Global emissions index series launched

http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080826/REG/823344


Dow Jones Indexes and the Chicago Climate Exchange, the world’s first — and North America’s only — voluntary, legally binding integrated greenhouse gas emissions reduction, registry and trading system, today announced the launch of two indexes which will serve as benchmarks for investors seeking exposure to the carbon trading market.

The Dow Jones/CCX European Carbon Index and Dow Jones/CCX Certified Emissions Reductions Index will be representative of the European Union Emission Trading Scheme and the Kyoto Protocol Clean Development Mechanism, respectively.

The two indexes are the first in a series of global emissions indexes planned. The carbon futures trading market has been growing in Europe.

The indexes provide investors with price gauges to assess their exposure to this growing asset class, Michael Petronella, president of Dow Jones Indexes, said in a statement.

Dow Jones Indexes is an index provider and division of Dow Jones & Co. of New York.

CCX is owned by Climate Exchange PLC of London.

Schemes to offset carbon 'overpriced and unfair'

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/schemes-to-offset-carbon-overpriced-and-unfair-907794.html

Britain's booming carbon offset industry is riddled with inconsistencies and clashes of interest that have caused a "crisis of legitimacy" which threatens to dissuade consumers from contributing to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions, leading academics claim today.

The rapid growth in the offsetting market, which last year more than doubled it global income to in excess of £165m from individuals and companies paying to reduce the impact of activities such as flying, has produced an unregulated and at times overpriced industry. There are wide disparities in the way the amount of carbon dioxide produced is calculated and the charge demanded from consumers.

An authoritative study by Omega, a coalition of experts on aviation and the environment based at leading British universities, found the potential benefits of offsetting in mitigating some of the effects of climate change were being undermined by a failure to produce uniform prices, and difficulties with proving how much CO2 is saved by schemes in developing countries.

The report, obtained by The Independent, found dramatic differences in the prices that consumers were paying to offset some of the most heavily used international routes. The cost of offsetting a flight from London Heathrow to Paris Charles de Gaulle varies from 31p to £12.95, while a return trip from London to Sydney ranges from £15 to £78.

Researchers at Manchester Metropolitan University concluded offsetting should be considered a "last resort". The study said: "Offsetting schemes are now widely acknowledged to be problematic responses to the challenge of climate change. Most significantly, in offsetting schemes, commercial advantage and environmental benefits have become entangled to the extent that a crisis of legitimacy has occurred.

"Offsetting schemes are conceptually problematic: they have arisen not from attempts by environmentalists and climate scientists to design an appropriate response [to climate change], but from politicians and business executives trying to meet the demands for action while preserving the commercial status quo."

Since its advent less than a decade ago, voluntary carbon offsetting has become one of the most popular – and lucrative – methods for the public and businesses to contribute to efforts to mitigate global warming but it has been dogged by allegations of ineffective spending of donated money, profiteering and poor quality control.

Millions of air travellers have paid a sum based on the amount of CO2 generated by a flight which is then channelled into a project designed to recover that CO2. Schemes range from planting trees, now widely considered to be an unreliable method of carbon sequestration, burning animal methane to funding clean-burning stoves and low-energy light bulbs in the developing world.

The worldwide market grew from £60m in 2006 to £165.5m in 2007, with the UK industry worth in excess of £50m. Experts believe a fully fledged voluntary carbon offsetting market could eventually be worth £18bn globally.

The Omega study claimed such progress is being undermined by a lack of transparency in the schemes available. Researchers said there was an urgent need for a single "carbon calculator".

Sending waste to China saves carbon emissions

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/19/recycling.waste

4.7m tonnes of paper exported by UK each year
· Advantage of recycling abroad over landfill can be tenfold

Britain exports 500,000 tonnes of plastic bottles a year for recycling. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Sending old newspapers and plastic bottles 10,000 miles for recycling in China produces more carbon savings than landfilling it in Britain and making new goods, reveals a study from the government body charged with reducing UK waste.

In the last 10 years annual exports of paper, mainly to India, China and Indonesia, have risen from 470,000 tonnes to 4.7m tonnes, while exports of old plastic bottles have gone from under 40,000 tonnes to half a million tonnes.

Now the counterintuitive conclusions of the report from the Waste Resources Action Programme (Wrap) suggest that the advantage of recycling over landfilling is so great that it makes environmental sense to ship waste right round the world if it can be used again.

The journey taken by the waste involves travelling hundreds of miles within Britain to ports, then thousands of miles on some of the world's biggest ships to China, and then more road travel to recycling plants. But for paper, this odyssey incurs only a one third of the climate-warming emissions that are saved by recycling, the report says. For plastics, the report found it even more advantageous to export for recycling.

There is a further factor in favour of exporting the waste. The imbalance of trade between China and the UK means that the majority of container ships head back to China empty and produce CO2 emissions whether or not they are carrying cargo. "If you take this into account, the transport emissions are even smaller – less than one-tenth of the overall amount of CO2 saved by recycling," says Wrap.

The study estimated the transport emissions from exports to China and compared them with benchmark savings from recycling. It found that 1300kg-1600kg of CO2 was saved for each tonne of waste.

"The growth in exports is in part a success story, reflecting the rapid development of the UK's collection infrastructure and increase in recovery rates. Exports to China are bridging the gap between plastic bottle collections being established and the future development of domestic reprocessing capacity," says the report.

However, the report does not consider the environmental or social advantages of establishing a significant UK manufacturing industry to produce goods from the recycled waste and the authors stressed that it does not show that exporting waste was desirable.

Liz Goodwin, chief executive of Wrap, said: "It may seem strange that transporting our unwanted paper and plastic bottles such a distance would actually be better for the environment but that is what the evidence from this study shows."

"We do not have a manufacturing base here. Ideally, it would be dealt with here. But we would far prefer to see it recycled in China, where it is a resource, than landfilled in Britain", said a spokesman for Wastewatch, an independent group.

Indonesia to push renewable energy: president

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080815/sc_afp/indonesiaenergybudget_080815160518


JAKARTA (AFP) - Stung by high oil prices, Indonesia plans to tap more into renewable energies and change course from a "nation that splurges" to one that saves, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said Friday.

"The soaring prices of oil on the global level during these last six years have reminded us of the importance of safeguarding energy security in our homeland," Yudhoyono said in his annual state-of-the-nation address.

"We're raising the energy supply capacity through accelerated energy diversification, the utilisation of non-fuel oil alternative energy, including new and renewable energy such as micro-hydro, geothermal and biofuel."

Indonesia is Asia's only member of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, but Jakarta is planning to pull out of the cartel at the end of the year as falling production has turned it into a net importer.

The vast archipelago enjoys some of the lowest domestic fuel prices in the region thanks to generous subsidies, feeding demand for cars and motorbikes while sucking state money away from welfare and infrastructure projects.

Yudhoyono's poll ratings ahead of elections next year have suffered since he authorised an average 30-percent domestic fuel price rise in May, but he appeared in no mood Friday to sidestep the energy debate.

"In addition (to tapping renewable energies), we must effectively save energy. Thus far, we have been a nation that splurges on the use of energy," he said, adding that he had ordered the creation of an "Energy Saving Tax Force."

"The whole of society is ... expected to save, whether in private offices or in households."

He said energy savings of 20 percent would free up 17.6 trillion rupiah (1.9 billion dollars) of state funds for other projects.

"This is a very significant amount as we can make use of it for the development of our education, health, infrastructure and even defence," the president said.

Yudhoyono also said the country would step up the capacity of power generation across the archipelago by 10,000 megawatts to gradually end an electricity supply crisis.

"God willing, by the middle of 2009, the power crisis on Java and Bali will begin to be overcome," he said.

Despite the fuel price rises, Indonesian new vehicle sales jumped 59 percent year-on-year and 11 percent month-on-month to 60,836 units in July, the Indonesian Car Assembler Association said Wednesday.

New vehicle sales rose nearly 50 percent to 353,501 from January to July, against 235,702 in the same time a year ago.

Beijing enjoys best air in decade

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUST29235620080819?sp=true

By Gillian Murdoch

BEIJING (Reuters) - Olympic host Beijing enjoyed its cleanest air in 10 years this month and will adopt strict new measures to ensure its notorious smog does not return, a top environment official said on Tuesday.

Over the past 18 days, air quality in the capital ranged between excellent and fairly good on China's index, Du Shaozhong, deputy director of the Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau, told reporters.

And he pledged good conditions would continue.

"Beijing will be built into a liveable city," Du said. "We will take some new measures to ensure that air quality will reach a new level after the Olympic Games."

Du said those measures would be announced after the Games end on Sunday, once officials had studied Beijing's "successful experiences".

"Whether it is automobile emissions reduction, or construction site dust reduction or coal pollution reduction, I believe that the requirements will be more stringent," he said, naming three of the top sources of the air pollution that has bedeviled the fast-growing city of 15 million.

Dirty air was one of the biggest worries in the run-up to the Games and the opening ceremony on August 8 was held in a swirl of hot haze.

Hundreds of factories in Beijing and surrounding provinces have closed temporarily in a crackdown on polluters. And traffic has flowed unnaturally swiftly since late July, when the city adopted even-odd license plate number restrictions aimed at taking half its 3.3 million cars off the roads each day.

Three days of rainfall had also helped clear the haze since the Games started, Du said, and he confirmed more showers were forecast for Wednesday and Thursday.

While a cloudy day is predicted for the Games closing ceremony on Sunday, artificial cloud seeding that helped ensure a rain-free opening may also be used before the finale in the roofless Bird's Nest stadium, Du said.

To reassure anyone fearing that the clearer, fresher air would vanish along with the athletes, Du stressed officials were committed to a long-term assault on pollution.

"We have noticed overseas and domestic public opinion has pinned high hopes on the efforts," he said.

(Reporting by Gillian Murdoch; Editing by Nick Macfie)

The Big Business of Compost

http://www.enn.com/business/commentary/37803


If the word "compost" conjures up images of decaying food, bugs and the smell of rotting vegetables, keep reading. I used to be the same way, but I have come to embrace my green bin because not only is compost cool, it’s big business. A couple weeks ago I got the chance to visit the Jepson Prairie Organics facility in Vacaville, CA. Jepson is a wholly owned subsidiary of Norcal Waste Systems, the company that contracts with the city of San Francisco and many other Bay Area communities to manage waste, recycling and compost pick-up programs. The facility processes all the food and green waste collected in San Francisco’s green bins. On the day I visited the processing facility, it was over 100 degrees and the air smelled faintly of peat.

Jepson’s process is enormously efficient and makes great use of a product that would normally go into a landfill where it would sit offgassing methane. The facility processes green waste (i.e. lawn clippings and other yard waste) and food waste from San Francisco. When the bins arrive, all the food waste is fed through an enormous tumbler (picture a 2 story bingo ball selector) covered with 4-inch holes. The purpose of this contraption is to de-contaminate all the non-compostables that end up in the green bins like plastic bags and soda cans. The legitimate food waste falls through the holes and the bigger chunked items (which are more likely to be garbage) are tipped onto a treadmill that runs through a 2-story tented structure sitting over two big dumpsters.

Hardworking souls stand over the treadmill and sort the garbage out by hand, dropping the non-compostables through holes in the ground into the dumpsters. Each of two full sized dumpsters are filled up every day with garbage. Our tour guide mentioned that contamination was by far the biggest challenge at the facility. The now de-contaminated chunks of food waste continue on the treadmill to a giant mixer that cuts them up into smaller chunks, which are then fed back through the bingo ball roller to ensure that the food waste is fully decontaminated and that the size of the items is relatively similar, which makes the compost form evenly.

The food waste and the green waste are then layered together in a proprietary combination to create the proper moisture mix for optimal compost. The compost is stored for 1-3 months under big black tarps, about 6 feet wide, 4 feet high and 40 feet long. The black tarps draw in the heat, which is in ample quantity in Vacaville. Bacteria in the food/green waste go crazy eating and breeding and processing that waste into black gold. Jepson creates custom blends of green and food waste that are specific to different applications like grape growing, vegetable farming and landscaping. By customizing their blends, Jepson can capitalize on an additional income stream from their product.

In addition to creating something useful out of what would otherwise be called smelly garbage, Jepson captures methane from the black tented composters, which they use to power the facility. Right now they have more methane than they need and they would happily sell the excess to the local utility, but the grid has not been updated in 50 years, and can't yet support the increased burst of power, so not all the methane gets used. Jepson would also like to begin processing some of the food waste at the point of origin (in this case, San Francisco) because it's very heavy with water content, and expensive to ship.

Do you compost? If your city has a green bin program, but your landlord or office building hasn’t provided a bin, your local waste processing facility often has recourses for showcasing the benefits of composting, and the ease of use of the green bins. Share your composting challenges and successes in the comments!

Jen slings 100% post consumer recycled paper for the Union of Concerned Scientists as the Berkeley office manager, but she's not representing said scientists on this blog. Of course, she fully intend to swipe facts and figures from their materials in addition to her own research as an MBA student in Sustainable Management. You can reach her at sustainablejen@gmail.com

We need sustainable standards so consumers know what to buy.

http://www.enn.com/business/article/37996

One of the biggest obstacles green consumers -- or green "wanna-bees" -- face is knowing what's really "green" and what's just being hyped, or greenwashed, so businesses can make a buck.

A recent poll shows just how confused consumers are.

Called Eco Pulse, the national study, which was reported in Brand Week, asked shoppers open-ended and multiple-choice questions about green issues. The results are disheartening for those of us who spend our time trying to help clarify marketplace and lifestyle choices.

According to the research, many people still don't have a clue whether what their purchases actually make a difference. Neither can they vouch for the eco-status of the companies whose products they buy. If you ever wondered whether the certification efforts of the Institute for Market Transformation to Sustainability and other organizations were worthwhile, studies like these leave no question: certified green standards would help hold companies accountable while shining a bright green light on choices that actually are as eco-friendly as they claim to be.

Specifically, here's what EcoPulse found:

* Half (49%) of respondents said a company's environmental record is important in their purchasing decisions. But only 21% said they had actually chosen one product over another because the company was a good eco-citizen. And it gets worse: only 7% could name the environmental product they purchased.

- Despite the intense efforts of the past few years to educate people about climate change, only 57% agreed that "Global warming, or climate change, is occurring, and it is primarily caused by human activity." At this point, shouldn't that number be closer to 100%?

- The study also asked consumers to name which features a home should have for them to consider it green. Four in 10 (42%) said they didn't know, while 28% said solar, 12% said compact fluorescent light bulbs and 10% named Energy Star appliances. Nothing else really registered. In a second survey that listed 17 features, consumers were asked to check those a home must have before they'd deem it green, reported Brand Week. The average number was 10.4.

- People weren't even sure what makes a cleaning product green. Though the top-rated answer - "no harmful toxic ingredients or chemicals" - is essentially correct, the runner up - "the packaging is made of recycled or recyclable materials" - is important, but secondary to the product's actual ingredients.

The survey posed some juxtapositions that are inherently false, such as whether people would put their personal comfort ahead of the environment. Of course, most respondents answered yes, even though quality of life usually improves, not diminishes, the greener one's life gets.

And it should be no surprise that 40% of those queried felt "skeptical," "irritated," and "guilty" when the media focus the spotlight on people's environmental impact. No one likes to acknowledge they've screwed up. The good news is that fully 60% said they were "better educated" or "glad" to be aware of the crisis the planet faces and what we can do about it.

Overall, cynicism seems to reign in the mind of the green consumer. When asked why companies adopt environmentally friendly practices, the most common response (47%) was "to make their company look better to the public." Only 13% believed it was "because their owners/shareholders care about the environment."

Businesses that actually go to the trouble of ensuring that their products and services meet independent, certified sustainable standards could go a long way towards reversing these numbers. They'd also help out consumers, who increasingly need a straightforward way to avoid the greenwash that is keeping them from parting with their greenbacks.

Current climate models 'ignoring brown carbon'

source:http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/37952

[BEIJING] Scientists have found that air pollution from East Asia contains an abundance of 'brown carbon' particles and say that atmospheric models need updating to incorporate their effect.

Current climate models take into account two types of aerosol carbon — organic carbon and black carbon — that arise from the burning of fossil fuels or biomass.

Black carbon strongly warms the atmosphere by absorbing light, while organic carbon absorbs light at a negligible level and has no warming effect.

It has already been claimed black carbon plays a much larger role in global warming than estimates made by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (see Black carbon climate danger 'underestimated').

But this approximation is too simple, according to Peter Crozier, an associate professor at Arizona State University (ASU) in the United States, whose team published their research in Science last week (8 August).

According to the authors, the method that is currently used to measure the warming effect of different types of particle doesn't take into account the wide variations that can occur between types of carbon from different sources.

They instead used a technique based on a specialised type of electron microscope to directly determine the optical properties of individual carbon particles, and found that samples taken from above the Yellow Sea, east of China, have an abundance of brown carbon particles.

"Brown carbon has light absorbing properties that lie between strongly absorbing black carbon and materials that only scatter light and do not absorb," co-author James Anderson, a research scientist at ASU's Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, told SciDev.Net.

He adds that brown carbon both cools the Earth's surface and warms the atmosphere, resulting in a complex role in global warming, hence the necessity to incorporate it into climate models.

Hu Guoquan, a senior scientist at the Beijing-based National Climate Centre, welcomes the study, saying it highlights the uncertainties of IPCC models.

"But more studies on the chemical structure and size of brown carbon particles must be done," he told SciDev.Net.

In addition, Hu says, as many carbon aerosols pollutants are emitted by China or India — which have massive combustion of fossil fuels and biomass — judging their accurate warming or cooling effect must be done cautiously and avoid claims without sufficient scientific evidence, as this will contribute to determining the nations' responsibilities in global warming.

（原创）第二节：自愿碳汇市场--Voluntary Carbon Market

关键词：CSR，竞争，关税

写新的一篇文章前，先回到苏同学的问题。

How do you determine the price of carbon in CDM? Also, is suchtransaction only available in the carbon market? How about sulfur andother highly polluting clements normally found in gas emissions?

CDM里面carbon credit的价格的制定其实很简单，把从CDM开始计划的时候一直到产生credit的所有资金投入，再加上UN规定的一些必须的margin，就是碳值得价钱了。这个，具体会在接下来做详细的解释。只有，其他的类似sulfur之类的交易，在中国是存在的，只是，这几年发达国家处理硫的技术已经很先进了，硫交易市场因此开始萎缩。

----------
与自愿碳汇市场相对的是compliance carbon market，在欧洲的些许发达国家有强制的降低二氧化碳等温室气体减排规定，但是在亚洲的大多数国家，还有美国，都是自愿市场。

要谈自愿碳市场，要先明白，这个市场存在的必要性，第一个就是CSR,CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY,企业社会责任；几乎所有的大的企业，都特别注重企业本身对社区的责任感，包括，如何提供福利（比如娱乐体育设施），文化赞助，还有对环境的补偿，因此，很多的企业都会有一个由老总为头头的环境委员会。如果一个企业，为了全球变暖做出自己的贡献，并通过适当的公关措施使得消费者了解到他们公司是一个负责人的公司，那么，即便是在参与碳交易的时候付出了一定的成本，结果还是会使得自己的产品更加深入人心，更加受欢迎，当然，前提是产品或者服务本身是优质的。

CSR针对的归根到底还是消费者，消费者的消费行为，直接影响到企业的商业作为，如果消费者在选择商品或服务的时候做下比较，然后选择那些对环境负责的公司，最终会选择改变的，将是各个公司。现在CSR做的好的公司，大多集中在日本以及美国。

第二个就是在亚洲，向欧美出口的物品，多是高能源，高污染的产品，比如纺织品。参与温室气体减排项目，必然会使得自己的产品更具有竞争力。最简单的一个例子，比如一个欧洲国家的公司本身参与了温室气体减排项目，他们准备采购一些纺织产品供自己使用。在温室气体计算的时候，他们采购的产品也会计算在在本公司的温室气体排放（carbon footprint）内。这个时候，他会选择那些低碳产品，低碳产品与非低碳产品本身在成分上可能没有区别，但是，在竞争上，低碳产品会更具选择性。另外，如果欧洲的国家想针对发展中国家的出口采取一些压制性措施，那么碳税将是最简单的一个做法，而且，我们这些亚洲国家将哑口无言，毕竟，真正排放大量温室气体的国家是我们的这些制造业。

这一点，也是我们极力向各个企业推荐的一个catch point.

当然，除却这两点，纯粹的购买碳值来抵消自己的碳排放也未尝不可。但是，现在相当多的所谓环境保护分子本身都不环保，还在一味的去劝说别人去环保。下一节将比较细致的谈下京都议定书。

第三节：京都议定书---best out of worst
关键词：附件A缔约国，CDM, JI

---这两天没办法上网，思绪也乱糟糟的。这节写的太乱，思路不是很清楚---

（原创）第一节：碳汇--Carbon Trading

关键词：京都议定书，compliance carbon market, CDM.

接触carbon trading还是在六个月实习结束后，机缘巧合的遇到了一位学长，他在帮一家成立一年多的小公司帮忙做关于环境的一些事情。约见之后，感觉自己对这方面还是比较感兴趣，于是在六个月的实习结束后，我没有选择回家，而选择了加入这家公司。

碳汇市场这个概念的提出缘于京都协议的签署。关于京都协议的具体的内容可以百度一下，讲的很详细，我就不费口舌再次赘述。

碳汇的英文名字叫做“carbon credit”。碳汇作为一种商品出售，则源于2005年正式生效的《京都议定书》的规定。《京都议定书》把通过植树造林缓解全球气候变暖的趋势，作为减排温室气体的重要措施。根据其建立的清洁发展机制，发达国家出资在发展中国家实施造林和再造林项目(仅为一小部分)，其产生的实质性温室气体减排量可以用来实现发达国家承诺的减排目标，这一交易被称为“碳贸易”。“在严格的法律意义上，碳汇等清洁发展机制项目的参与主体是《联合国气候变化框架公约》的缔约国，因而碳汇交易的主体是国家。发展中国家将本国经核证的二氧化碳减排量让渡给发达国家，实现了国与国账户间的对接，折抵了发达国家在《京都议定书》中承担的减排义务。”

在大多数的签署了京都议定书的欧洲国家，碳汇作为一种强制的手段通过限制二氧化碳等温室气体来促进各个企业，各个公司，各个国家进行环境保护。这些国家进行的这些交易活动，称为“compliance carbon market”举一个简单的例子，比如说，按照京都协定的规范，英国每年最多只能排放100万吨的温室气体，当然，首先英国会想到，如何降低自己的温室气体排放，这些通过新能源的替换，能源的审计节约，以及自身的一些解决方法可以使得自己的温室气体排放降低到一定程度，但是，必然的是，肯定会有超过100 万吨的温室气体产生，这个时候该怎么办呢？碳汇由此而生，比如，英国在非洲的某些小国家投资一些CDM项目，这些CDM项目本身会产生carbon credit，这个credit是指，CDM项目本身能够吸收温室气体，或者回收温室气体，又或者改变原有的能源机制，具体的CDM项目，我会在后面的文章中细细讲来。比如说，这个项目产生了20万吨的碳值，又加入，英国通过一系列的手段使得自己的年排放量降到了110万吨，那么，CDM项目产生的20万吨碳值就可以拿来抵消英国本身多余出来的10万吨碳排放。此时，CDM项目还有多余的10万吨碳值，怎么办呢？买卖，交易。这就是碳汇。

碳汇市场的出现，在一定程度上缓解了环境的压力，但是，他没有根本解决问题。像上面举的例子，英国温室气体本身并没有降低排放，只是拿其他国家来抵消而已。要想真正解决问题，尽量降低能源的使用，使用清洁能源，才是终极的解决手段。

刚才说道，在欧洲等地，像英国等有一个具体的限制，每年不许超过多少吨的温室气体排放，这是写在法律法规里面的，但是，在亚洲，除了日本外，没有国家强制减排温室气体，这就引出了另一个话题，自愿碳汇市场。下一节，会先分析自愿碳汇市场存在的必要性，这也是我们公司能够生存的原因之一。

下一节：自愿碳汇市场存在的必要性(Voluntary Carbon Market)

关键词：CSR，竞争，关税

U.S. climate exchange farm deals raise questions

(Repeats to fix typo in eighth paragraph, no other changes to headline or text)

By Timothy Gardner and Michael Szabo

NEW YORK/LONDON, Aug 21 (Reuters) - The largest U.S. greenhouse gas emissions market has paid farmers millions of dollars in the name of fighting climate change, but the money may have done little, if anything, to slow global warming.

The National Farmers Union said this month that some of its members had been paid a total of $8 million since 2006 by the Chicago Climate Exchange for taking voluntary actions such as no-till farming. The technique arguably cuts emissions by leaving crop waste undisturbed to decay under the soil.

But many farmers began practicing no-till years before members signed agreements with the CCX, and that is where the problem lies.

Liz Friedlander, a spokeswoman for the NFU, said many of the farmers who received the payments had made no recent changes in the way they farm. "It's not really a huge sacrifice on their part to do it," she said.

Carbon market traders have coined such credits "anyway tonnes" -- meaning they represent emissions reductions that would have happened anyway, even if the exchange did not exist. Many companies looking to offset their emissions avoid these tonnes altogether, fearing they may damage their image.

The CCX, which is run by Britain's Climate Exchange Plc , boasts a member base of over 350 members including companies, nonprofit organizations and cities, all of which voluntarily sign a legally-binding pledge to cut emissions. If members can't do so they must buy credits over the exchange, such as the no-till credits, that profess to represent emissions reductions.

The CCX would not comment for this story. It does not reveal what percentage of its credits come from no-till farming or how much the farmers get paid compared to how much the credits sell for on the exchange. Since its inception credits representing about 86 million tonnes of emissions reductions have been traded on the CCX.

Players in the more mature European emissions markets, where heavy industry is forced to buy permits to pollute, slam "anyway" credits as being harmful to the market's reputation.

"I might as well sell an offset for when I turn my bedroom light off at night," said Emmanuel Fages, an emissions analyst at French investment bank Societe Generale.

And the Chicago credits trade at only a fraction of those in Europe. CCX credits were trading below $4 a tonne on Thursday compared to about $35 dollars in Europe, where emissions trading was launched in 2005.

SKEPTICISM

As the U.S. looks to join the rest of the developed world in regulating greenhouse gases, with both presidential candidates supporting the use of market mechanisms like cap-and-trade to curb emissions, the CCX may have to change its practices to compete with other emerging carbon exchanges like the Green Exchange, which NYMEX launched in March.

"As a long-term strategy it could be quite detrimental," Sian Mooney, an agricultural economics professor at Boise State University in Idaho, said about the effect CCX's non-additional credits could have on building a wider carbon market in the United States, historically the world's largest carbon emitter.

Will Pearson, global energy analyst at the Eurasia Group, said: "They are somewhat esoteric markets as they are. When people see things that seemingly don't have any additionality, it increases skepticism."

At least one CCX member, TerraPass, which aggregates and sells carbon credits aimed to help consumers reduce the climate impact of their driving, said it avoids no-till credits.

"One of the reasons we've steered clear of sequestration and soil sequestration projects is precisely that some of these have ... questions around additionality, so we don't do any of that project type," said Tom Arnold, the company's founder and chief environment officer.

CHANGES

Many experts said CCX had to be somewhat lax in forming standards in order to create a member base of companies who were new to carbon markets.

"If you make the stipulations too onerous and too expensive ... then you might not get anyone to come and play in your market," said Mooney.

Alex Rau, who helped form the Voluntary Carbon Standard, guidelines for carbon credits, said that in the future players in voluntary markets "have to think hard and fast about the trade-offs in sacrificing quality in the name of trading volumes" because new voluntary markets are emerging as states and even U.S. federal regulators take steps in forming new greenhouse markets.

And if the United States adopts federal regulations on greenhouse gases, the CCX may have to make "dramatic changes" in the way it does business because national standards will dictate what makes good credits, said Mooney.

Mark Trexler, whose company EcoSecurities is a member of CCX, said: "I'm not sure we need to prime the pump with credits that are non-additional, when there are enough additional credits out there that are credible." He said using "anyway" credits could "lead a lot of people to conclude that the whole concept of carbon markets is flawed." (Editing by John Picinich)

Business groups whimping out of carbon trading: Rann

South Australian Premier Mike Rann says business groups are "whimping out" by questioning the Federal Government's Mandatory Renewable Energy Target scheme.

The scheme requires 20 per cent of Australia's energy to come from renewable sources such as solar and wind power by 2020.

Mr Rann says comments from the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia that the scheme is risky and will undermine exports are unfounded.

Mr Rann says if South Australia can meet its target by 2010, then the other states can do it by 2020.

China overtakes UK on renewables

Source:http://www.enn.com/energy/article/37979

The Chinese government's energy policy has led to a large rise in investment in renewables, helping it to dislodge the UK in a ranking of the top five most attractive countries for investment in renewable energy, according to a study published on 19 August.

China has risen from sixth to joint fourth place with Spain — behind the US, Germany and India — in the quarterly Ernst & Young Country Attractiveness Indices. The UK, on the other hand, has dropped from fourth to sixth place — which the consultancy largely puts down to long delays in pushing through its new Energy Bill.

China gaining ground

According to Jonathan Johns, head of renewable energy at Ernst & Young, the Chinese success story has been driven by the government's commitment to generate 15% of the country's energy from non-carbon sources by 2020. China's rapidly-growing manufacturing base also means the country is likely to largely exceed its renewables goal, becoming a major player on a market where the EU has been hoping to obtain a competitive advantage thanks to its own ambitious renewable energy targets.

"The Chinese have rapidly built up supply chain capability and are likely to have nine gigawatts of manufacturing capacity in a few years," the report states, with Johns adding: "China is also likely to become a significant exporter of wind turbine equipment in a few years, adding to its already strong presence in the solar industry."

Slow progress in the UK

In the UK on the other hand, the decision to delay the Energy Bill means "there is now a two-year period of consultation and review before any of the proposals are implemented. This will leave just ten years for the UK to establish a renewables infrastructure strong enough to meet its 2020 target," the report notes. "The UK is possibly being overly dependent upon its ability to translate ambitious targets into reality and needs to concentrate and improve its delivery track record if its position is not to decline further," it continues, calling on the government to provide more "tangible incentives for investors".

Germany — a model to follow for the EU?

The report nevertheless indicates that other European countries are performing better and underlines that the UK situation comes in "strong contrast to the speed at which Germany has addressed the challenges placed by the EU Renewables Directive".

It further notes how Germany's feed-in tariff mechanism — which guarantees renewable energy producers a buy-back price that is higher than the market price for electricity — has enabled it to deliver higher levels of renewable power at lower cost than in the UK, where renewable energy obligations are fulfilled via a system whereby companies can trade 'green certificates'. While the European Commission has been looking to duplicate the UK model at EU level, the move has encountered much resistance.

The credit crunch and the 'oil price paradox'

While the report finds that "on the whole the credit crunch has not impacted [upon] the attractiveness of the sector" as an area which to lend, it warned that the recent spike in fossil fuel prices could result in "mixed fortunes" for the renewables industry.

Indeed, while on the one hand, the rising cost of energy helps make 'free' renewable energy inputs like wind, solar or marine more competitive, on the other, soaring energy bills are putting pressure on governments to think more carefully about the impact that renewables incentive programmes could have on taxpayers and the poorest in particular.

Positions

"To make the UK a world leader in attracting investment in this sector, and to avoid it slipping further down the index, the government needs to consider creating tangible incentives for investors, following the lead of Germany and the ambition of China," says Jonathan Johns , head of renewable energy at Ernst & Young .

However, according to the UK media BusinessGreen, a spokeswoman for the British department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) said the government was committed to stepping up incentives for renewable energy developers through the Energy Bill and was also working to remove grid obstacles. "The UK is still an attractive place to invest and renewables are a good long term investment. A ten-fold increase in renewable energy will bring on around 160,000 jobs and an estimated £100bn of investment from the private sector," it quotes her as saying.