Evaluating Carbon Offsets from Forestry and Energy Projects : How Do They Compare?
Under the Kyoto Protocol, industrial countries accept caps on their emissions of greenhouse gases. They are permitted to acquire offsetting emissions reductions from developing countries - which do not have emissions limitations - to assist in comp...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Policy Research Working Paper |
Language: | English en_US |
Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2014
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2000/06/437511/evaluating-carbon-offsets-forestry-energy-projects http://hdl.handle.net/10986/19838 |
id |
okr-10986-19838 |
---|---|
recordtype |
oai_dc |
repository_type |
Digital Repository |
institution_category |
Foreign Institution |
institution |
Digital Repositories |
building |
World Bank Open Knowledge Repository |
collection |
World Bank |
language |
English en_US |
topic |
ABATEMENT AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AIR AIR POLLUTION ATMOSPHERE BARRIERS TO ADOPTION BASELINE DETERMINATION BASELINE EMISSIONS BASELINE LEVELS BASELINE METHODOLOGIES BASIC METALS BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION BIOMASS BOILERS CALCULATION CARBON CARBON EMISSIONS CARBON EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS CARBON OFFSETS CARBON PLANTATIONS CARBON POOLS CARBON PROJECT CARBON PROJECTS CARBON RELEASE CARBON SEQUESTRATION CARBON STORAGE CATTLE RAISING CELLULOSE CERTIFICATION APPROACH CERTIFIED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS CLEAN DEVELOPMENT CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM CLIMATE CLIMATE ACTION CLIMATE CHANGE COAL COAL CONSUMPTION COAL PLANT COGENERATION CONSERVATION CONSERVATION PROJECTS CONSUMPTION OF FOSSIL COST SAVINGS DECISION MAKING DEFORESTATION DEMAND FOR ENERGY DEVELOPED COUNTRIES DIESEL DIESEL FUEL DIFFUSION ECONOMIES OF SCALE ECOSYSTEM ELASTICITIES ELASTICITY OF DEMAND ELECTRIC MOTORS ELECTRIC POWER ELECTRICITY EMISSIONS EMISSIONS LEVELS EMISSIONS REDUCTION EMISSIONS SCENARIOS EMPLOYMENT ENERGY CONSUMERS ENERGY CONSUMPTION ENERGY EFFICIENCY ENERGY SAVINGS ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS EXPLOITATION FARMS FOREST COVER FORESTRY FORESTS FOSSIL FUEL FOSSIL FUELS FUEL FUEL CONSUMPTION FUEL OIL FUEL PRICE FUEL- SWITCHING PROJECTS FUEL-SWITCHING PROJECTS FUELS GAS GAS COMBUSTION GLOBAL WARMING GREENHOUSE GREENHOUSE GAS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GREENHOUSE GASES GRID POWER HEATING PLANTS HOUSEHOLD ENERGY HYPOTHETICAL BASELINE INELASTIC DEMAND INSURANCE INVENTORIES JOINT IMPLEMENTATION KYOTO PROTOCOL LAND USE LAND USE CHANGE MARKET PRICES METHANE METHANE RECOVERY MITIGATING CLIMATE CHANGE NATURAL GAS NEGATIVE LEAKAGE NET EMISSIONS NET EMISSIONS REDUCTION OIL OPPORTUNITY COSTS POLLUTION CONTROL POWER GENERATION POWER PLANTS PRESENT VALUE PRICE ELASTICITY PRICE ELASTICITY OF DEMAND PROGRAMS REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN CARBON RENEWABLE ENERGY RESERVOIRS SAVINGS SOIL SOILS SOLAR POWER SPATIAL PATTERNS STREAMS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TIMBER TROPICAL DEFORESTATION VEGETATION WAGES WATER QUALITY WIND |
spellingShingle |
ABATEMENT AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AIR AIR POLLUTION ATMOSPHERE BARRIERS TO ADOPTION BASELINE DETERMINATION BASELINE EMISSIONS BASELINE LEVELS BASELINE METHODOLOGIES BASIC METALS BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION BIOMASS BOILERS CALCULATION CARBON CARBON EMISSIONS CARBON EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS CARBON OFFSETS CARBON PLANTATIONS CARBON POOLS CARBON PROJECT CARBON PROJECTS CARBON RELEASE CARBON SEQUESTRATION CARBON STORAGE CATTLE RAISING CELLULOSE CERTIFICATION APPROACH CERTIFIED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS CLEAN DEVELOPMENT CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM CLIMATE CLIMATE ACTION CLIMATE CHANGE COAL COAL CONSUMPTION COAL PLANT COGENERATION CONSERVATION CONSERVATION PROJECTS CONSUMPTION OF FOSSIL COST SAVINGS DECISION MAKING DEFORESTATION DEMAND FOR ENERGY DEVELOPED COUNTRIES DIESEL DIESEL FUEL DIFFUSION ECONOMIES OF SCALE ECOSYSTEM ELASTICITIES ELASTICITY OF DEMAND ELECTRIC MOTORS ELECTRIC POWER ELECTRICITY EMISSIONS EMISSIONS LEVELS EMISSIONS REDUCTION EMISSIONS SCENARIOS EMPLOYMENT ENERGY CONSUMERS ENERGY CONSUMPTION ENERGY EFFICIENCY ENERGY SAVINGS ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS EXPLOITATION FARMS FOREST COVER FORESTRY FORESTS FOSSIL FUEL FOSSIL FUELS FUEL FUEL CONSUMPTION FUEL OIL FUEL PRICE FUEL- SWITCHING PROJECTS FUEL-SWITCHING PROJECTS FUELS GAS GAS COMBUSTION GLOBAL WARMING GREENHOUSE GREENHOUSE GAS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GREENHOUSE GASES GRID POWER HEATING PLANTS HOUSEHOLD ENERGY HYPOTHETICAL BASELINE INELASTIC DEMAND INSURANCE INVENTORIES JOINT IMPLEMENTATION KYOTO PROTOCOL LAND USE LAND USE CHANGE MARKET PRICES METHANE METHANE RECOVERY MITIGATING CLIMATE CHANGE NATURAL GAS NEGATIVE LEAKAGE NET EMISSIONS NET EMISSIONS REDUCTION OIL OPPORTUNITY COSTS POLLUTION CONTROL POWER GENERATION POWER PLANTS PRESENT VALUE PRICE ELASTICITY PRICE ELASTICITY OF DEMAND PROGRAMS REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN CARBON RENEWABLE ENERGY RESERVOIRS SAVINGS SOIL SOILS SOLAR POWER SPATIAL PATTERNS STREAMS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TIMBER TROPICAL DEFORESTATION VEGETATION WAGES WATER QUALITY WIND Chomitz, Kenneth M. Evaluating Carbon Offsets from Forestry and Energy Projects : How Do They Compare? |
relation |
Policy Research Working Paper;No. 2357 |
description |
Under the Kyoto Protocol, industrial
countries accept caps on their emissions of greenhouse
gases. They are permitted to acquire offsetting emissions
reductions from developing countries - which do not have
emissions limitations - to assist in complying with these
caps. Because these emissions reductions are defined against
a hypothetical baseline, practical issues arise in ensuring
that the reductions are genuine. Forestry-related emissions
reduction projects are often thought to present greater
difficulties in measurement and implementation, than
energy-related emissions reduction projects. The author
discusses how project characteristics affect the process for
determining compliance with each of the criteria for
qualifying. Those criteria are: 1) Additionality. Would
these emissions reductions not have taken place without the
project? 2) Baseline and systems boundaries (leakage). What
would business-as-usual emissions have been without the
project? And in this comparison, how broad should spatial,
and temporal system boundaries be? 3) Measurement (or
sequestration). How accurately can we measure actual
with-project emissions levels? 4) Duration or permanence.
Will the project have an enduring mitigating effect? 5)
Local impact. Will the project benefit its neighbors? For
all the criteria except permanence, it is difficult to find
generic distinctions between land use change and forestry
and energy projects, since both categories comprise diverse
project types. The important distinctions among projects
have to do with such things as: a) The level and
distribution of the project's direct financial
benefits. b) How much the project is integrated with the
larger system. c) The project components' internal
homogeneity and geographic dispersion. d) The local
replicability of project technologies. Permanence is an
issue specific to land use and forestry projects. The author
describes various approaches to ensure permanence, or adjust
credits for duration: the ton-year approach (focusing on the
benefits from deferring climatic damage, and rewarding
longer deferral); the combination approach (bundling current
land use change and forestry emissions reductions with
future reductions in the buyer's allowed amount); a
technology-acceleration approach; and an insurance approach. |
format |
Publications & Research :: Policy Research Working Paper |
author |
Chomitz, Kenneth M. |
author_facet |
Chomitz, Kenneth M. |
author_sort |
Chomitz, Kenneth M. |
title |
Evaluating Carbon Offsets from Forestry and Energy Projects : How Do They Compare? |
title_short |
Evaluating Carbon Offsets from Forestry and Energy Projects : How Do They Compare? |
title_full |
Evaluating Carbon Offsets from Forestry and Energy Projects : How Do They Compare? |
title_fullStr |
Evaluating Carbon Offsets from Forestry and Energy Projects : How Do They Compare? |
title_full_unstemmed |
Evaluating Carbon Offsets from Forestry and Energy Projects : How Do They Compare? |
title_sort |
evaluating carbon offsets from forestry and energy projects : how do they compare? |
publisher |
World Bank, Washington, DC |
publishDate |
2014 |
url |
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2000/06/437511/evaluating-carbon-offsets-forestry-energy-projects http://hdl.handle.net/10986/19838 |
_version_ |
1764441646767800320 |
spelling |
okr-10986-198382021-04-23T14:03:46Z Evaluating Carbon Offsets from Forestry and Energy Projects : How Do They Compare? Chomitz, Kenneth M. ABATEMENT AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AIR AIR POLLUTION ATMOSPHERE BARRIERS TO ADOPTION BASELINE DETERMINATION BASELINE EMISSIONS BASELINE LEVELS BASELINE METHODOLOGIES BASIC METALS BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION BIOMASS BOILERS CALCULATION CARBON CARBON EMISSIONS CARBON EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS CARBON OFFSETS CARBON PLANTATIONS CARBON POOLS CARBON PROJECT CARBON PROJECTS CARBON RELEASE CARBON SEQUESTRATION CARBON STORAGE CATTLE RAISING CELLULOSE CERTIFICATION APPROACH CERTIFIED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS CLEAN DEVELOPMENT CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM CLIMATE CLIMATE ACTION CLIMATE CHANGE COAL COAL CONSUMPTION COAL PLANT COGENERATION CONSERVATION CONSERVATION PROJECTS CONSUMPTION OF FOSSIL COST SAVINGS DECISION MAKING DEFORESTATION DEMAND FOR ENERGY DEVELOPED COUNTRIES DIESEL DIESEL FUEL DIFFUSION ECONOMIES OF SCALE ECOSYSTEM ELASTICITIES ELASTICITY OF DEMAND ELECTRIC MOTORS ELECTRIC POWER ELECTRICITY EMISSIONS EMISSIONS LEVELS EMISSIONS REDUCTION EMISSIONS SCENARIOS EMPLOYMENT ENERGY CONSUMERS ENERGY CONSUMPTION ENERGY EFFICIENCY ENERGY SAVINGS ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS EXPLOITATION FARMS FOREST COVER FORESTRY FORESTS FOSSIL FUEL FOSSIL FUELS FUEL FUEL CONSUMPTION FUEL OIL FUEL PRICE FUEL- SWITCHING PROJECTS FUEL-SWITCHING PROJECTS FUELS GAS GAS COMBUSTION GLOBAL WARMING GREENHOUSE GREENHOUSE GAS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GREENHOUSE GASES GRID POWER HEATING PLANTS HOUSEHOLD ENERGY HYPOTHETICAL BASELINE INELASTIC DEMAND INSURANCE INVENTORIES JOINT IMPLEMENTATION KYOTO PROTOCOL LAND USE LAND USE CHANGE MARKET PRICES METHANE METHANE RECOVERY MITIGATING CLIMATE CHANGE NATURAL GAS NEGATIVE LEAKAGE NET EMISSIONS NET EMISSIONS REDUCTION OIL OPPORTUNITY COSTS POLLUTION CONTROL POWER GENERATION POWER PLANTS PRESENT VALUE PRICE ELASTICITY PRICE ELASTICITY OF DEMAND PROGRAMS REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN CARBON RENEWABLE ENERGY RESERVOIRS SAVINGS SOIL SOILS SOLAR POWER SPATIAL PATTERNS STREAMS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TIMBER TROPICAL DEFORESTATION VEGETATION WAGES WATER QUALITY WIND Under the Kyoto Protocol, industrial countries accept caps on their emissions of greenhouse gases. They are permitted to acquire offsetting emissions reductions from developing countries - which do not have emissions limitations - to assist in complying with these caps. Because these emissions reductions are defined against a hypothetical baseline, practical issues arise in ensuring that the reductions are genuine. Forestry-related emissions reduction projects are often thought to present greater difficulties in measurement and implementation, than energy-related emissions reduction projects. The author discusses how project characteristics affect the process for determining compliance with each of the criteria for qualifying. Those criteria are: 1) Additionality. Would these emissions reductions not have taken place without the project? 2) Baseline and systems boundaries (leakage). What would business-as-usual emissions have been without the project? And in this comparison, how broad should spatial, and temporal system boundaries be? 3) Measurement (or sequestration). How accurately can we measure actual with-project emissions levels? 4) Duration or permanence. Will the project have an enduring mitigating effect? 5) Local impact. Will the project benefit its neighbors? For all the criteria except permanence, it is difficult to find generic distinctions between land use change and forestry and energy projects, since both categories comprise diverse project types. The important distinctions among projects have to do with such things as: a) The level and distribution of the project's direct financial benefits. b) How much the project is integrated with the larger system. c) The project components' internal homogeneity and geographic dispersion. d) The local replicability of project technologies. Permanence is an issue specific to land use and forestry projects. The author describes various approaches to ensure permanence, or adjust credits for duration: the ton-year approach (focusing on the benefits from deferring climatic damage, and rewarding longer deferral); the combination approach (bundling current land use change and forestry emissions reductions with future reductions in the buyer's allowed amount); a technology-acceleration approach; and an insurance approach. 2014-08-28T18:44:59Z 2014-08-28T18:44:59Z 2000-06 http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2000/06/437511/evaluating-carbon-offsets-forestry-energy-projects http://hdl.handle.net/10986/19838 English en_US Policy Research Working Paper;No. 2357 CC BY 3.0 IGO http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/ World Bank, Washington, DC Publications & Research :: Policy Research Working Paper Publications & Research |