Western Climate Initiative

The Western Climate Initiative or WCI is an initiative—started by states and provinces along the western rim of North America—to combat climate change caused by global warming, independent of their national governments.

The stated purpose of the WCI is to identify, evaluate and implement ways to collectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the region. The initiative requires partners to set an overall regional goal to reduce emissions, develop a market-based, multi-sector mechanism to help achieve that goal, and participate in a cross-border greenhouse gas registry.

The Western Climate Initiative plans to lay the foundation for an international cap and trade program that would involve both the United States and Canada. On September 23rd, 2008, the WCI released an outline for the implementation of its cap and trade proposal. The first phase of this plan would be implemented on January 1, 2012, followed three years later by a broader cap on carbon emissions in 2015. Alberta and Saskatchewan object to cap and trade and in July 2008 called WCI's plan a "cash grab by some of Canada's resource-poor provinces."

On 22 August, 2007, the WCI set a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 15% from 2005 levels by 2020.



Partners vs. observers

The initiative includes two types of membership: partners and observers.

The partners are the U.S. states of Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec.

The observers are Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, Wyoming, the province of Saskatchewan (which objects to WCI plans for a cap and trade system), and the Mexican states of Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Sonora and Tamaulipas.

Membership changes

This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

* 24 April 2007: British Columbia joined with the five western states, turning the WCI into an international partnership.

* 21 May 2007: Utah became the sixth state to join the WCI when Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. signed the Initiative. Governor Huntsman was the second Republican governor to join, after California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

* 13 June 2007: Manitoba said that it would be the second Canadian province to join the WCI.

* 24 September 2007: Alaska joined the WCI as an observer.

* 19 November 2007: The Governor of Montana announced that his state would also join.

* 18 April 2008: Quebec, previously an observer, became a partner.

* 18 July 2008: Ontario, previously an observer, became a partner.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Voluntary Emissions Reduction

A voluntary emission reduction is an emission reduction that has been achieved outside of compulsion. In other words, the person carrying out the activity was not obliged to do so but choose to do so voluntarily. 'Voluntary Emissions Reductions (VERs) are carbon credits developed by carbon offset providers which are not certified.

Certification of carbon credits (Certified Emissions Reductions) are backed by an international framework and institutions, for example under the UN's Clean Development Mechanism, to ensure that real greenhouse gas emission reductions take place, as well as providing a clear audit trail. Voluntary offset schemes can be defined as those aimed at generating GHG emissions reductions not required by Kyoto Protocol’s derived regulation. Through these schemes, industries and individuals voluntarily compensate their emissions or provide an additional contribution to mitigating climate change.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Voluntary Carbon Standard

The Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) is a quality standard for voluntary carbon offset industry. Based on the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism, VCS establishes criteria for validating, measuring, and monitoring carbon offset projects.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC) is an international environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992. The objective of the treaty is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

The treaty itself sets no mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement mechanisms. In that sense, the treaty is considered legally non-binding. Instead, the treaty provides for updates (called "protocols") that would set mandatory emission limits. The principal update is the Kyoto Protocol, which has become much better known than the UNFCCC itself.

The UNFCCC was opened for signature on May 9, 1992, after an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee produced the text of the Framework Convention as a report following its meeting in New York from 30 April to 9 May 1992. It entered into force on March 21, 1994. As of December 2009, UNFCCC had 192 parties.

One of its first tasks was to establish national greenhouse gas inventories of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals, which were used to create the 1990 benchmark levels for accession of Annex I countries to the Kyoto Protocol and for the commitment of those countries to GHG reductions. Updated inventories must be regularly submitted by Annex I countries.

The UNFCCC is also the name of the United Nations Secretariat charged with supporting the operation of the Convention, with offices in Haus Carstanjen, Bonn, Germany. Since 2006 the head of the secretariat has been Yvo de Boer. The Secretariat, augmented through the parallel efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), aims to gain consensus through meetings and the discussion of various strategies.

The parties to the convention have met annually from 1995 in Conferences of the Parties (COP) to assess progress in dealing with climate change. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was concluded and established legally binding obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Pagerank ternyata tidak menentukan posisi mu di google

pagi ini, coba-coba liat pegerank 5 blog yang menggunakan kata kunci "kompetisi website kompas muda kfc", ternyata pagerank ga berpengaruh sama posisi blog di google. Coba liat hasilnya dibawah ini, di sini saya cek mypagerank.net, dan hasilnya:

1. www.shandyisme.com



2. www.mudaers.com



3. tugala.blogspot.com



4. mhs.blog.ui.ac.id



5. menjaga-bumi.blogspot.com

UN-REDD

Overview

The UN-REDD Programme , or " United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries" is a collaborative partnership between the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO).

It seeks to contribute to the development of capacity for implementing REDD - Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation- and to support the international dialogue for the inclusion of a REDD mechanism in a post-2012 (post Kyoto protocol) climate regime, negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The UN-REDD Programme is not the sole entity assisting countries that wish to engage in REDD activities. Other initiatives include for example the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative, the Global Environment Facility Tropical Forest Account, Australia’s International Forest Carbon Initiative and the Collaborative Partnership on Forests.

The UN-REDD Programme works at both the national and global scale, through support mechanisms for country-driven REDD strategies and international consensus-building on REDD processes.

National Programmes

The UN-REDD Programme assists developing countries to prepare and implement national REDD strategies and mechanisms. These actions 1) help develop the countries capacity to implement REDD strategies and be "REDD-ready" and 2) provide practical experience and lessons learned that can inform the international dialogue on a post-2012 REDD mechanism.

Are supported by the UN-REDD Programme:

* 3 countries from Africa (the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania and Zambia)
* 3 countries from Asia and the Pacific (Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and Viet Nam)
* 3 countries from Latin America and the Caribbean (Bolivia, Panama and Paraguay).

The UN-REDD Programme supports these countries in managing their REDD processes by assisting them to :

* identify ways to address their specific drivers of deforestation
* develop methods and tools for measuring and monitoring greenhouse gas emissions
* facilitate the participation of national stakeholders, including Indigenous Peoples and Civil Society Organizations
* access financial and technical assistance.

Priority is given to developing sustainable national multisectoral approaches with broad stakeholder engagement that promote equitable outcomes and to ensuring that countries use reliable methodologies to assess emission reductions. In some countries, key elements of delivering emission reductions – such as REDD payment structuring and distribution options - are also tested.

In March 2009, 18 million dollars were approved by the UN-REDD Programme Policy Board, supporting action plans to assist the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Tanzania, and Viet Nam to prepare for the inclusion of REDD in a new climate deal.

Activities of the Global Programme

At the global level, the UN-REDD Programme supports country efforts to build consensus and knowledge, and ensures consistency in approaches and economies of scale in the delivery of REDD.

The Programme actively explores and documents examples of “best practices”. These activities seek to promote confidence-building in REDD and raise awareness about the options for including a REDD mechanism in a post 2012 regime. The four specific outcomes of the UN-REDD Programme activities at the global level are:

1) Improved guidance on Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) approaches, including consensus on principles and guidelines for MRV and training programmes.

2) Increased engagement of stakeholders in the REDD agenda, including raising awareness of REDD amongst stakeholders, ensuring Indigenous Peoples representative groups and non-Annex 1 decisionmakers are informed and engaged.

3) Improved analytical and technical framework of social and environmental benefits maximising the contribution of REDD to sustainable development, including the establishment of indicators to assess governance and socio-economic factors in national REDD frameworks, and developing tools to capture the benefits arising from forest ecosystem services.

4) Increased confidence in REDD amongst decision makers on the feasibility of methodologies and the implementation of REDD, through coordination within agencies and with partners,as well as through knowledge management and sharing and support to partner countries.

Organization and Governance

The Policy Board of the UN-REDD Programme convenes at least twice a year to decide on the strategic orientations and budget allocations of the Programme. Meetings are co-chaired by a representative from a UN-REDD Programme country and a representative from either FAO, UNDP or UNEP. The composition of the Board is :

Members

* One representative per UN agency (FAO, UNDP, UNEP)
* One representative per UN-REDD Programme country, up to 9
* One Indigenous Peoples representative (currently the chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues)
* One representative from a Civil Society Organization
* One representative per donor country, up to 3

Observers

* Three Indigenous Peoples representatives (from the 3 regions Africa, Asia & the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean), self-selected
* Three representatives from Civil Society Organizations (from the regions above, plus an NGO from an industrialized country)
* UNFCCC Secretariat
* Forest Carbon Partnership Facility represented by the World Bank
* GEF Secretariat

Ex- officio member

* Multi Donor Trust Fund Office, UNDP

This governance system ensures broad representation from a variety of voices.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Cek posisi di google dengan kata kunci "Kompetisi Website Kompas MuDA - KFC"

Hari ini tanggal 23 Desember 2009, jam 11.40 WIB (lengkap ya..), iseng-iseng cek posisi beberapa blog dengan kata kunci "Kompetisi Website Kompas MuDA - KFC". Di sini saya akan menyebutkan Blog yang masuk 10 besar google (ingat, di sini kita bertanya ke paman google Indonesia, karena temanya adalah "Bangga Indonesia"). Blog-blog tersebut antara lain:

1. www.shandyisme.com
2. www.mudaers.com (wah, ini seh punya panitia, dihitung ga ya?)
3. tugala.blogspot.com
4. mhs.blog.ui.ac.id
5. menjaga-bumi.blogspot.com
6. www.blogcatalog.com (ga dihitung..)
7. www.blogtopsites.com (sama, ga dihitung..)
8. kompetisiwebsitekompasmudakfc.akuntansiku.info
9. cetak.kompas.com (ini punya kakek kompas, jelas ga dihitung..)
10. alifamariani.wordpress.com

Selamat buat teman2 yang udah masuk 10 besar google, buat yang belum tetap semangat. Soalnya paman google itu bisa berubah pikiran setiap saat, makanya di awal sy tulis tanggal dan jam nya..

Tianjin Climate Exchange

Tianjin Climate Exchange (TCX) is a domestic carbon market cap-and-trade scheme exchange. Jeff Huang is assistant chairman of Tianjin Climate Exchange and vice-president of Chicago Climate Exchange.

It is China’s first integrated exchange for trading of environmental financial instruments

TCX is a joint venture between Chicago Climate Exchange, the municipal government of Tianjin and the asset management unit of PetroChina, the country’s largest oil and gas producer.

Cap-and-trade schemes are programs under which member companies commit to lowering their greenhouse gas emissions by a certain amount in a certain period of time and trade carbon credits generated by this. As China does not have a national cap on emissions, any such scheme would be voluntary, similar to the situation in the US when the Chicago Climate Exchange launched in 2003.

History

On September 25 2008, Tianjin Climate Exchange, co-established by CNPC Assets Management Co., Ltd. (holding a 53% stake), Tianjin Property Rights Exchange (北方产权交易市场) (holding a 22% stake), and Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) (holding a 25% stake), was unveiled in the Tianjin Binhai New Area.

At the request of the State Council, Tianjin Climate Exchange is established as China's first comprehensive platform for trading carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism, and will promote environmental protection and emission reduction by means of market and financial measures.

Tianjin Climate Exchange has the following goals: to help enterprises cost-effectively reduce emissions of pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, chemical oxygen demand, etc; to help enterprises achieve maximum energy efficiency at minimum cost; to help enterprises manage environmental risks and meet increasing disclosure requirements; and to provide enterprises with integrated international emissions market access and experience.

In 2006, Tianjin Binhai New Area was designed by the State Council of the PRC as the national experimental zone for comprehensive reforms related to financial innovation, land and administrative management.

China's 11th Five-Year Plan (2006-10) calls for cutting energy consumption per unit of GDP up to 20 percent by 2010 while reducing major pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide (SO2) by 10 percent.

Tianjin Property Rights Exchange

TPRE was launched in 1994, under government approval. It is a government agent under the charge of Tianjin SASAC and is the only appointed exchange authorized by Tianjin SASAC for state-owned assets and equities transaction. It is one of three national institutions permitted by SASAC to transact assets and equities of SOEs under control of central government.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

The London Accord

The London Accord is a collaboration between investment banks, research houses, academics and NGOs to produce free research on climate change for financial investors.

It is intended as a reference guide for investors in the climate change sector.

The London Accord is significant in that it is the largest cooperative project in the world on investment opportunities in avoiding climate change (about 7 million UK pounds). (It is also significant in being a non government-funded initiative).

The London Accord was launched in March 2007 and published its results on 19 December, 2007 launching them at a roll out meeting at Mansion House in London. These findings are freely available from its website.

Its main summary at December 2007 said:

* The IPCC shows that the world needs to act to avoid disastrous climate change, and act now.
* The Stern Report shows that the overall cost of strong early action is much less than the cost of inaction.
* The International Energy Agency shows the changes in fuel mix and energy usage that are necessary to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at a safe level.
* The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change shows how much money is required by region and by technology to realise a scenario that achieves stabilisation.
* The UNFCCC report shows further that 86% of that investment has to come from the private sector. That equates to private sector investment through 2030 in excess of $600bn per year.
* The London Accord report shows investors and policy makers by technology how attractive that private investment is, at the end of 2007.

Findings

The findings of the research carried out show that:

* energy investment is going to become much, much riskier
* key governmental focus should be on establishing cap-and-trade markets, then international carbon standards, then regulation; not taxation
* forestry is a big unknown – governments should fund research into the real extent of abatement potential and the real costs of forestation
* carbon capture and sequestration/storage (CCS) seems an unrealistic investment

Quotes about the London Accord

David Lewis (Lord Mayor) said:

Climate change represents an unparalleled threat to our life on the planet and through the London Accord, the City's best brains have cooperated in an unprecedented way to tackle the challenge.

The London Accord is the first open-source, co-operative investment analysis into opportunities and challenges in the energy supply and climate change market - which needs to be $600bn a year invested from the private sector over the next 25 years.

Climate change can be tackled if the investment is there - and the London Accord is the first comprehensive map for the investment community.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Solar Renewable Energy Certificates

Solar Renewable Energy Certificates (SRECs) or Solar Renewable Energy Credits are a form of Renewable Energy Certificate or Green tag. SRECs are available in states where a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) exists with a specific allocation for solar energy. SREC programs provide a means for SRECs to be created on behalf of a solar panel owner and sold to state electric suppliers to meet the solar RPS requirement. Electric suppliers are required to use the SREC program to show compliance with this part of the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard.

The SREC is separate from the value of the electricity itself and permits the owner or purchaser to claim the benefits of the clean energy production by effectively subsidizing the cost of the installed system. SRECs are designed to provide individuals and corporations with an economic incentive to investing in solar electric systems which improve the electric distribution grid. They represent the renewable attributes from a solar facility, bundled in minimum denominations of one megawatt hour (MWh) of production. The additional income received from selling the solar certificates increases the economic value of an investment. Instead of up-front subsidies from the state, solar system owners can recover their investment by selling certificates to utilities.

Prices

Typically, there is no assigned monetary value to an SREC. Instead, SREC prices are a function of (1) a state's solar alternative compliance payment (SACP) and (2) supply and demand for SRECs within the relevant state.


SACP The SACP is the fee that energy suppliers must pay if they fail to secure SRECs as required by state regulations called a RPS. A state's ACP therefore generally sets a cap on the value of SRECs because energy suppliers may simply pay the fee if SREC prices approach the fee level. In rare cases SREC prices have approached and even surpassed ACP levels because SRECs can sometimes be recovered by charging more to electricity customers (rate basing), while ACP payments are usually precluded. The SACP fee often decreases over time within each state, thereby putting downward pressure on SREC prices.


Supply and Demand SREC supply in a particular state is determined by the number of solar installations qualified to produce SRECs and actually selling SRECs in that state. As more solar systems are built SREC supply will increase, putting downward pressure on prices.

SREC demand is determined by the state RPS solar requirement, typically a requirement that a certain percentage of the energy supply into a state must originate from qualified solar energy resources. According to Sol Systems, an SREC market maker and one of the largest SREC aggregators in the country, RPSsolar requirements are set to universally increase in the coming decade, as will SREC demand. An increase in demand for SRECs means upward pressure on prices.


Market Outlook In the long run, the glut of inventory for solar panels, technological advances in current technologies, the introduction of new technologies, and sophisticated financing mechanisms may significantly increase solar development and subsequently SREC supply, thereby decreasing SREC values. On the other hand, the recent credit crisis has slowed the construction of large-scale solar projects in many states, limiting the supply of SRECs and therefore stabilizing their value in many states in the near future.


Contract Terms Finally, an important determinant in SREC prices is the length of SREC contracts. Long-term SREC contracts offer customers stability and guarantee long-term revenue streams, but may provide a slightly lower price in exchange. In contrast, spot prices for SRECs may be higher, but can be riskier for system owners. According to SRECTrade, SRECs traded as high as $680 in New Jersey in 2009. Prices in other states ranged from $200-375 dollars depending in large part on the state's individual ACP, according to Sol Systems.

SREC Certification

In order to produce SRECs, a solar system must first be certified by state regulatory agencies, usually public service commissions or public utility commissions, and then registered with a trading platform. Once a solar system is certified with the state agency and registered with a trading platform, SRECs can be issued using either an estimate table or actual meter readings by the trading platform - depending upon state regulations. In some cases, smaller installations may be able to use estimates, while actual meter readings are required for large installations. One SREC is created for every MWh of electricity produced from a qualified solar renewable energy generator. In Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio, Maryland and the District of Columbia solar systems are registered with, and SRECs are issued by PJM-EIS GATS.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Renewable energy payments

Renewable Energy Payments are a competitive alternative to Renewable Energy Credits (REC's).

Although the intent with both methods is the same, to stimulate growth in the alternative and renewable energy space, REP's have proven to offer benefits to local jobs, businesses and economies while making the growth fundable and lendable by financial institutions.
Renewable Energy Payments are the mechanisms or instruments at the heart of specific state, provincial or national renewable energy policies. REPs are incentives for homeowners, farmers, businesses, etc., to become producers of renewable energy, or to increase their production of renewable energy. As such, they increase our overall production and use of renewable energy, and decrease our consumption and burning of fossil fuels.

In a broad stroke, Renewable Energy Payments, sometimes known as a Feed-in Tariff place obligations on utility companies to buy electricity from renewable energy sources, often small, local companies, for a fixed period of time. The underlying premise being that with fixed payments the once volatile renewable energy projects now become lendable and attractive for financing, thus stimulating growth and innovation. Proponents of Renewable Energy Payments argue that this policy has proven to stimulate local economies, innovation and small business growth because in its truest form REP's put everyone, whether small business, individual, or farmers on an equal footing with large commercial titans of industry.

Representative Jay Inslee of Washington says "We can give homeowners, farmers and communities across America investment security that they can take to the bank. We know from experience in Germany, Spain and dozens of other countries around the world that this policy approach spurs unparalleled and affordable renewable-energy development."

The alternative to Renewable Energy Payments are what are called Renewable Energy Credits, which have been likened to the Alaskan Bridge to nowhere in a recent filing by the Florida Alliance for Renewable Energy. (FARE)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Renewable Energy Certificates

Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), also known as Green tags, Renewable Energy Credits, or Tradable Renewable Certificates (TRCs), are tradable, non-tangible energy commodities in the United States that represent proof that 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was generated from an eligible renewable energy resource.

These certificates can be sold and traded or bartered, and the owner of the REC can claim to have purchased renewable energy. While traditional carbon emissions trading programs promote low-carbon technologies by increasing the cost of emitting carbon, RECs can incentivize carbon-neutral renewable energy by providing a production subsidy to electricity generated from renewable sources. It is important to understand that the energy associated with a REC is sold separately and is used by another party. The consumer of a REC receives only a certificate.

In states that have a REC program, a green energy provider (such as a wind farm) is credited with one REC for every 1,000 kWh or 1 MWh of electricity it produces (for reference, an average residential customer consumes about 800 kWh in a month). A certifying agency gives each REC a unique identification number to make sure it doesn't get double-counted. The green energy is then fed into the electrical grid (by mandate), and the accompanying REC can then be sold on the open market.

Background

There are two main markets for renewable energy certificates in the United States - compliance markets and voluntary markets.

Compliance markets are created by a policy that exists in 29 U.S. states, plus the District of Columbia, called Renewable Portfolio Standard. In these states, the electric companies are required to supply a certain percent of their electricity from renewable generators by a specified year. For example, in California the law is 33% renewable by 2020, whereas New York has a 24% requirement by 2013. Electric utilities in these states demonstrate compliance with their requirements by purchasing RECs; in the California example, the electric companies would need to hold RECs equivalent to 33% of their electricity sales.

Voluntary markets are ones in which customers choose to buy renewable power out of a desire to go green. Most corporate and household purchases of renewable energy are voluntary purchases. Renewable energy generators located in states that do not have a Renewable Portfolio Standard can sell their RECs to voluntary buyers, usually at a cheaper price than compliance market RECs.

Critics point out, however, the flaw in this system is that it does not require any proof of displaced polluting power. Since some renewable energy sources, most notably wind power, are intermittent and variable, their production does not displace an equivalent amount of other sources per kW of installed capacity. They do, however, displace, on a per-kWh-basis, electricity from combustion sources, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and byproducts: nitrogen, sulfur, and other oxides and minerals.

Prices

According to the Green Power Network, prices of RECs can fluctuate greatly (2006: from $5 to $90 per MWh, median about $20). Prices depend on many factors, such as the location of the facility producing the RECs, whether there is a tight supply/demand situation, whether the REC is used for RPS compliance, even the type of power created. Solar renewable energy certificates or SRECs, for example, tend to be much more valuable in Northeast markets. In Canada, 2008-09 BCHydro offers $3 /MWh for "green attributes", for long-term contracts, 20 plus years. Many Independent Power Producers believe that this is much less than "fair market value", but have no alternative.

While the value of RECs fluctuate, most sellers are legally obligated to "deliver" RECs to their customers within a few months of their generation date. Other organizations will sell as many RECs as possible and then use the funds to guarantee a specific fixed price per MWh generated by a future wind farm, for example, making the building of the wind farm a financially viable prospect. The income provided by RECs, and a long-term stabilized market for tags can generate the additional incentive needed to build renewable energy plants. One of the few non-profit U.S. organizations that sell RECs, Bonneville Environmental Foundation was instrumental in starting the market for RECs with their Green Tag product. They use the profits from Green Tags to build community solar and wind projects and to fund watershed restoration. Another non-profit currently selling RECs is Conservation Services Group, which sells ClimateSAVE RECs generated from wind, solar, and hydropower. The largest seller of RECs is a company called Sterling Planet, based in Atlanta, GA. Some of their clients include Intel, Pepisco, Harvard, Yale, Duke and over 100 utilities around the country

REC certification

RECs are known under functionally equivalent names such as Green Tags or Tradable Renewable Certificates (TRCs), depending on the market. The U.S. currently does not have a national registry of RECs issued. Several certification and accounting organizations attempt to ensure that RECs are correctly tracked and verified and are not double-counted. Increasingly RECs are being assigned unique ID numbers for each 1,000 kWh produced. RECs are certified by Green-e, and Environmental Resources Trust's EcoPower Program. REC markets are increasingly overseen through regional tracking systems such as WREGIS, NEPOOL, GATS, ERCOT, and M-RETS.

Qualifying technologies

The following generation technologies qualify as producers of RECs:

* Solar electric
* Wind
* Geothermal
* Low Impact Hydropower (small-run-of-the-river facilities, not ones that require large dams and reservoirs, or affecting river flows adversely.)
* Biomass, biofuels and landfill to gas
* Fuel cells (only if powered by hydrogen produced by one of the above approved generators, not from fossil fuels).

RECs and additionality

"Additionality" is the idea that an individual's purchase of a renewable energy certificate forces new renewable energy onto the electricity grid. Another test for additionality is whether or not the project is financially "business as usual". RECs have come under scrutiny in the past with questions of whether or not they provide additionality, or are merely a payment to a project that would have existed even in the absence of the REC sale.

When voluntary REC purchases are made from generators that are not in compliance markets - for example, in a state that does not have a Renewable Portfolio Standard - funds from the sale of RECs are provided to the generators, but don't necessarily cause any additional renewable power to be built. It is difficult to prove that purchases of these RECs provide additionality. But if the following strategy is adopted, additionality works.

An alternative strategy combines REC compliance markets and voluntary markets. In these states that have a Renewable Portfolio Standard, if the RECs are required to come from within the compliance market, a voluntary purchase effectively increases the utilities' minimum renewable electricity percentage by purchasing RECs that the utilities would otherwise have purchased to meet their RPS (if there is not a surplus of RECs. When this occurs utilities must find additional sources of renewable electricity. If the RECs can be purchased from outside the relevant compliance market, as is often the case, additionality is not guaranteed. This site provides a useful flowchart for how voluntary purchases from compliance markets provide additionality.

A popular incentive for buying RECs is to make the claim that your energy use is carbon neutral and hence does not contribute to global warming. However, "off-setting" results in the same amount of pollution (if you buy RECs to cover your usage of electricity and you live in, say, the Southeast United States, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, the Midwest, etc.) you may still be using electricity produced mostly from coal-fired power plants. Others argue that as power from renewable sources enters the market, prices will drop and production from sources that don't enjoy the additional income from RECs will be reduced. Also, as larger and larger numbers of RECs come into demand, renewable energy will become more and more cost effective per kWh in comparison to nonrenewable energy. It can be argued that purchasing RECs is similar to voting. In reality, one single vote has rarely made a difference in the outcome of thousands of elections according to the famous book, Freakonomics. But, if everyone thinks that and stops voting, the voter turnout will fall and the seemingly meaningless behavior of one individual, in aggregate becomes meaningful. RECs are similar. Some think that every single purchase of REC just like every vote cast, counts.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency claims to have the highest percentage use of green power of any federal agency. In 2007, it offset the electricity use of 100% of its offices. The Air Force is the largest purchaser in the US government in absolute terms, purchasing 899,142 MWH worth of RECs. Among colleges and universities, the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia is the largest purchaser of RECs, buying 192,727 MWH of RECs from wind power. The corporate leader is Intel, with 1,302,040 MWH purchased in 2007, and the largest purchaser among retailers is Whole Foods, which purchased 509,104 MWH, or enough RECs to offset 100% of its electricity needs.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI, or ReGGIe) is a regional initiative by states and provinces in the Northeastern United States region to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The RGGI is designing a cap and trade program for greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

Ten states currently participate in the initiative. Pennsylvania, which is a major coal producer and manufacturing state, only participates as an observer.



Current membership

* Participating states and Provinces: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador
* Observer states, provinces and regions: Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, Québec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario.

Implementation

RGGI is implementing a cap and trade system for CO2 emissions from power plants in the member states. Emission permit auctioning began in September 2008, and the first three-year compliance period began on January 1, 2009. Proceeds will be used to promote energy conservation and renewable energy. The system affects fossil fuel power plants with 25 MW or greater generating capacity ("compliance entities").

Climate Change Action Plan

A parallel effort to reduce emissions in the Northeast is the New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan, which calls for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 10% below 1990 levels by 2020. For comparison: the EU aims to reduce emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020.

In addition, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) is building a Regional Greenhouse Gas Registry (RGGR) to help track emissions in the region. This effort is similar to that of the California Climate Action Registry.

Carbon auction

The Memorandum of Understanding commits states to invest 25% of revenue from carbon credits to energy efficiency and strategic energy schemes. This revenue is received by auctioning credits from the state budget to compliance entities. Since signing the MOU in 2005, all ten states have committed in their Model Rule to the sale of the vast majority of the state's carbon budget. This overcomes the problem of opportunity cost associated with the EU ETS, which led to windfall profits for generators.

RGGI sold carbon credits on Thursday September 25, 2008 in the first of a series of quarterly online auctions. 12,565,387 allowances were sold for $3.07 per ton of carbon dioxide, bringing in a total of $38,575,738.09. It was the largest carbon auction at the time. The second auction was held December 17, 2008. 31,505,898 allowances were sold for $3.38 per allowance. In the third auction, held on March 18, 2009, 31,513,765 (2009) allowances were sold for $3.51 per allowance, and 2,175,513 (2012) allowances were sold for $3.05 per allowance. The June 17 saw 30.8 million allowances sold for $3.23 per allowance, and 2.17 million 2012 allowances sold for $2.06.

History

In 2003 George Pataki, then Governor of New York, sent a letter to the governors of Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states seeking "to develop a strategy that will help the region lead the nation in the effort to fight global climate change."

In August 2005, the RGGI staff working group proposed an emissions reduction program that would start in 2009 and lead to a stabilization of emissions at current levels (an average of 2002-2004 levels) by 2015. This would be followed by a 10% reduction in emissions between 2015 and 2020. The proposal would also allow participants to purchase offsets to meet 50% of their emission reductions.

As of December 20, 2005, seven Northeastern US states were involved in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Massachusetts and Rhode Island dropped out at the last minute; Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney objected to a lack of opt-out provisions if energy prices exceeded a certain threshold. He went on to attack Senator John McCain for his positive position on cap-and-trade during the 2008 presidential election. The seven states still involved (Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine) signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" committing themselves to move forward with the program. Special provisions were made in that document for Massachusetts and Rhode Island to join the effort at any time prior to January 1, 2008.

Massachusetts rejoined on January 18, 2007, on the order of newly elected Governor Deval Patrick.

Rhode Island rejoined on January 30, 2007. Governor Donald L. Carcieri used his State of the State address to make the announcement. While he reiterated his concern about the impact on energy costs, he said that "I have been assured that those costs can be offset by credits we will receive from other states."

On April 20, 2007, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed an agreement to join, making Maryland the 10th state to join the initiative.

New Hampshire joined on June 12, 2008, when Gov. John Lynch signed a law implementing RGGI.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

REDD stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). REDD is a set of steps or mechanism designed to use market/financial incentives in order to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from deforestation and forest degradation. Its original objective is to reduce green house gases but it can deliver "co-benefits" such as biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation. REDD credits offer the opportunity to utilize funding from developed countries to reduce deforestation in developing countries.

"Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation" implies a distinction between the two activities. The process of identifying the two is what raises questions about how to measure each within the REDD mechanism, therefore their distinction is vital. Deforestation is the permanent removal of forests and withdrawal of land from forest use. Forest degradation refers to negative changes in the forest area that limit its production capacity.

In recent years, estimates for deforestation and forest degradation were shown to account for 20-25% of greenhouse gas emissions, higher than the transportation sector. Recent work shows that the combined contribution of deforestation, forest degradation and peatland emissions accounts for about 15% of greenhouse gas emissions, about the same as the transportation sector. Even with these new numbers it is increasingly accepted that mitigation of global warming will not be achieved without the inclusion of forests in an international regime. As a result, it is expected to play a crucial role as a future successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

History

In the 1997 global climate agreement, Kyoto Protocol, policies related to deforestation and degradation were excluded because of a possible leakage problem with such policies. After the exclusion, deforestation rose particularly in Brazil resulting in the the Coalition of Rainforest Nations. These nations included Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica and other forest nations.

In 2005, at the 11th Conference of the Parties (COP-11), the Coalition of Rainforest Nations initiated a request to consider 'reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries.' The matter was referred to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA). The United States challenged the proposal but failed in its attempts.

Later, at the 2007 Bali UNFCCC meeting (COP-13), an agreement was reached on “the urgent need to take further meaningful action to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation”. The deadline for reaching an agreement on the specifics of an international REDD mechanism, at least as regards to it being implemented in the short and medium term, is the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP-15) which will be held in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Main actors

REDD activities are undertaken by national or local governments, NGOs, the private sector, or any combination of these. A number of NGOs, development agencies, research institutes and international organizations support developing countries that wish to engage in REDD activities. The World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility World Banks's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, the UN-REDD Programme, Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative are such examples. The genuine actors of REDD, however, will be the populations whose livelihoods derive from forests. Indigenous Peoples and forest-dependent communities will be the front liners of REDD, and the success of REDD activities will largely depend on their engagement.

Active international organizations

REDD has received great support from international organizations. The World Bank presently plays an important role in the progression of REDD activities. The World Bank as one of the financial contributor for the REDD program, has created a $300 million fund, the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF). This fund is aimed towards initiating REDD activities in developing countries. In addition, another World Bank facility, Carbon Partnership Facility (CPF) expected to be use in areas like the power sectors, transportation, urban development and energy efficiently where greenhouse gases are generated.

The UNDP, UNEP and FAO set up the UN-REDD Programme, which is aimed to assist nine developing countries address certain measures needed in order to effectively participate in the REDD mechanism. These measures include capacity development, governance, and technical needs. The selected nine countries include Bolivia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Tanzania, Vietnam, and Zambia. It recently promised US$18 million to five of these countries.

Active governments

In relation with national governments, the REDD mechanism has received positive reactions. At the 2007 Bali Conference, the Norwegian government announced their International Climate and Forests Initiative, which provided $500 million towards the creation and implementation of national-based, REDD activities in the nation of Tanzania. The Norwegian government will work closely with international organizations such as UN-REDD to promote REDD activities in the area. In addition, the Government of Norway and United Kingdom contributed $200 million towards the Congo Basin Forest Fund to aid forest conservation actives in Central Africa. Australia has joined the efforts to promote REDD mechanisms. With its efforts aimed towards their region, areas like Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea, their $200 million International Forest Carbon Initiative focused on developing REDD activities in the region.

Key questions

A number of questions are being discussed and will inform the decisions on REDD at the upcoming 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. They include:

* The structure of funding mechanisms

* Setting reference levels to measure the reduction in emissions. Will it be based on current emissions levels or historical deforestation rates, a business-as-usual scenario? Will countries with different forest covers and historic deforestation rates hold different interests in the way the reference levels are constructed? Involving countries with high forest covers and low historic deforestation rates will be necessary to reduce perverse incentives.

* Monitoring, reporting and verification of forest cover and biomass and other outputs. Current research focuses on ways to remotely monitor the progression of deforestation using satellite data. Such systems include the Center for Global Development's Forest Monitoring for Action (FORMA) and the Group on Earth Observation's Forest Carbon Tracking Portal.

* Participation of Indigenous peoples and Forest-Dependent Communities in the design, implementation and monitoring of REDD activities, and respect for their human rights

* Distribution of benefits: How can the benefits from REDD be distributed to forest communities in a just, equitable way that minimizes capture of the benefits by national governments or local elites?
* Strategies to prevent "carbon leakage", caused by the displacement of deforestation to other areas

* Achieving multiple benefits, for example the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services (such as watersheds), and social benefits (for example income and improved forest governance).

Concerns

* The availability of a large supply of potentially cheap carbon credits could provide an avenue for companies in the developed world to simply purchase REDD credits without providing meaningful emission reductions at home.

* Large number of carbon credits could swamp developing carbon markets...but could also facilitate ambitious emissions targets in a post-Kyoto agreement.

* Putting a commercial value on forests neglects the spiritual value they hold for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

* There is no consensus on a definition for forest degradation.

* Fair distribution of REDD benefits will not be achieved without a prior reform in forest governance and more secure tenure systems in many countries.

REDD-Plus

* In 2007, at the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Bali (COP-13) an agreement was reached called the Bali Action Plan. As defined, its aims are directed toward forest conservation, sustainable forest management and the enhancement of carbon stocks.

* REDD-plus calls for activities with serious implications directed towards the local communities, indigenous people and forests which relate to reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation. Therefore this will involve enhancing existing forests and increasing forest cover. In order to meet these objectives, policies need to address enhancement of carbon stocks by providing funding and investments in these areas.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Post-Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions

Post-Kyoto negotiations refers to high level talks attempting to address global warming by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Generally part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), these talks concern the period after the first "commitment period" of the Kyoto Protocol, which is due to expire at the end of 2012. Negotiations have been mandated by the adoption of the Bali Roadmap and Decision 1/CP.13 ("The Bali Action Plan").

UNFCCC negotiations are conducted within two subsidiary bodies, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and are expected to culminate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference taking place in December 2009 in Copenhagen (COP-15); negotiations are supported by a number of external processes, including the G8 process, a number of regional meetings and the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate that was launched by US President Barack Obama in March 2009. High level talks were held at the meeting of the G8+5 Climate Change Dialogue in February 2007 and at a number of subsequent G8 meetings, most recently leading to the adoption of the G8 leaders declaration "Responsible Leadership for a Sustainable Future" during the G8 summit in L´Aquila, Italy, in July 2009.

February 2007 Washington Declaration

In the non-binding "Washington Declaration" on February 16, 2007, the G8+5 group of leaders agreed in principle to a global cap-and-trade system that would apply to both industrialized nations and developing countries, which they hoped would be in place by 2009.

33rd G8 summit



On June 7, 2007, leaders at the 33rd G8 summit issued a non-binding communiqué announcing that the G8 nations would "aim to at least halve global CO2 emissions by 2050". The details enabling this to be achieved would be negotiated by environment ministers within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in a process that would also include the major emerging economies. Groups of countries would also be able to reach additional agreements on achieving the goal outside and in parallel with the United Nations process. The G8 also announced their desire to use the proceeds from the auction of emission rights and other financial tools to support climate protection projects in developing countries.

The agreement was welcomed by British Prime Minister Tony Blair as "a major, major step forward". French president Nicolas Sarkozy would have preferred a binding figure for emissions reduction to have been set. This was apparently blocked by U.S. President George W. Bush until the other major greenhouse gas emitting countries, like India and China, make similar commitments.

2007 UN General Assembly plenary debate

As part of the schedule leading up to the September UN High-Level-Event, on July 31 the United Nations General Assembly opened its first-ever plenary session devoted exclusively to climate change, which also included prominent scientists and business leaders. The debate, at which nearly 100 nations spoke, was scheduled to last two days but was extended for a further day to allow a greater number of "worried nations" to describe their climate-related problems.

In his opening speech, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged Member States to work together, stating that the time had come for "decisive action on a global scale", and called for a "comprehensive agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process that tackles climate change on all fronts, including adaptation, mitigation, clean technologies, deforestation and resource mobilization". In closing the conference General Assembly President Haya Rashed Al-Khalifa called for an "equitable, fair and ambitious global deal to match the scale of the challenges ahead". She had earlier stressed the urgency of the situation, stating that "the longer we wait, the more expensive this will be".

The day after the session ended, the UN launched its new climate change web site detailing its activities relating to global warming.

2007 Vienna Climate Change Talks and Agreement

A round of climate change talks under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) concluded in Austria in 31 August 2007 with agreement on key elements for an effective international response to climate change.

A key feature of the talks was a United Nations report that showed how energy efficiency could yield significant cuts in emissions at low cost.

The talks set the stage for the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Bali in December 2007.

September 2007 United Nations High-Level-Event

As well as the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was to hold informal high-level discussions on the post-Kyoto treaty on September 24. It was expected that these would pave the way for the United Nations Climate Change Conference, held in Bali in December 2007. Three Special Envoys on Climate Change, appointed on May 1, 2007, held discussions with various governments to define and plan the event.

In advance of the "High-Level-Event", the Secretary-General hoped that world leaders would "send a powerful political signal to the negotiations in Bali that “business as usual” will not do and that they are ready to work jointly with others towards a comprehensive multilateral framework for action".

September 2007 Washington conference

It emerged on August 3, 2007, that representatives of the United Nations, major industrialized and developing countries are being invited by George Bush to a conference in Washington on September 27 and 28. Countries invited are believed to include the members of the G8+5 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa), together with South Korea, Australia, Indonesia and South Africa. The meeting is to be hosted by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and is envisaged as the first of several extending into 2008. Initial reaction to the news of the conference invitation was mixed.

2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali

Negotiations on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol dominated the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference conference. A meeting of environment ministers and experts held in June called on the conference to agree a road-map, timetable and "concrete steps for the negotiations" with a view to reaching an agreement by 2009.

2008 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznań

Following preliminary talks in Bangkok, Bonn, and Accra, the 2008 negotiations culminated in December with the 2008 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznań, Poland.

35th G8 Summit

September 2009 United Nations Secretary General´s Summit on Climate Change

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon will convene a high-level event on Climate Change on 22 September 2009 to which Heads of State and Government have been invited. This event is intended to build further political momentum for an ambitious Copenhagen agreed outcome to be adopted at COP-15.

2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP-15)



Following preparatory talks in Bonn, Bangkok and Barcelona, the 2009 conference will be held in December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark, and the treaty succeeding the Kyoto Protocol is expected to be adopted there.

Potential topics to be discussed include carbon capture and storage, biofuels, adaptation financing, technology transfer, sustainable agriculture, emissions targets, tropical forests and rural and transport electrification (plug-in hybrids)

Development of technologies will be important to reduce carbon emissions. Even if all carbon emissions stopped tomorrow, global warming would continue for the next 30 years. James E. Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy and member of Copenhagen Climate Council said “It is a myth that we have the technologies to do the job. We don’t. New technologies are crucial as is further development of existing technology.”

Some media sources claim that the meeting will lead to empty promises without measurable goals. In a recent meeting of the Group of Eight G8, the world top leaders agreed to halve carbon emissions by 2050; however, they did not set specific targets because they did not agree on a base year.

However members of the climate council acknowledge that action needs to happen fast. “My personal view is that the future of humanity is at stake,” said Tim Flannery, Professor at Macquaire University and chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council, in an interview with chinadialogue.net.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Personal carbon credits

Personal carbon credits are carbon credits created and owned by individuals who reduce their green house gas (GHG) emissions by a real and verifiable amount. Individuals cause GHG emissions from a variety of direct and indirect activities including transportation use, electrical use and home heating and cooling. Verifiable reductions in GHG emissions are aggregated into 1 metric ton increments and they become personal Carbon Credits.

Traditional carbon credits are purchased by GHG emitters to offset the difference between their actual emissions and their allowable limit under a cap and trade type GHG reduction program or to reduce their total GHG emissions under a voluntary limit. These same credits are created when specific GHG reduction projects produce real, additional and verifiable GHG reductions. These carbon projects are typically large in scale and include reforestation, fuel switching and biogas projects.

Personal carbon credits follow the same concept as traditional carbon credits, but these projects are small in scale, developed by individuals and encourage actual reduction in energy demand at the use point. They are applicable globally, wherever the verification requirements can be satisfied.

Personal carbon credits differ from personal carbon trading which imposes a cap or allowance on individual GHG emissions. Personal carbon credits are a voluntary method for individuals to directly reduce energy consumption and the resulting GHG emissions. Successful individual reductions are rewarded through lower utility costs and the value of the created personal carbon credits.

Personal carbon credits were first introduced by My Emissions Exchange in April 2009. Some experts on carbon credit markets have called for inclusion of small scale GHG reduction projects and verification methods that are valid, appropriate and cost effective for projects of this size. Personal carbon credits address this need and create more opportunities for GHG reductions.

Verification

Verification and certification of all carbon credits are necessary to insure real GHG reductions are occurring and to insure buyer confidence in using credits to offset GHG emissions. There are many certification standards in existence today for both the compliance and voluntary credit markets. Personal carbon credits are a new approach to GHG reduction strategies and as such there are no specific protocols existing today within the various certification standards, specifically, because personal carbon credits are so new. However, the proper design of the verification system, such as the use of utility company billing meters and review of historical consumption patterns, can insure that personal carbon credits comply with all the requirements of The Greenhouse Gas Protocol by the World Resources Institute, including additionality.Greater awareness of personal carbon credits will encourage certification organizations to develop specific protocols in the future.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Personal carbon trading

Personal carbon trading refers to proposed emissions trading schemes under which emissions credits are allocated to adult individuals on a (broadly) equal per capita basis, within national carbon budgets. Individuals then surrender these credits when buying fuel or electricity. Individuals wanting or needing to emit at a level above that permitted by their initial allocation would be able to engage in emissions trading and purchase additional credits. Conversely, those individuals who emit at a level below that permitted by their initial allocation have the opportunity to sell their surplus credits. Thus, individual trading under Personal Carbon Trading is similar to the trading of companies under EU ETS.

Proposals

Current proposals include:

* Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) - devised by environmental writer, David Fleming, who first published the idea in 1996 under its former name Domestic Tradable Quotas (DTQs). The UK's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research has been researching this scheme since 2003, and more recently the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce (RSA) through its project RSA CarbonLimited.

* Personal Carbon Allowances (PCAs) - described in the book “How we can save the planet” by Mayer Hillman and Tina Fawcett. Work on PCAs is ongoing at the Environmental Change Institute, Oxford, UK. The title "PCAs" or "PCA scheme" is sometimes used generically to refer to any proposed form of personal carbon trading.

* Tradable Personal Pollution Allowances - originally proposed in an article by Dr. Kirk Barrett in 1995 and applicable to any form of pollution, including carbon dioxide.

Individuals would most likely hold their emissions credits in electronic accounts, and would surrender them when they make carbon-related purchases, such as electricity, heating fuel and petroleum. PCAs could also require individuals to use credits for public transport. Tradable Energy Quotas would bring all other sectors of society (eg. Industry, Government) within the scope of a single scheme.

Individuals who exceed their allocation (i.e. those who want to use more emissions credits than they have been given) would be able to purchase additional credits from those who use less, so individuals that are under allocation would profit from their small carbon footprint.

Proponents of personal carbon trading claim that it is an equitable way of addressing climate change and peak oil, as it could guarantee that a national economy lives within its agreed carbon budget and ensure fair access to fuel and energy. They also believe it would increase ‘carbon literacy’ among the public, while encouraging more localised economies.

Personal carbon trading has been criticised for its possible complexity and high implementation costs. As yet, there is minimal reliable data on these issues. There is also the fear that personal "rationing" and trading of allowances will be politically unacceptable, especially if those allowances are used to buy from industries who are already passing-on costs from their participation in carbon levy or trading schemes such as the EU ETS.

Research in this area has shown that personal carbon trading would be a progressive policy instrument - redistributing money from the rich to the poor - as the rich use more energy than the poor, and so would need to buy allowances from them. This is in contrast to a direct carbon tax, under which all lower income people are worse off, prior to revenue redistribution.

Progress towards implementation

There are no operating schemes currently in existence, although the United Kingdom Climate Change Bill will grant powers allowing the Government to introduce a personal carbon trading scheme without further primary legislation.

In May 2008 DEFRA completed a pre-feasibility study into TEQs, with the headline finding that “personal carbon trading has potential to engage individuals in taking action to combat climate change, but is essentially ahead of its time and expected costs for implementation are high”. Based on this DEFRA announced that “the Government remains interested in the concept of personal carbon trading and, although it will not be continuing its research programme at this stage, it will monitor the wealth of research focusing on this area and may introduce personal carbon trading if the value of carbon savings and cost implications change".

Later that same month the UK Parliament Environmental Audit Committee produced their report on the subject, which concluded that ”personal carbon trading could be essential in helping to reduce our national carbon footprint" and rebuked the Government for delaying a full feasibility study, stating that "although we commend the Government for its intention to maintain engagement in academic work on the topic, we urge it to undertake a stronger role, leading and shaping debate and coordinating research".

Related emissions reduction proposals and initiatives

* Carbon Rationing Action Groups - groups in the UK and US that voluntarily cap their greenhouse gas emissions
* "Icecaps" - devised by George Monbiot in his book Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning.

Media

Carbon rationing is considered in the new feature film The Age of Stupid, set for release in February 2009.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Carbon project

A carbon project refers to a business initiative that receives funding because of the cut the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that will result. To prove that the project will result in real, permanent, verifiable reductions in Greenhouse Gases, proof must be provided in the form of a project design document and activity reports validated by an approved third party in the case of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) or Joint Implementation (JI) projects.

Reasons for carbon project development

Carbon projects are developed for reasons of voluntary environmental stewardship, as well as legal compliance under a Greenhouse Gas Cap & Trade program. Voluntary carbon (GHG) reducers may wish to monetize reductions in their carbon footprint by trading the reductions in exchange for monetary compensation. The transfer of environmental stewardship rights would then allow another entity to make an environmental stewardship claim. There are several developing voluntary reduction standards that projects can use as guides for development.

Kyoto Protocol

Carbon projects have become increasingly important since the advent of emissions trading under Phase I of the Kyoto Protocol in 2005. They may be used if the project has been validated by a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Designated Operational Entity (DOE) according the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The resulting emissions reductions may become Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) when a DOE has produced a verification report which has been submitted to the CDM Executive Board.

There may be new project methodology validated by the CDM EB for post phase II Kyoto trading.

United States

In the United States standards similar to those of the Kyoto Protocol schemes are developing around California's AB-32 and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Offset projects can be of many types, but only those that have proven additionality are likely to become monetized under a future U.S. Cap & Trade program.

One example of such a project, the Valley Wood Carbon Sequestration Project, receives funding from a partnership that was developed by Verus Carbon Neutral that links 17 merchants of Atlanta's Virginia-Highland shopping and dining neighborhood retail district, through the Chicago Climate Exchange, to directly fund the thousands of acres of forest in rural Georgia. The unique partnership established Virginia-Highland as the first Carbon-Neutral Zone in the United States.

Operation

An entity whose greenhouse gas emissions are capped by a regulatory program has three choices for complying if they exceed their cap. First, they could pay an alternative compliance measure or "carbon tax", a default payment set by the regulatory body. This choice is usually the least attractive given the ability to comply by trading.

The second option is to purchase carbon credits within an emissions trading scheme. The trade provides an economic disincentive to the polluter, while providing an incentive to the less polluting organisation. As fossil fuel generation becomes less attractive it will be increasingly unattractive to exceed a carbon cap because the financial disincentive will grow via market forces. The price of a carbon allowance would go up because supply would decline while demand stays constant (assuming a positive growth rate for energy consumption).

The final option is to invest in a carbon project. The carbon project will result in a greenhouse gas emission reduction which can be used to offset the excess emissions generated by the polluter. The financial disincentive to pollute is in the form of the capital expenditure to develop the project or the cost of purchasing the offset from the developer of the project. In this case the financial incentive would go to the owner of the carbon project.

Project selection

The most important part of developing a carbon project is establishing and documenting the additionality of the project - that the carbon project would not have otherwise occurred. It is also essential to document the measurement and the verification methodology applied, as outlined in the project development document.

Developing a carbon project is appropriate for renewable energy projects such as wind, solar, low impact-small hydro, biomass, and biogas. Projects have also been developed for a wide variety of other emissions reductions such as reforestation, fuel switching, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Carbon emissions reporting

Businesses worldwide face pressure to reduce the impact their activities have upon the environment, and in particular the volume of greenhouse gases they produce.

In the United Kingdom, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has described climate change as the "greatest environmental challenge facing the world today". Although there is currently no legislation in place in the UK forcing companies to reduce carbon emissions, tax benefits and consumer pressure provide a strong incentive for businesses to develop environmental strategies. Emissions trading is the primary tool advocated by the UK Government for tackling global climate change, a method which aims to tackle emissions reduction at the points where there is the lowest cost for doing so. For emissions trading to work, a uniform method of reporting is necessary to allow for comparisons to be made across organisations. Kilograms of CO2 is the preferred unit of measurement for emissions and Defra have developed conversion tables which provide a standard CO2 cost for typical business activities, allowing organisations to report on the volume of CO2 they produce. This article describes the various methods by which businesses and organisations can report on their carbon emissions.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Carbon profiling

Carbon profiling is a mathematical process that calculates how much Carbon Dioxide is put into the atmosphere from 1msq of space in a building over 1 year.

The metric analysis this in two parts, 1 operational carbon emissions and 2 embodied carbon emissions, which are then added together to produce an overall figure which is termed the ‘Carbon Profile’.

Embodied Carbon Emissions relate to the amount of Carbon Dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from creating and maintaining the materials that form the building eg the carbon dioxide released from the baking of bricks or smelting or iron. In the Carbon Profiling Model these emissions are measured in ECE’s (Embodied Carbon Efficiency) in KgCO2/msq/year

Occupational Carbon Emissions relate to the amount of Carbon Dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from the direct use of energy to run the building e.g. the heating or electricity used by the building over the year. In the Carbon Profiling Model these emissions are measured in BER’s (Building Emission Rate) in KgCO2/msq/year.

The BER is a United Kingdom government accepted unit of measurement that comes from an approved calculation process called sBEM (Simplified Building Emission Model)

The purpose of Carbon Profiling is to provide a method of analyzing and comparing both operational and embodied carbon emissions at the same time. With this information it is then possible to allocate a projects resources in such a way to minimize the total amount of Carbon Dioxide emitted into the atmosphere through the use of a given piece of space.

A secondary benefit is that having quantified the Carbon Profiling of different buildings it is then possible to make comparisons and rank buildings in term of their performance. This allows investors and occupiers to identify which building are good and bad carbon investments.

Simon Sturgis and Gareth Roberts of Sturgis Associates in the United Kingdom originally developed ‘Carbon Profiling’ in December 2007.

Carbon Profiling

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Carbon offset

A carbon offset is a financial instrument aimed at a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon offsets are measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) and may represent six primary categories of greenhouse gases. One carbon offset represents the reduction of one metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases.

There are two markets for carbon offsets. In the larger, compliance market, companies, governments, or other entities buy carbon offsets in order to comply with caps on the total amount of carbon dioxide they are allowed to emit. In 2006, about $5.5 billion of carbon offsets were purchased in the compliance market, representing about 1.6 billion metric tons of CO2e reductions.

In the much smaller, voluntary market, individuals, companies, or governments purchase carbon offsets to mitigate their own greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, electricity use, and other sources. For example, an individual might purchase carbon offsets to compensate for the greenhouse gas emissions caused by personal air travel. Many companies offer carbon offsets as an up-sell during the sales process so that customers can mitigate the emissions related with their product or service purchase (such as offsetting emissions related to a vacation flight, car rental, hotel stay, consumer good, etc). In 2008, about $705 million of carbon offsets were purchased in the voluntary market, representing about 123.4 million metric tons of CO2e reductions.

Offsets are typically achieved through financial support of projects that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases in the short- or long-term. The most common project type is renewable energy, such as wind farms, biomass energy, or hydroelectric dams. Others include energy efficiency projects, the destruction of industrial pollutants or agricultural byproducts, destruction of landfill methane, and forestry projects. Some of the most popular carbon offset projects from a corporate perspective are energy efficiency and wind turbine projects.

Carbon offsetting has gained some appeal and momentum mainly among consumers in western countries who have become aware and concerned about the potentially negative environmental effects of energy-intensive lifestyles and economies. The Kyoto Protocol has sanctioned offsets as a way for governments and private companies to earn carbon credits which can be traded on a marketplace. The protocol established the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which validates and measures projects to ensure they produce authentic benefits and are genuinely "additional" activities that would not otherwise have been undertaken. Organizations that are unable to meet their emissions quota can offset their emissions by buying CDM-approved Certified Emissions Reductions.

Offsets may be cheaper or more convenient alternatives to reducing one's own fossil-fuel consumption. However, some critics object to carbon offsets, and question the benefits of certain types of offsets.

Offsets are viewed as an important policy tool to maintain stable economies. One of the hidden dangers of climate change policy is unequal prices of carbon in the economy, which can cause economic collateral damage if production flows to regions or industries that have a lower price of carbon - unless carbon can be purchased from that area, which offsets effectively permit, equalizing the price.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Carbon credit

Carbon credits are a key component of national and international attempts to mitigate the growth in concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs). One Carbon Credit is equal to one ton of Carbon Dioxide or in some markets Carbon Dioxide equivalent gases. Carbon trading is an application of an emissions trading approach. Greenhouse gas emissions are capped and then markets are used to allocate the emissions among the group of regulated sources. The idea is to allow market mechanisms to drive industrial and commercial processes in the direction of low emissions or less "carbon intensive" approaches than are used when there is no cost to emitting carbon dioxide and other GHGs into the atmosphere. Since GHG mitigation projects generate credits, this approach can be used to finance carbon reduction schemes between trading partners and around the world.

There are also many companies that sell carbon credits to commercial and individual customers who are interested in lowering their carbon footprint on a voluntary basis. These carbon offsetters purchase the credits from an investment fund or a carbon development company that has aggregated the credits from individual projects. The quality of the credits is based in part on the validation process and sophistication of the fund or development company that acted as the sponsor to the carbon project. This is reflected in their price; voluntary units typically have less value than the units sold through the rigorously-validated Clean Development Mechanism.

There are two distinct types of Carbon Credits: Carbon Offset Credits (COC's) and Carbon Reduction Credits (CRC's). Carbon Offset Credits consist of clean forms of energy production, wind, solar, hydro and biofuels. Carbon Reduction Credits consists of the collection and storage of Carbon from our atmosphere through biosequestration (reforestation, forestation), ocean and soil collection and storage efforts. Both approaches are recognized as effective ways to reduce the Global Carbon Emissions "crises".

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Carbon emission trading

Carbon emissions trading is emissions trading specifically for carbon dioxide (calculated in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent or tCO2e) and currently makes up the bulk of emissions trading.

It is one of the ways countries can meet their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon emissions and thereby mitigate global warming.

Units HArba..

The units which may be transferred under Article 17 emissions trading, each equal to one metric tonne of emissions (in CO2-equivalent terms), may be in the form of:

* An assigned amount unit (AAU) issued by an Annex I Party on the basis of its assigned amount pursuant to Articles 3.7 and 3.8 of the Protocol.
* A removal unit (RMU) issued by an Annex I Party on the basis of land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol.
* An emission reduction unit (ERU) generated by a joint implementation project under Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol.
* A certified emission reduction (CER) generated from a clean development mechanism project activity under Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol.

Transfers and acquisitions of these units are to be tracked and recorded through the registry systems under the Kyoto Protocol.

Market trend

Carbon emissions trading has been steadily increasing in recent years. According to the World Bank's Carbon Finance Unit, 374 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) were exchanged through projects in 2005, a 240% increase relative to 2004 (110 mtCO2e)[which was itself a 41% increase relative to 2003 (78 mtCO2e).

Business reaction

With the creation of a market for mandatory trading of carbon dioxide emissions within the Kyoto Protocol, the London financial marketplace has established itself as the center of the carbon finance market, and is expected to have grown into a market valued at $60 billion in 2007. not in citation given The voluntary offset market, by comparison, is projected to grow to about $4bn by 2010.

Twenty three multinational corporations came together in the G8 Climate Change Roundtable, a business group formed at the January 2005 World Economic Forum. The group included Ford, Toyota, British Airways, BP and Unilever. On 9 June 2005 the Group published a statement stating that there was a need to act on climate change and stressing the importance of market-based solutions. It called on governments to establish "clear, transparent, and consistent price signals" through "creation of a long-term policy framework" that would include all major producers of greenhouse gases. By December 2007 this had grown to encompass 150 global businesses.

Business in the UK have come out strongly in support of emissions trading as a key tool to mitigate climate change, supported by Green NGOs.

Moral tradeoff

With carbon emission trading, there is the rarely discussed concern of moral tradeoff. The idea is exemplified in the study, "A Fine is a Price", conducted by Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini with a selected group of Haifa childcare centers in Israel. The study showed that monetary fines on late-coming parents did not deter the tardy habit and instead, created an unexpected economic and moral tradeoff for the late-coming parents as they could now compensate for their tardiness under the new fine system.

However, this analogy does not take into account an important distinction between late fees at childcare centres and cap-and-trade emissions reduction schemes: the price paid by a late-coming parent has no impact on the price to be paid by other late-coming parents. That is, there is no bidding system in place where parents compete for the right to arrive late. This contrasts with an emissions trading scheme, where one firm's willingness to pay for carbon emissions reduces the number of permits available to other emitters, thereby increasing scarcity and hence the price of carbon pollution.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

CDM Gold Standard

The Gold Standard is the world's only independent standard for creating high-quality emission reductions projects in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Joint Implementation (JI) and Voluntary Carbon Market. It was designed to ensure that carbon credits are not only real and verifiable but that they make measurable contributions to sustainable development worldwide. Its objective is to add branding, a label to existing and new Carbon Credits generated by projects which can then be bought and traded by countries that have a binding legal commitment according to the Kyoto Protocol.

History

The Gold Standard for CDM (GS CER) was developed in 2003 by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), SouthSouthNorth, and Helio International. The Voluntary Gold Standard (GS VER), a methodology for use within the voluntary carbon market, was launched in May 2006. Both were the result of an extensive 12-month workshop and web-based consultation process conducted by an independent Standards Advisory Board composed of NGOs, scientists, project developers and government representatives.

The Gold Standard is open to any non-government, community based organization especially those with an interest in the promotion of sustainable development or a focus on climate and energy issues. As of March 2009, 60 environmental and development non-profit organizations internationally officially endorse The Gold Standard. These organizations support The Gold Standard as an effective tool for creating high-quality emission reduction projects that promote sustainable development and benefit local communities.

The Gold Standard is headquartered in the BASE (Basel Agency for Sustainable Energy) offices in Basel, Switzerland, with offices in Geneva, Rome and San Francisco. It employs local experts in Brazil, China, India and South Africa.

The Gold Standard is registered as a non-profit foundation under.

Eligibility

To be eligible for Gold Standard Certification, a project must:

1. Be an approved Renewable Energy Supply or End-use Energy Efficiency Improvement project type
2. Be reducing one of the three eligible Green House Gases: Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
3. Not employ Official Development Assistance (ODA) under the condition that the credits coming out of the project are transferred to the donor country.
4. Not be applying for other certifications, to ensure there is no double counting of Credits
5. Demonstrate it's 'additionality' by using the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCCC) Large Scale Additionality Tool; and show that the project is not a 'business-as-usual' scenario
6. Make a net-positive contribution to the economic, environmental and social welfare of the local population that hosts it

The Gold Standard Versions

In July 2008 the Gold Standard Version 2.0 was released with sets of guidelines and manuals on the GS requirements, toolkits and other supporting documents to be used by project developers and DOEs. This relegated the previously applicable manuals to Version 1.0.

The Gold Standard Registry

Status of projects that apply for Gold Standard can be tracked on its registry. The Project Developers, Designated Operational Entities (DOEs) (also known as Validators), and Traders can open accounts with the registry. There are varous publicly available reports .

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Biosequestration

Biosequestration is the capture and storage of the atmospheric greenhouse gas carbon dioxide by an increased volume or quality of photosynthesis (through practices such as growing more trees and genetic engineering respectively), as well as enhanced soil carbon in agriculture. It has been crucial to the initiation, evolution and preservation of life and is a key policy concept in the climate change mitigation debate. It does not generally refer to the sequestering of carbon dioxide in oceans (see carbon sequestration) or rock formations, depleted oil or gas reservoirs (see oil depletion and peak oil), deep saline aquifers, or deep coal seams (see coal mining) (for all see geosequestration) or through the use of industrial chemical carbon dioxide scrubbing.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Pertamina mengadakan Pertamina Blog Contest

wah.. hebat.. pertamina ngadain kontes.. mau ikutan juga ne. Tapi ntar dulu, karena saya belum dapat ide untuk menulisa jadi saya hanya akan memberi kabar ke teman-teman blogger Indonesia untuk mengikuti kontes ini.

Syarat untuk mengikuti kontes ini antara lain:

1. Situs bisa bebas memakai platform apa saja (Joomla!, wordpress, blogspot dan sebagainya)
2. Artikel yang dinilai berupa Review dan Harapan bloggers terhadap PT. Pertamina (Persero) atau produk-produk PT. Pertamina (Persero)
3. Optimalisasi kata kunci Pertamina Blog Contest yaitu : Kerja Keras Adalah Energi Kita. Menggunakan hasil pencarian dari google.com
4. Peserta wajib mendaftar dan memasang script kontes pada blog/websitenya.

Untuk lebih jelasnya, silahkan kunjungi http://www.pertaminablogcontest.com/

Carbon finance

Carbon finance is a new branch of Environmental finance. Carbon finance explores the financial implications of living in a carbon-constrained world, a world in which emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) carry a price. Financial risks and opportunities impact corporate balance sheets, and market-based instruments are capable of transferring environmental risk and achieving environmental objectives. Issues regarding climate change and GHG emissions must be addressed as part of strategic management decision-making.

The general term is applied to investments in GHG emission reduction projects and the creation (origination) of financial instruments that are tradeable on the carbon market.

Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanism

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), is recognised through the Kyoto Protocol, allowing the offset of emissions in developed countries by the investment in emission reduction projects in developing countries like China, India or Latin America.

Joint Implementation (JI), is another mechanism, allowing investments in developed countries to generate emission credit for the same or another developed country..

Market value

The market for the purchase of carbon has grown exponentially since its conception in 1996.

The following is the estimated size of the worldwide carbon market according to the World Bank:

Volume (millions metric tonnes, MtCO2)

* 2005: 718 (330 in Main Allowances Markets & 388 in Project based transactions)
* 2006: 1,745 (1,134 in Main Allowances Markets & 611 in Project based transactions)
* 2007: 2,983 (2,109 in Main Allowances Markets & 874 in Project based transactions)

Dollars (millions of USD)

* 2005: 10,908 (7,971 in Main Allowances Markets & 2,937 in Project based transactions)
* 2006: 31,235 (24,699 in Main Allowances Markets & 6,536 in Project based transactions)
* 2007: 64,035 (50,394 in Main Allowances Markets & 13,641 in Project based transactions)

World Bank

The World Bank has created the World Bank Carbon Finance Unit (CFU). The World Bank CFU uses money contributed by governments and companies in OECD countries to purchase project-based greenhouse gas emission reductions in developing countries and countries with economies in transition. The emission reductions are purchased through one of the CFU's carbon funds on behalf of the contributor, and within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) or Joint Implementation (JI).

From http://en.wikipedia.org/