The issue of greenhouse gas emissions has been at the forefront of
environmental concerns for the past decade. A number of treaties,
agreements, and voluntary programs have been proposed to reduce
emissions - some of which have been the subject of intense debate
and disagreement. Most notable among these proposals has been the
Kyoto Protocol. Signed in 1997 by the United States and other
industrialized countries, the Kyoto Protocol is a major
international treaty imposing binding emission reduction targets on
the developed world. However, the U.S. Senate never ratified Kyoto,
and the Administration recently announced its intention of dropping
out of the international negotiations surrounding the Protocol.
Nonetheless, the general scientific consensus, that global warming
is a real, significant issue, is not in dispute. The Administration
is calling into question only the appropriate response to this
issue, while explicitly recognizing the need for some response.
Regardless of whether this response takes the form of a domestic
voluntary program, an international treaty, or something in between
these two extremes, it is likely that it will incorporate "market
mechanisms" in some form or other. Most of the various emission
reduction responses that have been proposed over the past few years
include such mechanisms. The development and implementation of
these mechanisms, designed to facilitate low-cost solutions to
environmental problems, is part of a broader trend away from the
command-and-control regulations of the past, and towards increased
flexibility in meeting regulatory requirements. This new
market-based approach has worked its way into greenhouse gas
emission reduction programs and proposals, using the guidelines
provided by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), and developed into a new concept: credits for
emission reduction projects undertaken beyond a country's borders.
Perhaps the greatest challenge for this new concept is the
development of a protocol, or set of protocols, for estimating the
emission reductions associated with projects. There is considerable
concern among various groups surrounding the accuracy of the
emission reduction estimates upon which credits would be awarded.
In addition, others, particularly any potential project developer,
want protocols that can be implemented within reasonable costs.
Nonetheless, all parties generally recognize the need for accuracy
of credits and agree on the need for a standard approach or set of
procedures for estimating project-level emission reductions. A
number of such approaches have been proposed and the purpose of
this report is to evaluate some of the key proposals. Specifically,
the report presents a series of hypothetical case study analyses
designed to test each proposed approach in the context of potential
real world projects. The case studies have been selected to cover a
broad range of sectors and project types. The goal is to identify
the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, and based on the
case study analyses, recommendations for improving and refining the
different approaches are developed. Four different approaches are
evaluated in this report: The approach officially proposed by the
U.S. at the recent (COP-6) negotiations surrounding the Kyoto
Protocol; The European Union's "Positive Technology List"; The U.S.
National Energy Technology Laboratory's (NETL) technology matrix
concept (the "full" technology matrix); A hybrid approach combining
elements of the technology matrix with the official U.S. approach
(the "hybrid" technology matrix). Each case study project is
evaluated using each of the above four approaches. The results for
each approach are analyzed, compared and contrasted; these critical
analyses in turn reveal the strengths and weaknesses of the
different approaches in the context of a variety of different
project types.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!