Today we had Dr. Nicholas Berry from the Edinburgh based carbon management firm Ecometrica come in to give us a talk about forestry carbon projects. Was quite a tedious lecture since Dr. Berry had no idea our level of knowledge in this area and was very tentative in imparting information, afraid that we couldn't understand. So, again, we wasted almost 30 mins going through the bare basics of what is a carbon market, the compliance and voluntary market, the Kyoto Protocol and its flexible mechanisms and even about the science of climate change.
What was new (or interesting) was three things. The strategies attempted so far to overcome the issue of permanence in forestry carbon projects, the main standards used for forestry projects and a case-study of a "Plan-Vivo" forestry carbon project.
One of the main obstables confronting forestry carbon projects in permanence, i.e. to what extent is the carbon sequestered permanently locked up by the trees, and what happens if traded credits of carbon are subsequently re-released into the atmosphere intentionally (deliberate degradation or deforestation) or unintentionally (e.g. forest fires). The CDM solution was apparently to arbitrary issue forestry credits as 'temporary' cerdits since it could not guarantee its permanence. This effectived stifled demand since buyers could purchase 'permanent' CERs at the same price. The other strategy is that of 'risk buffering', used in the voluntary market. This is where only a portion of forestry credits is traded/sold, with the rest acting as insurance if and when the permanence of credits is called into question. This to me appears to be more reasonable as it facilitiates larger scaling up of projects and provides more certainty when credits are lost.
On standards, there are currently 3 main standards used by project developers of forestry projects. The Voluntary Carbon Standard, the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard and Plan Vivo, which was developed by the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Management (from which Econometrica was sporne). These are standards by which an independent 3rd party have to verify before valid VERs (Voluntary Emission Reductions) are issued. Each standard emphasizes different aspects that may be desired in a carbon project. For example, Plan Vivo places particular emphasis on the local community, with proceeds of credits guaranteed to go to the local inhabitants and invested into local sustainable economic activities such as agroforestry.
Overall I would have loved a more focused discussion going through each of the standards in detail as well as in depth analysis of the technical work that went into Plan Vivo projects i.e. how was the carbon measured, how was the project monitored, and how and what obstacles did the project developers face when trying to sell carbon credits in the voluntary market. I guess this MSc is really the MSc of overviews and summaries, rather than equiping us with specific technical skills that industry needs. This has been the most disappointing aspect of this course. But, a certificate is a certificate and my future is what I make of it, I guess.
In the evening, my classmates and I attended the event "Building a Low Carbon Economy - A UK and International Perspective" hosted by Edinburgh University, Scottish Power, Friends of the Earth and the British Council. It featured keynote addresses by the head of the UK Climate Change Committee Lord Adair Turner and Jacqueline McGlade, Executive Director of the European Environment Agency. Just as background, the UK Climate Change Committee is an advisory body set up by the UK government to assist it meet its legally binding 80% GHG reduction target by 2050, and the mid-term 20% reduction target by 2020. The committee advises government on policy, acts as a watchdog on government progress in meeting reduction targets and basically acts as intermediary between lastest science and policy making.
Their talks were nothing we didn't know already, and their presentation slides can soon be downloaded on the FOE website. Basically, in order to stabilise at 450ppm at 2 degrees celcius warming, the UK should contribute to the global effort by reducing its GHG emissions by 80% by 2050. It should get there by decarbonising the electricity sector using renewables, CCS and nuclear. The transport and residential sectors should also move towards electrification, with energy from zero carbon sources of course. The other sectors are more difficult to reduce emissions, and we should promote R&D to figure out what to do there. As for how to decarbonise the electricity sector, speakers said that there is enough wind potential to realise all of UK's energy demand, etc etc....all very hypothetical stuff, with broad cost estimates that it will cost 1% of GDP annually.
Just a couple of interesting observations. Both talks were extremely Euro-centric, with the focus on what UK needs to do, how urgent and difficult the problem is for the UK, how UK's plans fit in with Europe's. Passing mention was made of Obama's new administration and China and India. The only comment was that "China is working hard on Climate Change issues, India less". To me, they've missed out on the fundamental issue. Even if the UK, or Europe for that matter, reduces 80% by 2050, the world will still reach tipping point and above 4 degrees warming because of emissions from China and India. These emissions are in fact mostly to serve the demand for cheap goods from consumers in western countries. Now you can't blame China and India for burning fossil fuels because that's the cheapest way to produce the goods that the West wants! The UK and the West needs to get serious about whether they are prepared the "real" prices of imported goods (i.e. including the embedded carbon and cost to the climate and environment). Or, they need to think seriously about helping reduce emissions from factories in countries like China, since those emissions are emitted because of the West's demand. To be self-obsessed about how UK was going to reach a 80% reduction target in a mostly services economy is missing the point. If anything, the UK should find it relatively easier than most economies to decarbonise since they have higher GDP, consumers have more disposable income to compensate higher electricity prices and they do not have a carbon intensive manufacturing sector.
Another interesting observation was a comment from Scottish Power, which reflects the political game being played. While the Climate Change Committee is advocating the potential of wind and saying everything is theoretically possible, they make no mention of the actual CASH that need to be splashed and where. Nothing will be done if no cash is actually on the table.
The head of renewables of Scottish Power said that whilst he recognizes the importance of climate change and the huge potential of wind, his company simply will not invest in large scale off-shore wind projects unless the transmission infrastructure is provided by the government to ensure the electricity generated offshore can be provided to consumers. Therefore, far from just creating a carbon price or making keynote speeches at universities, the govt needs to get serious and put cash on the table to create a new, renewables friendly infrastructure. With the UK's political ball-passing tendencies, I don't think the UK will reach any of its targets. You heard it here first.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment