The Indian government released a report recently which predicted a fourfold increase in carbon emissions output in the next two decades. According to the government report, India’s carbon emissions would increase to 4 to 7 billion tonnes from last year’s level of 1.4 billion tonnes by 2031.

India’s environment minister, however, preferred to point out another finding in the report. The report predicts almost 100 percent increase in per capita emissions but the minister noted that even with a 3.5 to 4 tonnes per capita output it would remain below the global average. The globally agreed limit of per capita emission for sustainable development is 2 tonnes.

That is the argument that the Indian government has put forward frequently in order to dodge international pressure to reduce its carbon emissions. India maintains that its per capita carbon emissions are way below those of the developed countries and thus it would be unfair to ask it to set mandatory emission reduction targets.

Read more of this story »

The next climate treaty is likely to include much tougher emission reduction goals for the developed countries and given the tormenting economic conditions their governments could be looking to outsource a significant percentage their emission reduction responsibilities to developing countries.

Although all the developed countries involved in negotiations for the next climate treaty agree that tougher emission reduction goals are necessary to combat global warming, they also acknowledge the fact that they are at loss of adequate resources to achieve those goals. While many plan to introduce carbon trading schemes the economic crisis means that the effectiveness of such schemes cannot be guaranteed. And thus, these countries seem to be looking for some tweaks in order to achieve those goals while avoiding any further damage to their economic growth.

The emission reduction schemes of both European Union and the United States allow a major portion of the emissions goals to be achieved by outsourcing them to developing countries. Experts fear that the real reduction in domestic emissions could be very less.

Read more of this story »

With eyes on the Copenhagen talks for discussion on the next climate policy, the European Union plans to propose a tax on the carbon emissions of the developed nations, a move which could generate more than $200 billion by 2020. These funds will be used in helping developing and poor nations move from fossils fuels based energy systems to those based on renewable sources.

The European Union proposes that carbon offsetting through the trade of carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism be phased out and replaced by a scheme under which the developed nations would commit to cut their carbon emissions but would also pay taxes for extra emissions. The proposal also calls for a similar scheme for the ‘advanced developing nations’ like India and China but fails to clarify its nature.

Carbon offsetting cannot be pursued as a long term solution to mitigate the global carbon emissions and thus the Clean Development Mechanism should be seen only as a transformational step and not the solution to the problem. Replacing carbon offsetting with binding emission reductions seems to be the obvious next step but one has to ask if the world can afford a climate tax at this time of economic meltdown.

Read more of this story »

To be held November 18 – 19, people are encouraged to join in via webcast. The event will consist of high-level negotiations to lay the groundwork for the next global agreement on climate change. The United Nations will begin negotiating this agreement in earnest in December at a meeting in Poland.

“This international summit will bring together world leaders to develop creative, collaborative actions to advance the global climate agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that will be negotiated in Poland in December and in Copenhagen next year,” the governor said.

Read more of this story »

There are two well known and highly charged sayings about land:

—–agriculture is the foundation of economic growth
—–all land use is inherently political

The fast approaching world of a carbon market could see how we use land becoming the most important issue in stopping climate change becoming a disaster for mankind.

Read more of this story »

On Friday, the European Council adopted a directive that demands aviation activities must be included in the EU’s Emission Trading System (ETS). The ETS started operations back in 2005 in an effort to curb Global Warming, and is the largest multi-country Greenhouse Gas emission trading system world-wide.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) strongly objected to the decision - duh! The IATA accounts for over 200 airlines and 93-percent of scheduled international air traffic.

Read more of this story »

Carbon offsetting has been around for a while now, giving you the opportunity to reduce your “carbon footprint” by trading cash for your personal carbon output. In most cases, this quid pro quo occurs through a donation to an organization that plants trees of some sort in some place where, hopefully (but not always), they are both needed and helpful to the original habitat. In theory, these trees then sequester carbon dioxide in the air–a major cause of global warming, acid rain, and other current environmental problems.

Let me say upfront that so far I have been skeptical of carbon offsetting. However good the underlying intentions, this sort of tradeoff can be used as an excuse to keep on stomping around on the Earth and avoid making real changes in our lifestyles. If we pay for the things we step on, then that absolves us from guilt or responsibility, right? If we can buy our way out of guilt, then we can buy our way out of changing ourselves, right?

Also problematic is the fact that many offsetting programs may or may not be reliable; it is often hard to tell how trustworthy one organization is or how true its claims are about its use of funds. Even if the organization does use offsetting donations to plant trees or do something similar, how can we be sure that the measures employed are indeed helpful overall (e.g., the right types of trees are planted, needy/imperiled habitats are targeted, sustainable methods are used, etc.)?

In light of this skepticism, I am surprisingly excited now that The Nature Conservancy has launched its own Voluntary Carbon Offset Program. I find this to be a really noteworthy venture for TNC, since it is a global leader in habitat and species preservation, research, advocacy, and general stewardship–or, as its new motto puts it, “Protecting Nature. Preserving Life.”

The Conservancy’s Program is actually going to involve a collection of individual projects focused on restoring and preserving specific areas using the funds contributed through voluntary carbon offsets. The first is the Tensas River Basin Project, which seeks to restore and preserve a key tract of land in Louisiana encompassing forests once populated by ivory-billed woodpeckers (hopefully there are still a few of these flying around!), Florida panthers, and Red Wolves.

Read more of this story »

Ahimbisibwe owns a little plot of land on which she grows some of the trees involved in TetraPak’s contract to produce fresh air for all the pollution caused by its production processes. A case study of the carbon sequestration project on EcoSystemMarketplace.com reveals interesting insights into the practices of an emissions offsetting program.

Read more of this story »