IEA) released their much anticipated (and previously leaked) World Energy Outlook 2008.
-
17/03/10
Are the health dangers from nuclear radiation exagerated?
-
03/03/10
Biofuels and land use
-
03/03/10
North Sea Oil and Gas may Provide One Third of Britain's Energy by 2020.
-
25/02/10
Do Texas and the North Sea Foretell the Future of Oil Production?
-
02/02/10
Is Hydrogen Research Driven by Fantasy?
Read more
