IEM and the Future Opportunities for Growth in China from 2010 onwards; the Ultra Green approach
The Commission of the European Communities has recommended the exclusion of forest carbon credits from the EU-ETS in its next phase. It argues that REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation and ecosystem degradation i.e. avoided deforestation)credits cannot be used reliably because they do not demonstrably represent real, verifiable, additional and permanent reductions in emissions. The Commission argues also that REDD credits would, if allowed, flood the European market, deterring real and permanent improvements in the production and energy infrastructure of the EU. Emissions from the loss and degradation of forests, let alone those from conventional agriculture in the developing world are enormous in scale and impact, representing nearly 20% of total greenhouse gas emissions attributable to human activities worldwide. This is more than the worldwide emissions from burning natural gas and the emissions of the entire worldwide transportation sector. Moreover, their impact over the next five years (2008-2012) will easily offset whatever gains are achieved by industrialized countries in that same period under the Kyoto Protocol. * The loss of forests is occurring at a pace that requires urgent action. At current rates, the environmental services of the worlds major forests will collapse long before the last tree has been cut or the last hectare cleared. More than a billion of our fellow human beings are forest-dependent peoples, and the loss of forests is to them an irretrievable catastrophe. What is more, the climate impacts of forest loss go well beyond the global warming effect of higher concentrations of greenhouse gases. (For example, if forests continue to be lost then rainfall patterns, hydrological cycles and soil productivity will be affected in countries that are now major suppliers of rice, grain, sugar, beef and other essential food supplies to the rest of the world.) * Curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Yet there is currently no mechanism that would compensate countries for the opportunity cost of not deforesting. The World Bank has specifically found that the lack of markets for the national and global environmental services offered by forests has contributed to high rates of deforestation in developing countries. * We have the scientific and technical tools today to measure and monitor reductions in emissions from deforestation. We know enough to establish historical reference scenarios: since the early 1990s, changes in forest area in developing countries have been measured from space with confidence. Our ability to estimate carbon stocks in particular forests has also improved greatly over the last 10 years. We have designed conservative methods that can be used to ensure that we minimize the risk of over or underestimation of carbon stocks to within a margin of error of +/-5%. And new technologies and approaches are being developed that will further reduce uncertainties. The technical challenges for monitoring, verifying and quantifying REDD therefore have been and will continue to be addressed, so that markets can now operate with integrity. Further investment is needed to make these tools readily available to poor countries, but there first needs to be an economic incentive for doing so at the required scale. * The proposed REDD mechanisms (as foreshadowed by the REDD decision adopted in Bali) will address the problems of leakage and permanence that have plagued the discussion of crediting to date: ** Reductions in emissions from deforestation, if measured relative to a national reference scenario (or as close to it as possible), are by definition net of any in-country leakage, which is the only kind that is normally considered for purposes of the UNFCCC; and ** There is nothing inherently impermanent or temporary about REDD, so long as the actual reductions in rates of deforestation are real and the countries involved are held to a reference scenario that requires the long-term conservation of forests as a condition of earning those credits in the first place (i.e., a reference scenario that may well be more restrictive of emissions than a business-asusual projection). These issues are not technical or methodological and provide no rationale for excluding REDD from the EU or any other market system. * There is no empirical support for the floodgates argument. Anyone who predicts that REDD credits will quickly overwhelm the European carbon markets greatly underestimates the challenges ahead for developing countries. Major national institutional frameworks are required, readiness mechanisms must be developed, and policies and measures effectively implemented on the ground. Moreover, the UNFCCC Parties have agreed that the rules of the game will be negotiated before the reduction targets are set, so the targets will reflect whatever cost-control or other flexibility mechanisms are agreed upon. These will almost certainly provide that only a small proportion, based on historic and predicted deforestation rates, of potential credits will be available in any one year. In any case, the EU-ETS can simply cap the inclusion of forest carbon, and REDD in particular, to a specific annual volume (or a percentage of the reduction commitments of affected operators) as is being proposed in the most advanced US legislation. This is entirely within the control of the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. The active participation of developing countries in an eventual global climate change regime, consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, is essential to achieving the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC and has long been the policy of the EU. The exclusion of forest carbon credits, and specifically the failure to even preview the possible inclusion of REDD in the EU-ETS, sends precisely the wrong message. It is critical that every incentive be created now to motivate institutional reforms in developing countries to control and abate deforestation. If we lose the worlds forests, we will have lost the fight against climate change. The IEM approach coupled with Sustainable Forestry Management and the Ultra Green portfolio of technologies and teams of world leading scientists can work with China in growing its position in the carbon sequestration, emissions reduction and global energy market. In partnership, with Chinas exceptional vision, we can work together to further position China as the worlds leader in sustainable development. We have technologies ready to implement now, after years of research, which can deliver our shared vision of global sources of energy being gradually moved to renewable and sustainable sources, harnessing the power of the sun and water while improving the living standards of the population.
Ian R. Swingland
Ultra Green Group, Singapore
国际会议
北京
英文
280-299
2008-11-06（万方平台首次上网日期，不代表论文的发表时间）