6 Days in 2012: Effect of the CDM on Carbon Emissions
March 19th, 2008Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
This is a somewhat technical post on a fairly narrow issue. This week in class we had the pleasure of a visit by Wolfgang Sterk from the Wuppertal Institute (in Germany), who provided a really excellent presentation on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol and the European Emissions Trading Scheme.
His presentation discussed, and also raised some further questions about, the effectiveness of the CDM. So out of curiosity I have asked, and answered below, the question: What effect does the CDM have on carbon dioxide emissions to 2012?
The answer can be determined by looking at the excellent database of CDM projects provided by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies in Kanagawa, Japan.
What I did first is exclude all non-carbon dioxide-related projects in the CDM database. I then included projects that are “registered” (in the works) and “issued” (in the pipeline), and assumed that all projects so listed will be in fact implemented with 100% success.
Through 2012, the total reductions in future carbon dioxide emissions under the CDM totals about 175 millions tons of carbon, or about 35 million tons of carbon per year.
How much is this amount of carbon?
This means that the cumulative emissions that would have occurred on January 1, 2012 will now occur before noon on January 7, 2012. You read that right. The cumulative effect of the CDM on carbon dioxide emissions is to delay total emissions by about 6.5 days.
To be fair the CDM was never designed to be a solution to the climate problem. But even so, this seems to me to be an exceedingly small impact for such an incredibly complex program. I can not explain how complex it is (see the PDF linked in the following sentence). In fact, simply taking an unscientific qualitative ratio of complexity (PDF) to effectiveness (6 and a half days delay in cumulative emissions), I have come to the conclusion that the CDM offers little hope of contributing much to the challenge of transforming the global energy system. If it is part of the solution, then it is an understatement to say that that it it is a very, very, very, very small part.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
The CDM has provided a useful mechanism for combining development with reductions in GHG intensity, for enhancing cooperation between north and south and improving governance infrastructure in developing nations. What’s your alternative proposal for funding adaptation in the developing world, Roger – shall we simply throw money at them without any effort to ensure effectiveness?
March 21st, 2008 at 5:20 am
Tom- The CDM has nothing to do with adaptation.
The role of the CDM in sustainable development is an important question, on which you will find different views, such as:
http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/summary.shtml?x=556330
March 21st, 2008 at 11:46 pm
The Kyoto Protocol called for reduction between 6 to 8 per cent of identified greenhouse gases in countries listed in Annex B of the Protocol from their 1990 emissions. (Note: not all greenhouse gases are controlled by the Protocol). At 7 per cent redctions, this amounts to 26 days of greenhouse in Annex B countries based on 1990 levels and approximately 16 days worldwide. The carbon dioxide reduction from CDM of 6.5 days is not really insignificant when compared to the overall reduction target of the Kyoto Protocol.
March 21st, 2008 at 11:46 pm
The Kyoto Protocol called for reduction between 6 to 8 per cent of identified greenhouse gases in countries listed in Annex B of the Protocol from their 1990 emissions. (Note: not all greenhouse gases are controlled by the Protocol). At 7 per cent redctions, this amounts to 26 days of greenhouse in Annex B countries based on 1990 levels and approximately 16 days worldwide. The carbon dioxide reduction from CDM of 6.5 days is not really insignificant when compared to the overall reduction target of the Kyoto Protocol.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Roger, sorry for not being clearer about my point. While the CDM has very little direct connection to adaptation (a portion of CDM credits are allocated to fund adaptation), the CDM has been a mechanism to draw developing countries into doing something themselves about climate change and about building international infrastructure that will also be essential to prioritizing, approving and funding adaptation investments.
As whatever lessons there are to be learned in diagnosing the flaws of CDM and JI can be directly applied to the framework for international investment in adaptation projects, it is in this context that I am puzzled that you do not seem interested in further exploring the relevance of CDM and how it might be improved.
Regards,
\
Tom
March 24th, 2008 at 3:11 am
Dear Roger, according with the EU law there’s a limit for the CO2 emissions reduction based on the CDM. The CDM is basically used to emit “more”. If you run a company the EU, through your country government, allocates you X tons of CO2 emissions. You can emit X+ Delta assuming the Delta is done through the CDM (is supposed to be audited, I doubt it can be done). The current limit for Delta through CDM is 20,58% of the total emissions allocated for your company. So there’s a limit to the effectiveness of the CDM at least in Europe. The mechanism is somewhat absurd. Spanish company A plans to build a eolic power plant in, let’s say, Ecuador. They’re going to build the plant anyway. However company A can claim in front of the government of Spain that they can emit in Spain a Delta because there was a reduction in Ecuador.
best
March 24th, 2008 at 7:02 am
eo- Can you share your work? The assumptions that you use matter, but my calculations indicate that under any assumptions the delay in global emissions by Kyoto would be measured in years not days.
Tom- It is hard to respond to your point since it is entirely theoretical. I still fail to see the connection to adaptation, sorry.
Rafa- “The mechanism is somewhat absurd.” This seems about right.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:24 am
“”The mechanism is somewhat absurd.” This seems about right.”
The mechanism has helped foster less carbon-intensive development in the third world and has been welcomed by them. I understand that a substantial portion of projects are methane capture. This is win-win, and hardly absurd. Why is this NOT a good way to foster development, economic resilience and adaption in developing countries?
You occasionally profess to be interested in adaptation in the developing world, Roger. By what mechanisms do you poropose to aid in that process? Would any resemble CDM?
Sorry for the theoretical questions.
March 29th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
“I understand that a substantial portion of projects are methane capture. This is win-win, and hardly absurd. Why is this NOT a good way to foster development, economic resilience and adaption in developing countries?”
Methane capture is not absurd. But, per wonderful Wikipedia, about 58% of the total CDM credits to date have been for HFCs (predominantly HFC-23):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Development_Mechanism
According to Wikipedia, a representative of the IPCC says that loophole has (finally) been closed. But that certainly was absurd (if destruction of the ozone layer can be counted as absurd), because it greatly encouraged production of HCFC-22:
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_land_of_unintended_consequ_1.html