scholarly journals The governance of clean energy in India: The clean development mechanism (CDM) and domestic energy politics

Energy Policy ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 59 ◽  
pp. 654-662 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Phillips ◽  
Peter Newell
Author(s):  
Michael Van Brunt ◽  
Brian Bahor

A carbon offset program is likely to be part of any future federal cap-and-trade program and is included in both the U.S. House of Representatives passed American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 and the Kerry-Boxer Senate draft greenhouse gas legislation. Internationally, Energy-from-Waste (EfW) facilities in emerging economies are eligible for carbon offset credits under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. These carbon offset credits can be purchased by developed countries, such as those in Western Europe, to help comply with their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Although a similar mandatory market does not yet exist in the United States, there is a growing voluntary market in carbon offsets and a set of standards designed to provide some order to this market. One of the key players in the voluntary market is the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS). Project types, such as EfW, that are eligible for credits under the Clean Development Mechanism are also eligible to generate voluntary carbon credits under the VCS. This paper reviews the current methodology for calculating offsets from EfW projects. The current methodology is very conservative, severely restricts the accounting for avoided landfill methane, and significantly underestimates greenhouse gas savings relative to life cycle assessments performed on waste management practices. The current methodology for offsets is compared and contrasted with a more realistic methodology more in line with life cycle assessment calculations. A review of the potential for EfW offsets under evolving state and federal programs and precedents for offsets generated based on avoided landfill methane is also completed.


Author(s):  
Jose A. Puppim de Oliveira ◽  
Celio Andrade

This chapter examines the political economy aspects, particularly the influence of the Clean Development Mechanism, in clean energy and climate change policies in the states of Bahia and Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil. The different mechanisms for responding to climate change are financing opportunities in some of the ‘green’ industries, but the results show a gap between the initial objectives of global policies and their results. The research identified pitfalls and opportunities for new strategies and mechanisms for boosting clean energy in Brazil and the role that the Clean Development Mechanism and future international mechanisms can play in the political economy of clean energy transitions. The chapter concludes with a discussion on the lessons learned from experience of the Clean Development Mechanism and its implications for the future of the Paris Agreement.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Armin Rosencranz ◽  
Kanika Jamwal

This article argues that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)’s conception of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDRRC) was never effectively implemented through the Kyoto Protocol. The investments under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism suggest that CBDRRC has been used by developed countries to buy a “right to pollute”, i.e., maintaining or even increasing their greenhouse gas emissions, while investing in clean energy in developing nations, thus defeating the essence of CBDRRC as intended under the UNFCCC. Second, it points out that the Paris Agreement reflects a significant shift in the CBDRRC, both in terms of its textual understanding as well as its implementation. A qualifier, “in the light of national circumstances”, was added to the principle of CBDRRC in the Paris Agreement, allowing a form of voluntary self-differentiation. This qualifier diluted a top-down, objective analysis of States’ commitments. For several scholars, this shift has meant a softening of the principle, making the “differentiation” more dynamic and flexible. In the authors’ opinion, the qualifier is a fundamental modification of the principle to make it politically more palatable. It completely disregards the notion of historical responsibility for climate change, which was the cornerstone of CBDRRC as conceived under the UNFCCC. Therefore, rather than presenting a more flexible understanding of UNFCCC’s conception of CBDRRC, the Paris Agreement marks a total departure from it. Lacking an explicit redefinition of the principle of CBDRRC, it is misleading to contend that the Paris Agreement is still anchored in it.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document