With just a few weeks to go before the UN Conference on Climate Change from the 7th to 18th December 2009 in Copenhagen Denmark, not everyone from political leaders and negotiators representing countries, environmentalists, activist and the academia are content with current draft framework for the new climate protocol. World leaders, governments and their representatives will be negotiating a new protocol to replace the Kyoto Protocol by 2012.
 
While the details of the framework is being discussed and crunched out, there is an increasing number of movements by ordinary citizens and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) expressing their views and resolutions calling on governments and political leaders to setup a realistic policy framework that addresses and mitigates Climate Change and Global Warming.

The Carbon Trading System (ETS)

Understanding Carbon Trading and how it operates is important to knowing how it relates to the issue of Climate Change.

Carbon trading or Emissions Trading System (ETS) is a government administered scheme where greenhouse gas pollution is supposedly reduced by setting limits (the cap) to the emissions of industry sectors and allowing the buying and selling (the trade) of 'carbon' permits, or credits.

The origin of this scheme is contained in the Kyoto Protocol Article 17 which binds countries that become signatories to achieve a certain target to reduce or limit their greenhouse gas emissions. Countries that have signed up to the Kyoto Protocol and have implemented or in the process of implementing a carbon trading scheme include UK, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand and recently Australia in 2008. The European Union has the largest emissions trading system in the world. Called EU ETS (European Union Emissions Trading System), it has been in operation since 2005.

In the EU ETS system, each member country is imposed annual targets which in turn allocate certain industries such as coal-based electricity generators a limit or cap representing the total amount of greenhouse gases they are allowed to emit. If an electricity company produces beyond its limit, it may opt to be fined by the governing authority or purchase more carbon permits from others who have produced below their limit.

The carbon permits or credits are measured in allowances called EUAs representing one (1) tonne of carbon dioxide. If for example, a company is allocated 40,000 EUAs, it is permitted to emit 40,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. If it produces 45,000 tonnes, it is required to purchase 5,000 EUAs on the EU ETS carbon market. The EU ETS carbon market now operates through brokers and on electronic exchanges similar to financial stock exchanges where EUAs are traded on a daily basis. On the EU ETS, carbon permits are now trading at US$20 (K60) per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted.

The carbon trading system was supposed to offer emissions at the lowest possible cost to the community however, the European Union experience has seen the cost of energy actually going up. Most critics argue that the electricity suppliers are the winners on both ends; making profits at the expense of consumers as well as not reducing enough emissions necessary  to slow down global warming.

With the Copenhagen conference looming, there is concern among environmentalists, NGOs and some sections of the academia that carbon trading if endorsed, could be hijacked by speculators, hedge funds, and the same financial and investment houses that were responsible for the recent financial world financial crisis.

Clean Development Mechanism or CDM is another scheme contained in Kyoto Protocol Article 12. CDM involves investment by greenhouse gases emitters in Industrialised Nations in sustainable development projects that reduce emissions in developing countries. This is also seen by many experts as another failure whereby not much has happened in developing energy efficient projects in developing countries and at the same time curbing emissions by those that fund it. In terms of forest management, CDM only compensates for replanting forests (reforestation) and planting new forests (afforestation). It does not compensate for reduction in deforestation.

Another scheme which is not mandatory is called Voluntary Emissions Reduction or VER. In this scheme, industries and individuals voluntarily compensate their emissions or provide an additional contribution to mitigating climate change. By following certain regulations and standards, the quality of the reductions can become credible and tradable as ‘carbon credits’ on the carbon trading or emissions system.

REDD, will it mitigate Global Warming?

Carbon Trading is more of a scheme for the Industrialised Nations who produce and consume more energy than the developing countries such as PNG. However, the scheme that will involve Papua New Guinea directly is R.E.D.D, acronym for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. REDD is the scheme that is proposed for inclusion in the Carbon Trading System whereby Industrialised Nations would be eligible to purchase ‘carbon credits’ from forests in countries like Papua New Guinea.

Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) scheme has come about as a result of the realisation by the international community that the forests store more carbon than previously estimated. It is also estimated that 20% of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere comes from deforestation and burning of forests. For these reasons, REDD is seen as a vital component of any comprehensive solution to global warming.

Under the REDD scheme, it is proposed that developing countries with forests would be eligible to sell carbon stored in their forests to polluting industries of the developed world using the ETS system. In other words, a forest covered country such as Papua New Guinea that wishes to participate in the REDD scheme would be required to measure the total amount of carbon in a designated forest area, package it into tradable ‘carbon credits’ for trade on the ETS. The carbon credits would then be able to be bought and sold by industries and countries participating on the ETS. Being a system similar to financial stock exchange, ‘carbon credits’ traded on the ETS would also be subjected to price fluctuation.

While REDD has the potential of generating millions of kina for the forest covered developing countries, it is also seen by many especially environmentalists, NGOs, some sections of the academia and civil society organisations as not the ideal scheme that will reduce the overall emissions at the same time protecting the rights of indigenous people.

One such group is the Accra Caucus on Forest and Climate Change, a group of representatives from the civil society and Indigenous People’s organisation representing nearly 30 countries and based in Accra, Ghana. Accra Caucus is concerned that the current text on the REDD deal is likely to bind finance from Industrialised with conditions that violates indigenous people’s rights to use the land and resources in the forests. For example, cutting down of trees to make gardens or build traditional houses could be prohibited once the government has a forest area covered under a REDD agreement. This is very frightening and must not be allowed to happen in Papua New Guinea where 90% of Papua New Guineans depend on the land and its resources such as forests for their livelihood.

Similar experiences have already happened in countries such as Brazil and Bolivia of Latin America participating under the CDM and EVR schemes. In a region called Guaraqueçaba in Brazil, it has recently been revealed that three big companies of the USA had actually bought rights to carbon sequestered in the forests under the guise of preservation of the planet’s diversity.  This project run by The Nature Conservancy did not recognise the rights of the indigenous people and in fact forced the eviction and imprisonment of anyone who tried to cut down trees for basic survival needs such as making gardens or building houses.

The Noel Kempff project in Bolivia which started in 1996 was an agreement between the Bolivian government and three massively polluting companies of USA namely: American Electric Power (AEP), BP-Amoco (BP) and PacifiCorp. The agreement which was signed to protect 650,000 hectares of rainforest for 30 years allowed the three companies to continue to emit greenhouse gases knowing that it would be offset by carbon sequestered in the forest. This is the kind of project that has conservationists questioning the REDD scheme; that it would only allow pollution to continue without drastically reducing greenhouse gases.

Some lobby groups in third world countries argue that REDD is a means for the developed world to shift the responsibility of global warming to developing countries. By preserving forests which violates indigenous people’s rights to the forest, industries in the North can continue ‘business as usual’. They also argue that the Industrialised Nations have been polluting the atmosphere far longer and owes the climate their current status as the developed world. Another concern is that the REDD proposals under discussion does not distinguish between native forests and large scale tree monoculture such as clearing of natural forests for cash crops such as oil palm. In other words, a plantation of oil palm would be treated as a forest under the REDD scheme.

Awareness Movements around the World

In September 26 2009, World Wide Views (WWViews), a world citizen consultation group sponsored by the Danish government organized the first-ever global democratic survey that involved about 4,000 citizens of 38 countries to gather ordinary people’s views about Climate Change. The final result of the survey recommended the world and political leaders to:
•    Keep the temperature increase below 2 degrees
•    Annex 1 countries should reduce emissions with 25-40 % or more by 2020
•    Fast-growing economies should also reduce emissions by 2020
•    Low-income developing countries should limit emissions
•    Give high priority to an international financial mechanism
•    Punish non-complying countries
•    Make technology available to everyone
•    Strengthen or supplement international institutions

The aim of World Wide Views is to make world leaders become aware that ordinary citizens have a stake in the agreement and that their recommendations represents collective views of people across borders, religion, culture and lifestyle.

Another Climate Change grassroots movement gaining momentum amongst the ordinary citizens all over the world is 350. 350 is derived from the leading scientists conclusion that 350 PPM (“parts per million”) is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 350 PPM is the limit humanity and the natural environment needs to get back to as soon as possible to avoid runaway climate changes. 350 started the massive campaign on October 24th 2009 which involved ordinary people from across the globe. The aim is to let the world leaders and negotiators at the Copenhagen Climate Summit know that the number 350 marks either success or failure of the negotiations. Through creative campaigns and actions where the photographs of these events appear on the Internet, media and on politicians’ desks, it is hoped that it will change what these negotiators think they can achieve right before they make the important decisions of the UN treaty.

Clean Energy Sources as Alternative to Carbon Trading

Given the urgency required by everyone from both the developed and the developing countries to prevent runaway climate changes, organisations and groups campaigning for a quick response to global warming are demanding strong action by world leaders for the funding and promotion of clean energy sources as alternative to carbon trading. These energy sources include solar, wind, hydro and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). The PNG LNG project is very important not only in the economic development of Papua New Guinea but will also place PNG as a leading nation in supply of clean energy to the fast growing Asian economies.

Given all the attention that the Copenhagen Summit has been getting all over the world, Papua New Guinea and its people must be made aware of what carbon trading and REDD is all about and decide themselves whether they stand to benefit from it. Of greater importance is whether this will be the defining moment for the survival of human race and rest of the living organisms on planet Earth.

Comments

Add New Search

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Title:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.26

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."