GAIA’s hard-working Neil Tangri has circulated an round-up covering a variety of climate-change-related topics, including the following Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) update:
There has been a lot of activity at the CDM, (see http://cdm.unfccc.int) the carbon credit mechanism. The latest meeting of the Executive Board just ended, and apparently the recyclers’ interventions in Copenhagen were an extremely hot topic of conversation.
Unfortunately, they do not seem to have addressed the problem of incinerators and landfill gas competing with wastepickers. However, they did approve a new, small-scale methodology for recycling plastics, with the comment, “this should make the wastepickers happy” (see http://tinyurl.com/yda9e9f). This methodology was proposed by the World Bank, with the collaboration of Coordinación Ecológica Area Metropolitana Sociedad del Estado (CEAMSE – the government waste management agency in Buenos Aires). The methodology encompasses only two forms of plastic, HDPE and LDPE, but the Bank has stated that it intends to include other materials as well.
The project proposed is to build 8 material recycling facilities for 8 CEAMSE-sponsored wastepicker cooperatives around Buenos Aires. At the moment, it is difficult to anticipate exactly what effect this will have – the amounts seem fairly small and it will take several years for cash to actually flow. On the other hand, if this does become a source of significant funds, there exists the danger that well-capitalized businesses will step in and compete with wastepickers for the carbon credits.
In the meantime, the CDM is struggling to stay relevant. Without a global agreement under the UNFCCC, the CDM will cease to exist in 2012, and the carbon credits will become meaningless. The failure to reach an agreement in Copenhagen, combined with a scandal about re-selling used credits, has resulted in two sharp drops in the value of carbon credits.
Of course, this could be reversed with a decision in Cancun, or if the US approves a cap-and-trade law that creates a large market for carbon credits. But at the moment, neither of these seems very likely.
In a separate communication the following was brought to UKWIN’s attention:
There is another scandal to call to your attention with the suspension of the major CDM validator/ verifier known as TÜV-SÜD who have so far approved 1,147 CDM projects. An investigation has found that there were procedural breaches at the company’s offices and that TÜV-SÜD had issued positive assessments of offset projects even though it had concerns about additionality.
Despite these revelations TÜV-SÜD are being allowed to continue with CDM but they have been barred from involvement in new projects. Speculation is rife that the firm will be let off the hook and allowed to return to their questionable practices (along the lines of previous incidents involving DNV and SGS UK).
One knowledgeable observer summed up the situation as follows:
These guys are pocketing millions of dollars to rubber stamp environmentally damaging projects that undermine the limited international efforts being made to address climate change.
For further details download the Reuters press wire story [PDF] and the item in Carbon Control News [PDF]
Returning to Neil’s update, the infamous “biogenic fudge” issue has also been addressed…
Biogenic carbon and incineration
Neil also explained that whilst he could not cover all aspects of the recent scientific discussions “…there is one issue that is of particular concern to us: biogenics”.
This is the term used to distinguish carbon dioxide that is emitted from formerly living matter (such as wood, paper, food waste) from the “fossil carbon,” which originated from oil, coal, natural gas, etc. As you may know, the only reason that incinerators can claim to be low-carbon sources of electricity is that they neglect to count the biogenic carbon dioxide.
The rationale for not counting 1/3 to 2/3 of their emissions is that this is the protocol laid down by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for handling biomass. GAIA has been arguing for some time
that this is a misinterpretation, indeed a twisting of the science: the IPCC rule exists to avoid double-counting, not to pretend that biogenic carbon has no climate impact.
At long last, we have company ( see http://tinyurl.com/yck2gmu). A number of articles have been published in the scientific literature indicating that this accounting error will have huge implications. By not counting the emissions from burning biomass, it will encourage companies to burn more wood, thus leading to complete global deforestation in a few
decades. Forest activists are now starting to take up the call to correct this accounting error – which would be a tremendous help to our campaigns as well.
For more from GAIA visit GAIA’s excellent website, for more about Wastepickers and Climate Policy see http://www.no-burn.org/section.php?id=153 , and for GAIA Europe see http://www.no-burn.org/section.php?id=80