More opinions from the Carbon Desk

I recently posted on the report of the WWF and the additionality of Clean Development Mechanism projects, an opinion that might have been premature. The report and others like a paper published by Axel Michaelowa for Climate Strategies questions the additionality of up to 20% of the emissions reductions from the CDM and especially in India. I claimed that the additionality factor was time, when the project would have taken place as opposed to if the project would have taken place.

The articles got me thinking and looking at what some of the projects really were saying about why they wouldn't have been done without revenue from the sale of the carbon credits. I have actually changed my opinion on the subject. I have to agree with these reports. The projects aren't additional. These are projects that probably would have been done without the revenue from CDM. But some of the projects seem to be good projects. One was a wind power project, others were process changes in heavily polluting industry with environmental and health benefits for the local community...

But at the same time Axel Michaelowa makes a disturbing point on the question of additionality. The only truly additional projects are those that have no financial benefit aside from revenues from the sale of carbon credits. Which means HFC23 reduction projects...and N2O reduction projects. In other words, the low hanging fruit are the projects that actually meet the qualifications of the CDM.

What makes this disturbing is that these are the least beneficial developmentally. It might be time to reevaluate what is additional and what isn't additional.

There are two types of additionality...and it might be time to decide which is more important or if one is more important. I have come to the conclusion that maybe it doesn't matter. It is cynical but maybe it is the truth.

I want to see the CDM become more developmentally focused, but haven't fully figured out how. The problem is that the companies who are required to off-set emissions don't care where their off-sets come from. A cement company is a cement company...a bag of cement is a bag of cement. It is a commodity and as a commodity it is interchangeable with any other bag of cement.

When was the last time you thought about the environmental record of a cement company when buying a bag of cement? I have to admit that every time I have bought a bag of cement I have always purchased the cheapest one. The question is how do we decommodify cement, glass, electricity and Certified Emissions Reductions? I have no idea how we can do the first three, but I have some ideas on the last one.

First, provide easy access to these sorts of projects. Reputable NGOs need to approach companies based on their core competence...if an NGO has experience in creating renewable energies in rural areas why not use that experience and the CDM to facilitate these projects?

Second, place a face on every emissions reduction.

Third, provide complete transparency in how, why and how much each off-set cost.

Fourth, begin to question where your cement comes from, where your glass comes from...we can't control the decisions made Upstream by companies with no direct interaction with customers, but we can affect the people who sell their products. Ask who made the glass, the cement, the metal in your car...even if it is only yourself. Make conscious decisions and make small changes....

Sermon over, choir dismissed.