| Kristen Lee | May 09, 2008 09:01 PM (UTC) (edited on May 09, 2008 09:10 PM (UTC)) |
Recently, I attended a lunchtime fundraiser for an American watchdog organization. Matter Network published my {{blog post|http://www.matternetwork.com/2008/5/carbon-credits-credit-where-its.cfm}} on the topic, and since then I've thought about it a little more.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, carbon offsets are sold globally using the Clean Development Mechanism- a group called International Rivers, based in Berkeley, CA says that this leads to the sale of fake carbon credits. The system is different to cap-and-trade, instead allowing developers in LDCs to sell carbon credits based on "carbon not produced" by hydroelectric dams, etc. It's all done in an effort to make sustainable energy affordable to LDCs, but can lead to huge profits by developers of such projects and no real decrease in the amount of carbon emitted globally. The credits are purchased largely in Europe and China, I think.
Until yesterday, I hadn't heard of this, and I'm wondering if that's because my country doesn't follow Kyoto. Anyone else have insight on this topic?
Every now and then an issue like this smacks me in the face and I have to wonder if I'm alone!
| Phil Mitchell | May 12, 2008 04:22 PM (UTC) |
Hi Kristen,
I think the basic answer is that there is a very real and pressing need for us to figure out how to help developing countries avoid following our fossil fuel pathway to prosperity. The CDM is an effort to do that, but has had serious problems with gaming and corruption. It doesn't mean we should stop trying. One approach that I like is that only a small percentage of a country's emissions reductions should be available for these kinds of projects.
cheers,
Phil
| Kristen Lee | May 14, 2008 11:27 PM (UTC) |
Phil,
Thanks for your reply! Glad to hear you're thinking about this. I have some background studying the IMF and World Bank- it worries me personally to see the World Bank funding some of these projects. Historically, I hesitate to believe that there are noble motives and not just the accumulation of wealth or power.
So in your opinion, what would be a good way to globally leapfrog the fossil fuel pathway in favor of sustainability in developing countries without tainted political involvement (often bearing ulterior motives)? Should we put more money and power into the relevant departments of the UN, like UNEP, UNDP, etc?
Maybe we could consider this as repayment to LDCs that have endured serious blows from more developed countries?
| Phil Mitchell | May 15, 2008 03:02 AM (UTC) |
Yes, the World Bank has a pretty bad record! However, I believe there is some evidence of more enlightened leadership there now -- eg., with the new Forest Carbon funds. Another bright spot is leadership that is coming from the global South itself, eg., the Coalition of Rainforest Nations.
Those examples are both climate-related forest efforts. The broader issue of leapfrogging fossil fuel pathway is, I think, less developed at this point. There are NGOs on the ground doing this work, but scaling it is the challenge. A good starting point might be to integrate this effort with anti-poverty work and actually fund our international aid at pledged levels (or higher). We have pledged 0.7% of GNP, but currently only fund about 0.25%. That seems pretty stingy for the richest country in the world.
Anyway, that's only a starting point. Ross Gelbspan (and colleagues) have proposed a much more ambitious plan in his book Boiling Point. And I'm sure there's other work out there ... I'm not particularly up-to-speed on it since our politics here is so far behind the curve.