Showing results for: Carbon rationing/trading/offsetting
In efforts to limit carbon emissions, schemes have been developed which aim to allocate a ‘fair share’ of GHG emissions to individuals, businesses or nations. When the allocated allowed emissions are priced, permits to emit can be traded for entities in a carbon market at global, local or industry-wide scales. Some carbon markets are already in place. The EU Emissions Trading System, for example, follows the ‘cap and trade’ principle whereby a total amount of certain GHGs within the system can be emitted is limited and reduced over time. Companies receive or buy permits and can trade these among themselves. In theory, this should result in a situation where emission reductions are made where they are cheapest to accomplish. Offsetting of carbon emissions involves balancing a certain quantity of emitted GHG with an equivalent reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere via mechanisms such as planting forest, avoiding deforestation, or putting in place energy-saving technologies. Carbon markets have been criticised by those who argue that the total carbon budget is often set too high (and the consequent price of carbon too low), that the risk of fraud is significant, and that these markets may give rise to complex financial derivatives which can lead to speculative booms and busts. Proving ‘additionality’ – that the forest planting, avoided deforestation or energy saving technology – would not have occurred in the absence of carbon financing is also difficult. The ‘contraction and convergence model’ of carbon rationing follows a ‘fair shares of less’ principle – whereby people in developed countries would need to reduce their emissions (contract) and those in developing countries may increase theirs to the point where everyone emits equally (converge).
This report from US climate NGO Carbon180 examines barriers that farmers in the United States face when moving towards agricultural practices that build soil health and sequester carbon. It finds that they include insufficient technical assistance, scientific knowledge gaps, and a lack of strong and reliable incentives.
This paper examines the effectiveness of different forms of ecological compensation schemes - i.e. offsetting biodiversity lost to developments such as oil palm plantations or mines - in achieving “No Net Loss” of biodiversity. Using simulations of four case studies, it finds that none of the 18 ecological compensation policy designs studied would achieve No Net Loss of native vegetation extent.
This paper maps the potential for restoring forests across the world, finding that there is room for a 25% increase in forested area without interfering with existing forests or urban and cropland areas. This could store 205 Gt of carbon after several decades (for comparison, current emissions from fossil fuels and cement production are roughly 10 Gt of carbon each year).
The Oxford Martin School has helped to develop NaturEtrade, an online marketplace for ecosystems services. Landowners or managers can set a price that they would accept in return for keeping their land in its present ecological condition, rather than putting it to other uses that might degrade it. Buyers who want the land to remain unchanged, e.g. a business further downstream that wants to limit flooding, can enter into a contract with the landowner or manager.
US-based consulting firm Breakthrough Strategies & Solutions has created a list of recent papers, reports, conferences, media items, jobs and other resources on the topics of soil health and soil carbon sequestration.
A carbon tax applied across the whole economy, including agriculture, could put more people at risk of hunger (in terms of dietary energy availability) than climate change itself, according to a recent paper.
A report by the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council finds that negative emissions technologies (NETs) have ‘limited realistic potential’ and cannot be relied upon to remove carbon at the rate envisaged in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios for avoiding dangerous climate change.
This tool provides business users with an overview of their cradle-to-farm gate emissions. It is developed by Ecofys, the University of Aberdeen and PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. They are inviting companies to use the developed methodology and set science-based targets to contribute to keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius.
This paper discusses EU climate and agriculture policy instruments and analyses how these can motivate farmers to adopt soil carbon sequestration projects.
In a guest post for Carbon brief University of Leeds professor of population ecology and FCRN advisory board member Tim Benton and Dr Bojana Bajželj of WRAP conclude that food related emissions will take up our entire carbon budget by 2050 if we don’t change our diets and the way our food is produced, so destroying any chance of meeting the raised ambition of the Paris Agreement.
In this Nature Comment, Phil Williamson of the Natural England Research Council and the University of East Anglia, argues that in order for the climate goals agreed at the COP21 in Paris last year to be achieved, a full assessment must be made of the methods for removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.
This report by Ecometrica summarises the five key agreed outcomes of the recent 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) held in Paris and highlights their implications for businesses.
In this comment piece in Nature, a group of researchers argue that putting a price on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to curb emissions must form the centrepiece of any comprehensive climate-change policy.
They point out that the current price of carbon remains much too low relative to the hidden environmental, health and societal costs of burning a tonne of coal or a barrel of oil. The global average price is below zero, once half a trillion dollars of fossil-fuel subsidies are factored in.
In 2013, the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) helped advance climate-smart agriculture in 20 countries around the world, through close collaborations with farmers, civil society, governments and researchers.
This book by Michael I. Brown presents a major critique of the aims and policies of REDD as currently structured, particularly in terms of their social feasibility. With deforestation being a key source of greenhouse gas emissions and of climate change, and forests representing major sinks for carbon initiatives such as REDD, reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, have however been widely endorsed by policy-makers.
This paper, produced by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), explores the opportunities for climate change mitigation in the agricultural sector through the use of carbon markets. Carbon markets have not yet brought the technical potential for agricultural mitigation to fruition due to constraints on both the demand and supply side in terms of limited market opportunities and constraints to project implementation.
A paper published in the International Journal of Critical Accounting looks at the effects of the EU’s emission trading scheme and Scandinavia’s carbon tax scheme. It finds that neither of these schemes have made any significant impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.