Tag Archives: carbon
CFI Nears One-Year Mark
31 Jul, 2013 03:30 AM MARK SIEBENTRITT THE Carbon Farming Initiative officially came to life about 12 months ago. And despite the uncertainty created by debates round Australia’s future carbon pricing legislation, the CFI is up and running and looks set to stay in some form post the next federal election. So how is it performing one year in? So far as I am aware, there are no indicators in place to judge progress with the CFI so I created a few of my own: are CFI methods being approved, are the methods getting used, and are Australian carbon credit units being issued? There would no doubt be others, but let’s take these as a start. In previous articles, I have discussed the importance of having relevant, CFI- approved methods in place. But to put it simply, without CFI methods there can be no approved projects and therefore no ACCUs generated. So how many approved CFI methods are there? When the scheme started in July, 2012, there were four approved methods, all of which had been developed by the Federal Government to get the CFI under way. Since this time, a further 16 have been approved, split equally between methods developed by the private sector and the Federal Government. Interestingly, the private-sector methods have focused solely on carbon sequestration through vegetation plantings, and avoided emissions from landfill. It could be argued that getting a method approved has been no simple task, with eight proposed methodologies not being accepted. This means that for every method proposed by the private sector and approved by the government, there is another that has been knocked back. So are the methods getting used and are we seeing projects approved? The answer is ‘yes’. At the time of writing this article, 69 projects had been approved by the Clean Energy Regulator. What is really interesting, is understanding which of the approved projects have had ACCUs issued to them. Of the 68 approved projects, only 22 have had ACCUs issued coming from only seven methods. What’s more, 87 per cent of all issued ACCUs have come from one method: the capture and combustion of methane in landfill gas from legacy waste. Furthermore, landfill related projects as a category account for 98pc of all ACCUs issued to date. All up, 1.75 million ACCUs have been issued in the first year. Applying a carbon price of $23.10 a tonne of CO2 equivalent equates to $40 million of carbon credits. While this is a good start, it’s worth remembering that this quantity of offsets equals about 0.5pc of the emissions generated by liable entities in Australia and even less of Australia’s total emissions. So if we scratch around behind the statistics what are some of the key learnings? First, emissions avoidance projects – especially landfill projects – are the front- runner in terms of generating revenue. This makes sense. Avoiding the emission of methane can result in a short turnaround time for generating ACCUs and has a 21 times multiplier in terms of generating carbon credits compared with storing carbon in trees or the soil because methane is a far more serious greenhouse gas. The approach is also well developed. Unlike some of the newer methods and thinking for generating offsets, the technology and many of the companies involved with the landfill-related projects have been around for at least two to three decades. Second, managed savannah burning has the potential to become popular and widespread in the short term. If we look at the number of projects per approved method, it is only second to the capture and combustion of methane in landfill gas from legacy waste. Because it is about avoided emissions, rather than sequestration, it also has the potential to generate revenue in the short term in the same way as landfill projects. Third, the private sector is embracing the concept of the CFI. While in the early part of 2012-13 it looked as if the Federal Government would drive development of all CFI methods, as described earlier the private sector has also chimed-in and over the course of the past year has proposed more methods in total than the Government. *Full report in Stock Journal , July 25 issue, 2013. Continue reading
A Look At South Africa’s Carbon Trading Potential
2 August 2013 – According to Glenn Hodes-senior program manager (UNEP), the carbon market in South Africa will help to level the playing field by making renewable projects more attractive to investors. Small-scale renewable projects (less than 50 MW) which are pursued in South Africa due to dispersed populations, have struggled to obtain finance from large companies and banks. However, with carbon trading, more attention will be brought to these projects. “This would certainly deal with the poverty issue more effectively as the power is closer to where the demand is,” Hodes says. But, how will carbon trading benefit South Africa’s renewable energy projects? Hodes says that if there is a price on carbon, whether through tax or a trading regime, private companies will be incentivised to invest in renewable energy projects and technology. “I think the private sector is for carbon trading. It sets a clear market signal.” But why hasn’t carbon trading taken off? Hodes blames this on uncoordinated attempts, regulatory and policy challenges. He explains that the implementation thereof and global connections can make it a challenge for carbon trading to work. There have also been circumstances under which baseline-and-credit CDM schemes have resulted in the maltreatment of indigenous peoples and their environment. There have also been cases of trade fraud and accounting discrepancies. Low levels of awareness as to how to access this market as well as a poorly resourced department are also to blame, according to the experts. South Africa has already missed a number of opportunities as it failed to capitalise on the first commitment period (2008 to 2012) of the Kyoto Protocol. Until the 17th international annual climate conference, COP17 in 2011, opportunity for South African carbon project developers was mostly to generate and sell carbon offsets (CERs). These CERs were sold from countries classified as developing countries to companies in developed countries which are bound by the emissions reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions. The Clean Development Mechanism has in the past given South Africa the opportunity to benefit from registering carbon credits or CERs. Other developing countries such as China, India and Brazil managed to register hundreds of emissions reduction projects under the CDM and got developed European countries to finance sustainable development in their countries. Currently, only 22 South African Project Design Documents (PDDs) have been registered by the CDM executive board as CDM projects, with only nine having actually issued CERs. In comparison to other developing countries, South Africa seems to have missed out on significant clean development opportunities. However, when the 2015 South African carbon tax comes in to effect, the demand for carbon credits via the voluntary market in South Africa will impact the country’s carbon trading. To ensure increased tax free thresholds, companies will be encouraged to reduce their CO2 emissions. To help them reduce their emissions to reduce tax liabilities, South African companies will most likely be able to purchase carbon credits from verifiable projects to offset a proportion of their carbon obligation. This means that there is scope for South African carbon projects to sell their credits in South Africa to local companies via a regional carbon trading scheme. There is talk that companies will be able to offset their tax liability by buying local carbon credits equivalent to 5% to 10% of their carbon tax liability. This will have an impact on the liquidity of the local market as a result of increased demand for local credits which will see a boost to local carbon project development. Continue reading
Bloomberg-EDF analysis: Mandates Plus Markets Could Make Airlines’ Emissions Goals Readily Affordable
By ANNIE PETSONK | BIO | Published: AUGUST 1, 2013 The aviation industry can affordably meet and beat its goal of halting carbon emissions growth from 2020 if it uses high-quality, low-cost carbon offsets, according to a new analysis from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) . Airlines’ goal of “carbon-neutral growth from 2020” could be so readily affordable that governments justifiably could hold airlines to a much tighter emissions target. Image source Our analysis comes on the heels of a consolidated industry call for the governments of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to commit, at their next triennial Septe mber meeting, to adopt a mandatory global program to limit aviation’s carbon pollution by 2016 at the latest. While forecasts are inherently uncertain, best estimates indicate that while new technologies, operations and infrastructure can help industry dampen emissions growth, substantial increases in aviation emissions are likely after 2020. Consequently, to meet their proposed mandatory goal of “carbon-neutral growth from 2020,” it is very likely that airlines will need some kind of carbon offsetting mechanism . An offset mechanism that limits credit supply to high-quality carbon units currently available and expected to come on-line in the future, could let airlines meet their emissions target at very modest cost. If governments adopt tough criteria ensuring that offsets represent real reductions in net carbon emissions, and if industry moves swiftly to capture those carbon units, the costs to airlines could be quite low – e.g., less than 0.5% of projected total international airline revenue in 2015 , and less than a third of the fees airlines collected last year for checked bags, legroom and snacks. In the current round of talks, the aviation industry is asking governments to mandate caps on airlines’ emissions at 2020 levels. Our analysis finds that a well-designed, high-integrity carbon offset program would make carbon-neutral growth from 2020 so affordable, that governments justifiably could hold airlines to a much tighter emissions target. That could mean putting back on the table a target the industry had proposed several years ago , namely cutting emissions 50% by 2050. As my report co-author, Bloomberg New Energy Finance chief economist Guy Turner, said : These findings show that the international aviation sector can control its CO2 emissions easily and cheaply by using market based mechanisms. The relatively small cost and ability to pass any costs through into ticket prices, should encourage the international aviation sector to accelerate and deepen its emission reduction pledges. More ambitious emission reductions now look much more doable, than mere stabilization from 2020. Our analysis offers context to the costs of such a global market-based mechanism using offsets with strong environmental integrity, which the aviation industry called on ICAO last month to adopt to keep the industry’s net emissions stable from 2020 on. Such an offset program would allow the airlines to meet their emissions targets by both making emissions cuts within the aviation sector, and drawing on offsets that represent real emission cuts in other sectors. Blog-exclusive addendum: effect on ticket prices A well-designed global offset program, using high-quality offsets that represent real reductions in emissions, could add only a few dollars to a typical international fare: From Paris (CDG) to Beijing (PEK): $1.90 – $3.00 From Paris (CDG) to Delhi (DEL): $1.50-$2.30 From Paris (CDG) to Cape Town (CPT): $2.40-$3.70 From Paris (CDG) to Buenos Aires (EZE): $2.70-$4.30 From New York (JFK) to Buenos Aires (EZE): $2.10-$3.20 Read more in our press release and the full BNEF-EDF analysis, Carbon-Neutral Growth for Aviation: At What Price? – See more at: http://blogs.edf.org…h.LWzQqdaa.dpuf Continue reading
