| Sourced From Meattradenewsdaily.co.uk |

Brazil could make up to $16 billion (£9.5 billion) every year to put towards the cost of Amazon rainforest protection and emission cuts if it takes steps to sell on its carbon credits, it has been reported.

According to extracts from an interview published by Reuters, head of the Brazilian Carbon Markets Association Flavio Gazani said that the country could earn between eight and sixteen billion every year.

“We all should agree that emissions from deforestation are a significant part of the problem, and we should also admit that we could use some help,” he said.

The source went on to point out that the Brazilian government has long been under pressure to reduce Amazon deforestation levels.

The rainforest clearing is mainly down to cattle ranch activity which, as well as logging and the deforestation of the rainforest, is one of the biggest reasons for global warming and climate change, as cutting down trees sees CO2 released into the atmosphere.

Brazil could make up to $16 billion (£9.5 billion) every year to put towards the cost of Amazon rainforest protection and emission cuts if it takes steps to sell on its carbon credits, it has been reported.

According to extracts from an interview published by Reuters, head of the Brazilian Carbon Markets Association Flavio Gazani said that the country could earn between eight and sixteen billion every year.

“We all should agree that emissions from deforestation are a significant part of the problem, and we should also admit that we could use some help,” he said.

Source: MercoPress.com

| Sourced From Etaiwannews.com |

Taipei, Nov. 18 (CNA) Deputy Foreign Minister Shen Lyu-shun said Wednesday it is hoped that in the future Taiwan will be able to attend the conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as an observer.

At the upcoming UNFCCC conference in Copenhagen in December, Taiwan’s representation will be confined to non-governmental organizations, including the Industrial Technology Research Institute, the Environmental Quality Protection Foundation, the Taiwan Institute for Sustainable Energy and Supreme Master Television.

Noting that UNFCCC meetings are convened regularly throughout the year, Shen said Taiwan may apply to attend as an observer of the World Health Assembly (WHA), since observers of affiliated agencies of the United Nations are allowed to participate.

“Our role this year is to figure out what are the issues of concern and see what mechanisms will be worked out at the conference,” he said.

(By Shnyao Shih and Rachel Chen)

| Sourced From Businessgreen.com |

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, whose government was elected in 2007 on a pro-green platform, may call an early election if Parliament fails to pass his carbon trading programme next week, according to a senior minister.

The government is currently negotiating possible changes to the carbon trading proposals with opposition members, who control the upper house of the Senate, the aim being to broker a deal over the weekend.

Such changes are likely to involve excluding agriculture from the scheme, although the conservative Liberal-National coalition in opposition is also pushing for coal mining, food processing and a range of other industries to be exempted too.

The Australian Parliament enters its final week before the long summer recess on Monday, which means that time is short. But if agreement can be reached, it should guarantee the extra seven votes required by the government to push the package through.

The Senate rejected the proposed legislation in August, but opposition leader Malcolm Turner has since put his leadership on the line by backing the initiative, dividing his party in the process.

Up to 30 of his 87 members of Parliament are threatening to defy him and vote against the scheme, prompting speculation that he may face a leadership challenge if the bill is defeated.

But business groups are calling for the issue to be settled as soon as possible as uncertainty over the future is making it difficult for firms to make investment decisions and to sign future deals, especially in the utilities sector.

If the legislation is passed, the carbon trading scheme would begin operating in July 2011 and cover 75 per cent of Australia’s carbon emissions. The goal is to cut such emissions by five per cent on 2000 levels by 2020.

Australia is currently the largest per capita polluter in the developed world because it uses fossil fuels, and particularly coal, for about 90 per cent of its electricity generation.

Cath Everett, BusinessGreen

| Sourced From Prlog.org |

Global climate change and reduction of greenhouse gasses (GHG) are an important concern for many US businesses and throughout the world, and are shaping policies and initiatives. The United States is responsible of 23% of the world’s GHG emissions but as of 2009, there are no federal restrictions and no binding federal carbon trading system. However, many states and corporations have committed to cutting GHG through emissions trading. ( http://www.bharatbook.com/detail.asp?id=125852&rt=The-Gl … )

Carbon emission credits are a key component of national and international emissions trading schemes that have been implemented to mitigate global warming. They provide a way to reduce greenhouse effect emissions on a large scale by capping total annual emissions, allowing the market to assign a monetary value to any shortfall through trading. Credits can be exchanged between businesses or bought and sold in international markets. Credits can also be used to finance carbon reduction schemes between trading partners and around the world. There are also many companies that sell carbon credits to commercial and individual customers interested in lowering their carbon footprint on a voluntary basis.

For trading purposes, one allowance is equivalent to one metric ton of CO2 emissions. There are three legally binding carbon trading arrangements and one major voluntary market. The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement with two main trading devices, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI). The European Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is a government-backed trading program adopted by the European Council. The United States does not participate in the Kyoto Protocol but the US voluntary carbon markets can be divided into two main segments: the voluntary, but legally binding, cap-and-trade system that is the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and the broader, non-binding, over the counter (OTC) offset market.

Some of the main markets for carbon reduction projects include renewable energy (solar, wind and hydropower), energy efficiency / demand-side management, methane capture or waste-to-energy, reforestation, carbon capture and storage (sequestration), power plant revamping and fuel switching. These are all sectors in which the United States excels, providing gateways into carbon market participation.

Emissions trading is on track to play a key role in the world’s transition to a low-carbon economy. As countries meet their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, the global carbon market has experienced rapid growth. From 2005 to 2008, the market grew from $11 billion to $126 billion. This growth and accompanying diversification has been made possible by an increasingly elaborate set of players. In addition to the suppliers, intermediaries and end users in the carbon market, services providers are also needed in the areas of quality control, legal advisory services, information and analysis and capacity building. Legal frameworks and regulatory bodies are also present. Although the Kyoto Protocol will expire in 2012, there is general consensus that a cap-and-trade system will be established in the United States and a global carbon trading system will be a fixture in the world economy for decades. Carbon is predicted by some to become a commodity with its emissions regulated worldwide.

Trading Thin Air makes important forecasts regarding the future of the carbon market and highlights ways current and prospective players can position themselves in this global market. No other market research report provides both the comprehensive analysis and extensive data that Trading Thin Air offers. Plus, you’ll benefit from extensive data, presented in easy-to-read diagrams, tables and charts.

To know more and to buy a copy of your report feel free to visit : http://www.bharatbook.com/detail.asp?id=125852&rt=The-Gl …

Or

Contact us at :

Bharat Book Bureau
Tel: +91 22 27578668
Fax: +91 22 27579131
Email: info@bharatbook.com
Website: www.bharatbook.com
Blog: http://bharatbookresearch.blogspot.com
Follow us on twitter: http://twitter.com/3bbharatbook

# # #

Bharat Book Bureau is the leading business information aggregator providing market research reports and online databases. Bharatbook is also into the business of marketing conferences worldwide and undertakes custom research.

| Sourced From Nzherald.co.nz |

Michael Kinsley, writing in Time magazine in an article entitled “Credit for bad behaviour” in July 2007, suggested that the purchase of carbon credits to offset greenhouse gas emissions could be compared with the Middle Ages practice of buying indulgences for the forgiveness of sins.

Martin Luther (1487-1546) was a leader of the Protestant Reformation in Germany. His first idea of revolt occurred when he saw indulgences being sold, a practice he openly condemned – leading to his eventually being excommunicated.

In a similar manner to indulgences, purchasing carbon credits to offset greenhouse gas emissions can be seen as an alternative to making the hard decision to reduce these emissions.

It is much easier for politicians to tell people they must pay a little extra for their electricity and petrol than to try and persuade them that they must cut back on their energy use. Some of us can still remember the oil shocks of the 1970s and carless days, which was not a happy experience.

Furthermore, from July 1 next year, we will all be expected to pay around 6 cents per litre extra for petrol and around 10 per cent more on our electricity bills, so that the supplier of the petrol or electricity can purchase carbon credits on our behalf.

The idea is that significant emissions reductions can be obtained at low or no cost if people can be persuaded to use energy more efficiently.

But increases of this magnitude are close to the range of normal price fluctuations and are unlikely to influence consumer behaviour. A widely held view now is that that the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will have no effect on reducing New Zealand’s gross greenhouse gas emissions, but it will be a great source of revenue collection.

Even a much more effective scheme than the one currently proposed would on its own be unlikely to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless it was part of a co-ordinated set of policy measures to achieve that objective. There is no evidence as yet that this co-ordination is likely to happen in the near future.

So from July 1, 2010, we will be asked to pay more for our electricity and petrol for a scheme which is likely to have no effect on reducing our gross greenhouse gas emissions. And it is unlikely that the average consumer is going to be happy to pay this extra cost as “indulgence money”, especially at a time of considerable constraint on wage increases.

As taxpayers we are also likely to pay heavily in the future to buy more carbon credits to offset New Zealand’s dismal failure so far in controlling its greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels (at present 22 per cent above this level) in accordance with our agreement to do so under the Kyoto Protocol signed in 1997.

A recent estimate has been made that the total debt as a result of our failure to control these emissions could amount to $100 billion or more by the year 2050. Have we any right to impose such a massive debt on future generations?

Much of this debt is caused by major industrial emitters and the agricultural sector being given a “free ride” for many years into the future, because they are regarded as “trade-exposed sectors”.

This means that the majority of the burden will fall on individual taxpayers both in paying higher prices for their energy, and servicing the huge debt which is likely to build up.

The Government’s revised emissions trading scheme is due to be reported back to Parliament. The select committee considering the legislation became deadlocked and could make no recommendations.

Instead of this, members of each party on the committee have prepared their own separate report. Parliament will therefore have to debate the bill clause by clause in late-night sittings.

The sensible alternative would be to delay bringing the bill back to Parliament until some degree of consensus could be reached, bearing in mind that this legislation needs to remain in place for a long period of time without being changed every time the government changes.

But the present Government seems to be determined to press on with a flawed legislative process and ram the bill through Parliament under urgency before the climate change conference begins in Copenhagen next month.

This is irresponsible behaviour, especially since it is now clear that no binding international agreement is going to be reached in Copenhagen and it may take another two years to reach that agreement.

The bill is also noteworthy in that it is the first legislation that the Treasury has refused to sign off, which in itself is a telling indictment of the present proposed legislation.

The National-led Government will need support to pass the legislation to introduce its emissions scheme which will not come from the Act Party who regards emissions trading as a “dopey idea”. The only likely source of support is the Maori Party who is at present negotiating with National a special deal for some iwi involved in forestry projects to be given preferential treatment in exchange for Maori Party support for the legislation.

This illustrates the very worst aspect of the MMP electoral system. The Maori Party is also asking for more home insulation, and financial help for those who cannot afford extra energy costs resulting from the trading scheme.

I believe that it is now time to “go back to square one” and start again, to define the best, most cost-effective way for New Zealand to control future increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Purchasing indulgences by way of carbon credits is not the best way to go.

By John Blakeley

* John Blakeley is a programme director in the Department of Civil Engineering at Unitec in Auckland.

| Sourced From Manmonthly.com.au |

A delegation from the city of Greater Geelong plans to head to Canberra on Thursday (19th) to lobby for the protection of it’s manufacturing sector.

The group from city hall, including Mayor John Mitchell, Bruce Harwood and John Doull, has accepted an invitation from groups representing the aluminium and cement industries, to join other manufacturing regions from across Australia in debating an agreed position on carbon-trading subsidies.

That joint position will then be used to lobby the Federal Government.

The decision to enter the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme discussions comes after City of Greater Geelong representatives met with industries in the region including Alcoa, Shell, Blue Circle Cement and their suppliers.

These companies are calling for a higher subsidy percentage than the Federal Government is currently considering, which they claim will ensure their long-term survival in Australia.

Amendments put up for discussion by the Opposition suggest emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries, like Alcoa, receive 94.5 per cent government subsidies until 2015 and 90 per cent thereafter.

A spokesperson for Geelong Manufacturing Council said the current scheme made it difficult because commodity producers at the mercy of world prices couldn’t pass that impact on to customers.

The group plans to meet with politicians on both sides of parliament.

| Sourced From Greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com |

One of the most daunting hurdles for the trade in carbon offsets is the logistical challenge of connecting customers — typically carbon dioxide emitting companies based in America or Europe — with offset producers in places like South America, Asia, and Africa.

With the help of an innovative new program developed by Veli Pohjonen and the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, however, this global interaction may soon become as easy as sending a text message.

Many carbon trading efforts have struggled because of their cumbersome administration and multiple middle men, Mr. Pohjonen said — adding that they have “not led to anything remarkable in the combat against climate change.”

Under Mr. Pohjonen’s system, small Ethiopian farmers, for example, would measure the diameters of trees on their land twice a year and put the information into a text message, which, along with each farmer’s unique identification code, is then sent to the regional Watershed Users’ Association office.

Software computes the amount of carbon stored on each farm as well as the change from the previous measurement; any increase in stored carbon dioxide is converted into cash using the going rate of CO2 on international markets, and farmers are paid by their local association.

Major challenges remain, of course. Not least: keeping farmers honest and verifying the data they report, a hurdle that would almost certainly demand at least some of the administrative overhead that Mr. Pohjonen aims to avoid.

And the computer modeling used to calculate the amount of CO2 absorbed by stands of trees — a blunt tool at the moment — would need to be calibrated to account for the idiosyncrasies of Ethiopian ecology, and later, to those of other regions that might use the tool.

But finding more efficient ways to connect remote carbon offset projects to a faraway industrial world increasingly hungry for them is, to Mr. Pohjonen, the first hurdle. “Transaction costs can be minimized in another manner,” he said, “rather than just making projects bigger.”

Mr. Pohjonen’s son Matti, a Fellow in Digital Culture at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, has been overseeing the technology end of the project.

“The standard function of a mobile phone is talking and texting,” the younger Mr. Pohjonen said. But it can also be used, he added, to access the Internet and run queries regarding carbon prices or exchange rates.

The Pohjonens have been testing the system on eight farms in the country’s central highlands, where the average farmer is earning approximately 1000 Birr, or $80, every six months from their carbon offsets.

“In the Ethiopian context it is considerable money,” says Mr. Pohjonen. “It would give an added value of 10 to 20 percent compared to what he would get selling the trees as poles.”

* EcoSecurities buy to help JPM clients manage price risks
* JPM commods head “happy” even if just pre-2012 portfolio
* New EcoSecurities CEO to be named soon
* EcoSecurities will not be integrated into JP Morgan

LONDON, Nov 3 (Reuters) – JP Morgan’s <JPM.M> acquisition of clean energy project developer EcoSecurities <ECO.L> will help its clients manage commodity price risks, even if the investment has a shelf life of only three years, JP Morgan’s head of global commodities said.

Continue Reading on ThomsonReuters

| Sourced From Cosystemmarketplace.com |

Broad but not deep, Australia’s new mandatory cap-and-trade regime limits the emissions of industries responsible for 75% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Those limits, however, are weak compared to those of most developed countries, and critics say the law actually prevents voluntary offsets from being used to incentivize deeper cuts.

9 November 2009 | From deadly drought and fire seasons to red dust clouds choking their urban settlements, Australians don’t have to look beyond their national border to imagine the prospective social and environmental costs of climate change. Responding to local problems with local solutions, many Australians prefer voluntary carbon offsets sourced from – you guessed it – local projects.

The government’s proposed mandatory cap-and-trade scheme, however, leaves little room for the kinds of local projects that Australians prefer when looking to make voluntary reductions – an omission that critics say disables Australians from making an additional impact on national abatement, and could lead to a backlash against carbon finance down the road.

“If no local voluntary abatement is taken into account in the scheme, we’ll see outrage from the public that their individual action at home doesn’t have an impact on national emissions,” says Peter Shuey, Director of Ark Climate Group, which includes local and international offsets among its energy services.

Mutually Exclusive Markets

Shuey’s concerns stem from the fact that Australian carbon markets are mutually exclusive by design: the government proposes that any regulated emissions sources cannot supply additional offsets to the voluntary market and vice versa.

This “wall” between the voluntary and compliance markets is common to all emissions trading schemes, particularly those that are used to comply with international commitments.

The Australian government aspires toward 100 per cent coverage of national emissions with its mandatory cap-and-trade scheme and broader Kyoto commitment. This leaves little to no room for a voluntary market based on domestic, much less local offsets.

Some critics concede that the disappearance of the domestic voluntary market is acceptable if government emissions targets are in line with the latest climate science, which currently calls for reductions between 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

If national targets are inadequate, however, the government will have immobilized the voluntary market as an option for achieving additional abatement.

The Australian government has committed to an emissions target that is 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020 if other nations agree to a 450 parts per million global target at the international climate negotiations at Copenhagen in December.

If negotiators fail to reach this ambitious agreement the government will commit to reductions of between five and 15 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, falling far short of recommended reductions.

Shuey and other critics fear that that the proposed mandatory scheme limits Australians’ ability to finance domestic abatement beyond the government’s potentially weak national emissions targets.

They are also concerned that the government’s proposed alternatives to domestic offsets – including federal voluntary programs to promote emissions reductions above and beyond national targets – may lack the local flavor to sustain Aussies’ demand for voluntary action.

A Comprehensive Carbon Cap

The policies in question stem from the proposed Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which will go before the Senate for a second time later this month. The scheme is the government’s primary tool to meet its long-term carbon emissions targets. As written, it regulates, or “caps” around 75 percent of national greenhouse gas emissions.

The scheme covers a majority of the nation’s emissions while directly impacting only the nation’s largest polluters. Approximately 1,000 firms will participate in the compliance market, but many thousands of smaller emitters will remain exempt.

The government argues that the limited market size and focus on large, “upstream” emissions sources will result in lower administrative costs, improved market transparency and predictable environmental results.

Subsequently, it also stipulates that firms with a federal mandate to reduce their emissions cannot create offsets for use in the voluntary markets – even if they exceed their own reduction targets. Simply put, this leaves around 75 percent of emissions sources off-limits to the voluntary market for domestic offset projects.

What About Trees?

Though 25 percent of national emissions sources are not yet included in the scheme – including emissions from forestry, land use change and agriculture – the majority of these emissions currently count toward Australia’s international Kyoto commitment.

Because the government is ultimately responsible for reductions made in these sectors, they occur as a result of a regulation and cannot also be sold as credits to the voluntary market.

Under this design, the compliance market has diminished and will continue to crowd out the domestic voluntary market. If the nation’s targets are less than ambitious, Australians will be left with few options for financing additional domestic abatement to achieve more desirable environmental outcomes.

Shuey and other players in Australia’s voluntary carbon market industry – including local governments, carbon service providers and NGO’s – have voiced this concern to the government through written consultations.

The government’s response may not have been what the industry had in mind.

Government-Backed Voluntary Action

On May 4th, 2009, the government acknowledged many of the industry’s concerns when it announced a suite of federal programs to accommodate additional voluntary abatement.

Among these initiatives, for example, is the Australian Carbon Trust Energy Efficiency Savings Pledge Fund, which makes it possible for Australians to make tax-deductible donations to the government, which then pools the contributions and buys permits from the compliance scheme, which are then set aside or “retired.”

Offset retailers can also independently offer permits from the compliance scheme to clients who want to voluntarily retire them.

By reducing the number of permits that are available to polluters, permit retirement pressures the nation’s dirtiest firms to reduce their carbon emissions beyond what’s required by law, but Climate Positive’s Carbon Manager Nick Witherow worries that permit retirement is not an adequate substitute for domestic offsets.

“By definition, permits are not related to a particular project and so have no real story behind them,” he explains, adding that price is also an issue, because permits generated in the compliance market “will cost more than other instruments and therefore will increase the cost of (voluntary) offsetting.” He adds, “I expect that this would reduce the number of people or businesses who actually end up offsetting.”

Offsets that comply with a proposed Australian National Carbon Offset Standard will also be eligible for purchase and retirement under the government’s Pledge Fund. The National Carbon Offset Standard will define what constitutes a legitimate voluntary offset in the context of the mandatory scheme.

The government has yet to announce any details of the standard. Offset retailers speculate, however, that the standard will only recognize high-quality international offsets, like those originating from Gold Standard offset projects, and some domestic land-use change projects. The standard is intended to restore consumer confidence in voluntary offsets, which has waned in response to public debate between the government and industry over the necessity and treatment of offsets.

“As regards the Energy Efficiency Pledge Fund, I find this an interesting move,” says Witherow.

“The Government has come under a lot of vocal criticism from the voluntary carbon industry,” he adds, referring to charges that the government was disregarding the potential for voluntary domestic action. “Now they are essentially setting up a tax deductible carbon offsetting business themselves.”

Permit retirement, through the Energy Efficiency Savings Pledge Fund or offset retailers, is the only way Australians can directly finance domestic abatement above and beyond national targets.

The government has also pledged to account for Australians’ voluntary action when setting future emissions targets, using indicators like demand for home energy efficiency improvements and appliances, vehicle fuel efficiency and public transport. It has yet to release details on how or the degree to which voluntary action will impact cap-setting.

The Forest for the Trees

Long before permit retirement and the Pledge Fund became tools of the trade, the Australian voluntary carbon markets industry turned to another mechanism for local emissions reductions – forest carbon projects.

Witherow says that tree planting projects have been a popular way for Australians to maximize the benefits of voluntary action. “Australians know the country was over-cleared and want to do something about it,” he explains, “so it makes sense for them to ‘kill two birds with one stone,’ re-vegetate the country and offset their emissions.”

Forest carbon contributes to the 25 percent of uncovered emissions, which also includes emissions from agriculture and land use/land use change and forestry.

The proposed scheme allows eligible forest land owners to voluntarily “opt into” the scheme and receive one scheme permit for every net ton increase in carbon sequestered through reforestation after 1 July 2010. The government will announce in 2013 whether the scheme will also include agricultural emissions, which constitute 16 percent of national emissions.

Uncovered emissions sources cannot necessarily create additional offsets for the voluntary market. Instead, most of these emissions count toward Australia’s Kyoto commitment and therefore can’t create domestic voluntary offsets – this prevents companies from taking credit for the same reduction twice, or “double-counting.”

Retailers point out that, despite concerns about double-counting and offset integrity, Australians will continue to demand offsets sourced from small-scale, community-based projects with a local story.

“Australians like the story of trees and they like to make a difference at home. They understand that trees uptake carbon and that their car emits carbon,” he explains.

Echoing Witherow’s observations, Shuey adds that “Companies opt for local projects even knowing that they’re not additional.”

The European Example

Shuey, who is also Director of Australia’s Voluntary Carbon Market Association, predicts that some voluntary market participants will remain more interested in offsets with stories and local impacts than in those with credibility, including international offsets like those certified to the Gold Standard and Voluntary Carbon Standard.

This wasn’t the case for European buyers, who embraced international offsets to meet domestic voluntary demand.

Ecosystem Marketplace’s Fortifying the Foundation: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2009 report found that over half of all volumes traded in the world’s voluntary markets were purchased in the European Union, home to world’s largest domestic cap-and-trade scheme.

According to Tim Hanlin, Managing Director of the Australian Climate Exchange, Australians will similarly turn to international offsets to go above and beyond national efforts.

“If we look at the stunning growth in the post compliance voluntary market in Europe as an example, a robust and liquid voluntary market will develop in Australia,” he states.

Witherow is also optimistic about the industry’s international options: “I think that the market generally likes a story with their offsets and for that reason project-based international offsets will remain popular.”

Shuey, however, argues that Australian and European demand drivers are fundamentally different.

“I guess it is a part of Australia’s attitude of having to look after yourself – and your mates – and lack of dependence or trust in remote authority and institutions that make us more inclined to want to make a difference within our own backyard,” he says. “The EU has accepted that if you want additional voluntary action, you have to fund projects in developing countries. For us to have a healthy market here, it’s going to have to be based on local abatement.”

Beyond Comprehensive

The prospect of 100 per cent coverage without accommodation for additional voluntary abatement is disconcerting to Schuey.

“The government’s made it clear that once a project is big enough to be measured, it’s going to come under the covered sectors,” Shuey says, “but we’re pushing to change that attitude. There should be the ability to count voluntary action, even when it’s under the covered sectors.”

The Voluntary Carbon Markets Association proposes a separate “Voluntary Domestic Abatement Scheme” for monitoring and recognizing voluntary local abatement as additional, including voluntary abatement within the covered sectors.

Hanlin recommends a similar voluntary scheme that “…links to a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme by reducing allocation of permits as voluntary instruments from local projects are surrendered to meet voluntary targets.”

Proponents of a parallel voluntary scheme believe it would enable additional domestic voluntary abatement to influence national targets by retiring scheme permits in equal measure to voluntary action – a private sector version of the Energy Efficiency Savings Pledge Fund.

It might also foster public buy-in to the government’s efforts by recognizing that additional local abatement projects satisfy a national desire to feel control over escalating ecological changes.

“As we experience increased storm damage, increasingly horrendous fire seasons, prolonged drought and irreversible damage to the Great Barrier Reef and other iconic ecosystems,” says Witherow, “people are going to want to do more and demand the politicians do more.”

If the Australian scheme passes as written, with no additional accommodation for domestic voluntary abatement, companies like Witherow’s Climate Positive will work with what’s available – project-based international offsets and scheme permits.

Shuey describes what he believes will be the industry’s response to the government’s scheme: “It depends on the player. Some have already nailed their colors to the mast and are pushing (international offsets) from non-capped countries.”

His own organization – Ark Climate Group – will “be pushing for recognition of local projects, but as we already have a pretty well established local consulting business in energy efficiency, having no offsets to sell won’t cause us too much heartburn.”

He concludes on a sobering note, “Others will simply find a new career.”

by Molly Peters-Stanley

| Sourced From Businessgreen.com |

A new commodities exchange planned for Singapore is on schedule to start trading in carbon credits by year-end, according to a senior government official.

In a speech yesterday at the Carbon Forum Asia conference, senior minister of state for trade and industry S. Iswaran said the nation’s forthcoming Singapore Mercantile Exchange (SMX) is “on track for year-end” and will provide “an electronic trading platform for futures and options trading on a diversified range of commodities, including energy, metals, agricultural commodities, currencies, commodity indices and carbon credits”.

The new exchange is part of the city-state’s plan to become a regional hub for carbon trades, said Iswaran.

According to government estimates, 70 per cent of UN-backed clean development mechanism carbon offset projects are located within Asia-Pacific and as a result the region is “poised to be the largest supplier of certified emissions reductions [CERs] to the global carbon market”.

Earlier this year, an incentive scheme covering commodity derivatives trading and fund management was extended to include emissions derivatives. Additionally, Singapore offers tax concessions to companies with carbon trading activities, which Iswaran cited as a main factor behind a decision by Tricorona AB, the second-largest buyer of carbon credits, to set up a global trading hub in Singapore in May.

Iswaran added that as well as enabling trading in carbon credits, Singapore planned to provide financing and development services for CO2-reduction projects.

He announced that the government has set aside “close to S$700m [US$500m] to build R&D and manpower capabilities in various clean tech areas, including clean energy and environmental and water technologies”.

In doing so, officials hope to entice companies to “use Singapore as a test-bed” for related emerging technologies, such as smart grids and green building techniques.

Carbon Forum Asia, a two-day event ending today in Singapore, is a trade fair and conference providing information on the region’s latest developments in carbon emissions policies and regulations.

| Sourced From Timesonline.co.uk |

Everyone should be given an annual carbon ration and face financial penalties if they exceed it, under a proposal by the Environment Agency.

Lord Smith of Finsbury, the agency’s chairman, will say today that rationing is the fairest and most effective way of meeting Britain’s legally binding targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

People would be given a “carbon account” and a unique number that they would have to submit when making purchases of carbon-intensive items such as petrol, electricity or airline tickets. As with a bank account, people would receive statements showing the carbon weight of each purchase and how much of their ration remained.

If they used up their ration within a year, they would have to buy extra credits from those who had not used their full allowance.

Lord Smith, who was Culture Secretary in Tony Blair’s Government, believes that the system would encourage people to think about the carbon cost of their purchases as well as reward those who lived frugally and did little travelling, who could make a significant profit from selling their unused credits.

Speaking at the agency’s annual conference in London, Lord Smith will say that carbon rationing would help people to “judge how they want to develop their own quality of life in a sustainable way”.

He believes that rationing would be fairer than taxing carbon because extra taxes could make certain activities, such as flying, too expensive for people on low incomes. If everyone had an equal free carbon allowance, the basic cost of flying would remain cheap but those who flew a lot would quickly use up their ration and have to purchase extra carbon credits for each additional flight.

Under the Climate Change Act, Britain is obliged to cut its emissions by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050. This means annual CO2 emissions per person will have to fall from about 9 tonnes to only 2 tonnes.

Rationing would make it much easier to meet the target because the total amount of permitted emissions under the Act would simply be divided by the size of population.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published a feasibility study last year which found that rationing was technically feasible and could be effective in cutting emissions.

Defra said at the time: “The study indicates that personal carbon trading has potential to engage individuals in taking action to combat climate change.” However, it said that the idea was “ahead of its time” and would be very expensive to implement.

The statement concluded: “The Government remains interested in the concept of personal carbon trading and, although it will not be continuing its research programme at this stage, it will monitor the wealth of research focusing on this area and may introduce personal carbon trading if the value of carbon savings and cost implications change.”

The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee called on the Government last year to resume research on a rationing scheme and to be “courageous” in seeking to overcome likely public hostility to the idea.

It said in a report: “Opposition to personal carbon trading could be reduced if the public could be convinced of three things. First, that it is absolutely essential to reduce emissions; second, that this can only be achieved if individuals take personal responsibility for reducing their own emissions; and third, that personal carbon trading is a fairer and more effective way of reducing personal emissions than alternatives such as higher taxes.” The committee concluded: “Widespread public acceptance, while desirable, should not be a pre-condition for a personal carbon trading scheme; the need to reduce emissions is simply too urgent.”

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, called for a “thought experiment” on carbon rationing when he was Environment Secretary in 2006.

| Sourced From Carbonpositive.net |

The clearest sign yet that Copenhagen won’t produce its intended goal, a new legally-binding agreement on climate change, has emerged from a meeting of key leaders at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in Singapore on the weekend.

Leaders including US President Obama and China’s President Hu Jintao have accepted a plan for a two-stage process to reach a new global agreement which would leave the details for a binding treaty until 2010 or later. The suggestion came from the prime minister of Denmark, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, who flew to Singapore to make a personal appeal to APEC leaders in order to save the Copenhagen talks he will host from outright failure.

Rasmussen said that it was now too late to secure a detailed legally-binding agreement. His plan calls for nations to make specific and politically-binding pledges on emissions targets, and commit to completing a legally-binding treaty afterward. “The Copenhagen Agreement should finally mandate continued legal negotiations and set a deadline for their conclusion,” Reuters reports Rasmussen saying.

The APEC summit was significant for Copenhagen because it brought the leaders of key emitter nations together, rather than their negotiators, so close to the December climate conference itself. Obama, Hu and the leaders of Japan, Russia, Canada, Australia and Mexico were among 19 member nation leaders present at their annual meeting.

“There was an assessment by the leaders that it was unrealistic to expect a full internationally legally-binding agreement to be negotiated between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days,” US negotiator Michael Froman said.

The focus remains on the two crucial climate players, Obama and Hu, this week with the US President now heading for Beijing for bilateral talks with his counterpart. Climate change commitments are on the agenda.

The question now is, if not a binding legal agreement, what sort of in-principle political agreement can be reached in Copenhagen? The challenge still remains to bridge the gap between developed and developing nations over emissions targets up to 2020 and how much financing developed nations are prepared to put on the table to help their less-developed and more vulnerable cousins.

Given the lack of progress on these issues over recent years, even a political agreement that resolves them would make Copenhagen a success. UK climate change secretary Ed Miliband told the BBC that he’s optimistic that world leaders will reach such an agreement. “Despite it being tough, I’m actually quite optimistic. Substantive commitments that leaders make is what matters now. If we have to lock lawyers in a room for a few months afterwards to turn that into a legal form, that’s okay.”

The two-stage timetable for an agreement does help resolve the problem that the US Congress won’t be able to pass a climate bill and lock in policy in time for the meeting. By the time a final treaty is being thrashed out next year the bill could be passed. And it might be helped along by the fact that concrete emissions obligations from China and India might then be on the table, easing opposition from Republicans in the US.

But as yet, there is nothing in this new timetable and process that cuts to the heart of the global stand off; that neither the US Congress nor the White House is proposing anything like the 25-40 per cent emissions cuts for 2020 that are being demanded by developing nations and the main UN climate science body, the IPCC.

| Sourced From Washingtontimes.com |

To appreciate the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency under President Obama is a regulator reborn, consider this: EPA officials have begun to cut air pollution by invoking the Clean Water Act.

Long quiescent under President George W. Bush, the agency is churning out initiatives and regulations at a pace that pleases its friends in the environmental movement and frightens many in the business community.

In the past eight months, the EPA has proposed eight major new regulations for air pollutants that would strengthen the nation’s clean air laws almost overnight. In contrast, in the first eight months of the Bush administration, the agency proposed one small regulation that affected a limited number of polluters.

“The Obama EPA is issuing more significant rule-makings at a much quicker rate than the EPA did in eight years of the Bush administration,” said Roger Martella, who served as the agency’s general counsel under Mr. Bush.

Since February, the EPA has placed 175 surface coal mining projects under review and halted 79 of them because of their effects on surface water. For 30 years, the agency did not object to the air pollution caused when miners blast dirt into the air to expose coal deposits. Now, invoking the Clean Water Act, the agency is moving to block, at least for now, the projects when they sully nearby streams with the same pollutant.

The agency also has, for the first time, revoked a permit for a surface mine because the project in West Virginia could violate the Clean Water Act.

More broadly, the agency has announced there could be a link between greenhouse gas emissions and public health and welfare – a prelude to new mandates for corporations to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. The agency also agreed to allow California to regulate tailpipe emissions, increased fuel efficiency standards for cars for the first time in more than 25 years and won White House approval to rein in greenhouse gas emissions from the nation’s largest polluters.

And that’s just the beginning.

The agency’s speed has caught the attention of environmentalists, who applaud the EPA’s new activism, and business executives, who worry about a ballooning bureaucracy.

“The Obama EPA is certainly moving faster than its predecessor to improve environmental safeguards, but I don’t see that the Obama EPA has done anything too hastily,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, an environmental group.

But business groups say the agency has issued major rules that have wide impact without taking the time needed to make sure the repercussions are well understood.

“It’s been really a cookie-cutter approach: Here’s the rule, give us your comments, no extensions, and then the final rule is issued,” said William Kovacs, senior vice president of environment, technology and regulatory affairs for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

And the agency shows no sign of slowing down. In fact, analysts think the agency’s most sweeping and contentious decisions are yet to come.

“A lot of thinking and drafting [of carbon dioxide regulations] had been done under the Bush administration, and the Obama folks have built on that,” said Jeff Holmstead, former assistant administrator of the EPA for air and radiation in the Bush administration.

Within the next six months, the agency is expected to confirm the link between greenhouse gases and public health, issue its proposed 35-mile-per-gallon fuel efficiency standard for cars and spell out how it would force utilities, refineries and manufacturers to pollute less.

Any one of those tasks would be a major undertaking, but taking on everything at once has the business community questioning whether the EPA is taking on more than it can handle.

“Of course we’re worried, because no one has seen a complete picture of what [the EPA's proposals] are going to look like,” Mr. Kovacs said.

But the agency has said it is moving quickly to avoid rather than create problems. It also has said it would not impose new regulations without having the means to carry them out.

EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the Obama administration is moving to implement orders left languishing by the previous administration, including a Supreme Court decision paving the way for the agency to issue new rules on evaluating the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions and to consider rules to reduce them.

“The rules will save people money, reduce our dependence on oil by 1.8 billion barrels, and eliminate nearly 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse-gas pollution” each year, Ms. Andy said.

Legislation pending in Congress would force large polluters such as refineries, manufacturers and utilities to cut their pollution, but the EPA has said it is ready and willing to impose the restrictions itself if Congress doesn’t act.

“There’s certainly no question that [the EPA] has been very aggressive in getting these rule-makings out,” Mr. Holmstead said of the proposed rules the agency has issued since Mr. Obama took office.

Environmentalists assert that the EPA has to move at a brisk pace to “improve environmental safeguards” that were “deregulated” by the previous administration.

“I think it is moving pretty methodically through the list of unresolved environmental issues that it inherited,” Clean Air Watch’s Mr. O’Donnell said.

Mr. Holmstead said he does not think the Bush White House intended to regulate all carbon dioxide emitters when it announced the actions it would take after the high court’s ruling.

The Chamber of Commerce said it is closely following the EPA’s proposals to regulate carbon emitters and the impact that such proposals could have on businesses – both large and small. Mr. Kovacs added that the Chamber of Commerce is ready to take action if the EPA threatens to overstep its regulatory bounds.

“There’s going to be a lot of turmoil for a while because [the EPA's proposals] are some of the biggest regulatory proceedings in the history of the United States,” Mr. Kovacs said. “If [the EPA] comes out with findings that would cause regulatory turmoil, I would imagine we would sue.”

By Amanda DeBard

| Sourced From Blogs.wsj.com |

More fun and games as the Senate grapples with the climate bill. The latest twist: Senators from coal-dependent states are pushing hard to ease the pain for power companies that rely on coal.

At issue is one of the things that sparked most of the horse-trading when the House wrote its climate bill: How to hand out free emissions permits under a cap-and-trade plan to cushion the cost of the legislation. That’s one of the big tasks facing Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus in the Senate.

The House settled on a split-the-difference formula. That is, power companies would get free permits based partly on how many greenhouse-gas emissions they produce, and partly on how much electricity they produce. Now, key Democratic senators want to revise that formula, Reuters reports. Some 14 senators wrote to majority leader Harry Reid yesterday:

“We urge you to ensure that emission allowances allocated to the electricity sector–and thus, electricity consumers–be fully based on emissions as the appropriate and equitable way to provide transition assistance in a greenhouse gas-regulated economy,” the letter said.

It may sound arcane, but it isn’t. First, easing the pain for coal-heavy power companies is a way to ease the pain for coal-dependent states, which carry the swing votes for any climate legislation.

But this isn’t just about politics and vote-counting. There are billions of dollars at stake. Power companies that produce more clean energy stand to gain from climate legislation under the current formula; power companies that produce more dirty energy stand to lose.

That’s one reason companies such as Exelon and Duke have been cheerleading climate legislation: Their bottom lines will bulge. And it’s one reason fossil-fuel-dependent companies, from coal-heavy utilities to Exxon, have been opposed to the current legislation.

Granted, the Senate won’t even be able to tackle climate legislation until next year. But when it does, expect the fight among and between power companies to come to the fore.

By Keith Johnson

MALE (Reuters) – The Maldives could achieve its aim of becoming carbon neutral well before its 2020 target, the Indian Ocean island nation’s president said Monday.

Continue Reading on Reuters

| Sourced From EN.cop15.dk |

Earlier this week, Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed in his opening speech addressed the “Climate Vulnerable Forum” in Bandos Island, calling on fellow vulnerable, developing countries to embrace a carbon neutral future.

He regretted the lack of progress being made in international climate change negotiations and called on poor, vulnerable countries to show “moral leadership” by shifting from fossil fuel to renewable energy.

“A group of vulnerable, developing countries committed to carbon neutral development would send a loud message to the outside world… If those with the least start doing the most, what excuse can the rich have for continuing inaction,” Nasheed asked, according to a press release from his office.

However, the president did not get everything he asked for. According to Reuters, heads of state and ministers at the “Climate Vulnerable Forum” agreed Tuesday to “green” their economies, but stopped short of promising to become “carbon neutral”.

“In short, we have been able to agree that development and green technology or less-carbon development is possible,” President Mohamed Nasheed said afterwards, according to Reuters.

The Climate Vulnerable Forum adopted a declaration emphasizing the need for ambitious financial package and technical help from the developed world in order to achieve carbon neutral status, The Hindu reports.

| Sourced From PRWeb.com |

CarbonTwin.com is the world’s first social network that attempts to eliminate paying for carbon offsets, introducing a simple idea: instead of paying a fortune for carbon offsets, members at CarbonTwin offset their carbon offsets for free with other members, based on their carbon footprints.

Miami, FL (PRWEB) November 11, 2009 — CarbonTwin launches an innovative social network that introduces a never seen before concept: instead of paying a fortune for carbon offsets, members at CarbonTwin.com simply share their carbon offsets for free, or merely in exchange of your friendship…

Founders of CarbonTwin.com realized that the future of CO² emissions, carbon offsets and forthcoming legislation was going to present a significant challenge to both the end level consumer and all active companies, so they came up with that revolutionary concept.

“In our desire to lower current carbon emissions and help the planet, the avenues were very limited. As Cap and Trade began to take shape in the United States, the necessity to create a viable option to the impending cost factors became the priority.” said Roy Toman, founder and CEO of CarbonTwin.com.

So What is CarbonTwin.com All About?
CO² emissions up to now have had no intrinsic or core value. So many pioneers in the Carbon Offset sales industry associated a value per unit that was based on a variety of different methods. In all, the value was strictly arbitrary in this unregulated industry. The expenses incurred by companies trying to offset their particular emissions and help the planet, were enriching many but unfortunately, tangible results could not be measured.

Legislation of Carbon Offsets
CarbonTwin.com predicted that the US government would soon enact legislation in regards to these emissions and that as soon as the government will put this legislation into motion, the actual value of carbon emissions will be dictated by law. Once this value is set (still in debate in Washington DC), carbon emissions will become a commodity. As a commodity, they will place a limit on both industrial and consumer emission levels which in turn, will create a revenue stream for US government and a heavy cost for the consumer. Thus, we have: Cap and Trade. As a commodity individuals and companies have the current options of buying extra Carbon Offsets, or paying a fine for your excess emissions beyond the level set by the government. Such laws have been in effect in Europe for a while, with no success in the reduction of carbon emissions, resulting in infliction of tax burden, disguised as a fine for the consumers. The American public does not understand how Cap and Trade is all tied in, whilst governments taking over of the car companies, banks and their desire to create a Universal Healthcare plan. It is believed that the cost of these law initiatives will be supported in one way or another, by the money raised with Cap and Trade legislation. Very soon the reality will be that consumers will wake up to a very centralized government with very few alternatives to imposition of taxes. In the light of that dark climate, CarbonTwin.com aims to provide a free venue for consumers and corporations, offset carbon emissions absolutely free and thus help each other.

The CarbonTwin Alternative
Once carbon emission becomes a commodity, it can also be traded and exchanged between individuals and companies. Any excess of carbon emissions (under what the government determines as your set maximum level), can now be allocated to an individual or companies which exceeded their set limits.
CarbonTwin however, offers a socially and environmentally conscious solution in a form of free exchange of the carbon commodity. It incorporates all the social-friendly features of popular social networks like facebook & MySpace. Members of this rapidly growing social network, measure their carbon footprint using the built in Carbon Footprint Calculator and store that number in their profiles. Other members search for members with lower carbon levels and add them as ‘CarbonTwins’, exactly as you would add ‘friends’ in facebook.

About the Founder
Roy Toman currently resides in Florida and was awakened by his upbringing in tropical Panama, where after a classical education he began to explore the environmental consequences brought on by unfettered growth and unresponsive governments. His foundation in International Banking and expertise as a multilevel financial consultant, provided the insight necessary to understand the delicate balance necessary to sustainable growth and industrial expansion. Feeding his curiosity he rapidly discovered that the expansions of population in third world countries was not matched by industrial progress. The multifaceted needs created by expanding population bases was dwarfed by industrial growth and the degenerative impact on the environment of it. The main reason for the establishment of CarbonTwin was to provided a medium for the individuals to work together for a common goal. Also to offer an alternative to the current solution which always requires a money exchange.

For more information, visit: www.CarbonTwin.com

###

| Sourced From Offsetters.ca |

We’re proud to be the first Official Carbon Offset Supplier to the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games

The Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (VANOC) has assessed the unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions from all their operations leading up to, and for holding the international event. As the first ever Official Carbon Offset Supplier to the olympic movement, we’re providing a portfolio of new, clean energy technology projects to offset these emissions.

The 2010 Winter Games’ footprint will be an estimated 110,000 tonnes of direct carbon emissions – all emissions that are directly attributable to the 2010 Winter Games like venue construction, facility heating, and athlete travel. Additionally, this event will produce 190,000 tonnes of ‘indirect’ emissions – emissions that are largely attributable to flights and accommodation for spectators, media, corporate sponsors and their partners.

| Sourced From Vancouversun.com |

Twenty-five partners of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games have joined forces to help make the Games carbon-neutral.

The partners — including corporate sponsors, governments and broadcasters — have volunteered to offset some of their own carbon emissions related to the Games, such as emissions generated by delegations travelling to and from the region.

These partners will invest in a portfolio of B.C. clean energy technology projects, as well as international Gold Standard offset projects. The 2010 Legacy Portfolio is developed and managed by Vancouver-based Offsetters, the Official Supplier of Carbon Offsets for the 2010 Games.

The energy efficiency and renewable energy projects will help offset a newly updated forecast of 268,000 tonnes of carbon emissions — 118,000 tonnes from direct emissions and 150,000 tonnes from indirect emissions resulting from Games-time travel by participants and spectators.

This updated estimate, prepared by the Centre for Sustainability and Social Innovation at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business, was released this morning.

A preliminary estimate prepared by the David Suzuki Foundation and reviewed by PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2007 suggested the Games would produce approximately 330,000 tonnes (110,000 direct, 220,000 indirect) of carbon emissions.

“We’re excited to announce that 25 of our partners are helping us make the 2010 Winter Games carbon neutral and we expect more to join in the near future,” Linda Coady, VANOC’s vice-president of sustainability, said in a release. “What’s more, athletes at the Games will be the first carbon neutral athletes in Olympic and Paralympic history — the result of our partnership with Offsetters — where the travel and accommodation of close to 7,000 athletes, coaches and officials will be offset as part of the Games’ direct carbon footprint.”

The first companies and governments participating in the 2010 Carbon Partner Program for voluntary offsets include: Acklands-Grainger, Afexa Life Sciences (COLD-FX), Aggreko, Atos Origin, Australian Broadcast Corporation (ABC), BC Hydro, Bell, Bombardier, the British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC), Canada’s Olympic Broadcast Media Consortium, Canadian Pacific, Canwest Publishing Inc., City of Surrey, Coca-Cola, Hudson’s Bay Company, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), McDonald’s, Panasonic, the Province of British Columbia, Royal Bank of Canada, Resort Municipality of Whistler, Ricoh Canada, Samsung, The Globe and Mail, and Visa.

In another Olympic first, Vancouver 2010 Olympic Torch Relay presenting partners Coca-Cola and RBC joined VANOC in offsetting all their emissions arising from the 45,000-km journey across Canada, as well as from their entire operations related to the Games.

“We’re proud to be the first Official Carbon Offsetter in Olympic and Paralympic history and have the opportunity to showcase how British Columbia is playing a leadership role within Canada and internationally in the fast growing clean technology sector,” said James Tansey, president of Offsetters, a leading BC-based carbon asset management company and supplier of high-quality carbon offsets. “We also invite spectators participating at the Games, along with members of the public, to help play a role in making the 2010 Winter Games carbon neutral by voluntarily offsetting emissions from their travel to and from the Games region.”

Spectators can calculate their carbon footprint and purchase carbon credits online at www.offsetters.ca .

As part of the offset portfolio for the Games, Offsetters is working with B.C. clean technology companies to establish demonstration projects, such as: biomass gasification systems for renewable heat and power production, manufacturing of cellulosic ethanol (biofuel made from wood debris), proton exchange membrane hydrogen fuel cell technology, computer controlled hybrid fossil fuel and electric building heating systems, and reduced carbon footprint silviculture.

| Sourced From Resource-solutions.org |

International carbon management business The CarbonNeutral Company offers Green-e Climate Certified offsets from Chinese renewable energy project

SAN FRANCISCO, CA (November 2, 2009)—Center for Resource Solutions (CRS) today announced that Green-e® Climate, the nation’s leading certification and verification program for retail greenhouse gas emission reduction (carbon offset) products, has certified “The CarbonNeutral Company Offset (China)” product, sourced from clean energy from a hydropower station in Yunnan Province, China. The CarbonNeutral Company is the first international provider of Green-e Climate Certified offsets, and the company’s offset product has met or exceeded Green-e Climate’s strict standards for project verification and measurement, consumer transparency, and truth-in-marketing claims. The CarbonNeutral Company has now been granted the use of the Green-e Climate Certified logo.

“We are pleased The CarbonNeutral Company can now offer its customers an offset product certified by Green-e Climate,” said Jane Valentino, manager of Green-e Climate. “These offsets are sourced from international renewable energy projects that have met some of the highest standards in the industry, and combined with the company’s commitment to transparency and quality, are an excellent choice for consumers who want to offset their contribution to climate change by supporting clean energy projects that wouldn’t have otherwise been built.”

The offsets are sourced from renewable energy projects certified by the Voluntary Carbon Standard, an independent nonprofit organization registered under Swiss law. By purchasing these offsets, business and consumers will aid the development of new renewable resources that wouldn’t have otherwise been built, leading to a reduction in the rise of emissions from fossil-fuel electricity generation worldwide.

Green-e Climate is a consumer-protection program requiring greenhouse gas emission reductions to be verified according to strict project-level certification programs that ensure the reductions have taken place, are permanent, and come from projects that would not have happened under a “business as usual” scenario. Sellers of certified offsets must provide customers with a product content label that explains where the reductions were sourced from, including the locations and types of projects. Sellers must also undergo a yearly audit to ensure their supply of offsets matches their sales, and comply with Green-e Climate’s consumer disclosure and truth in advertising requirements.

About Green-e Climate and Center for Resource Solutions
Green-e Climate is the nation’s first certification program for greenhouse gas emission reductions sold to consumers on the retail market. This consumer-protection program strengthens the voluntary market by providing credible oversight of and transparency to retail offset products. Green-e Climate is a program of Center for Resource Solutions, a nonprofit that creates policy and market solutions to advance sustainable energy. Learn more about Green-e Climate at www.green-e.org/climate.

About The CarbonNeutral Company
The CarbonNeutral Company (www.carbonneutral.com) is a world leading carbon offset and carbon management business, working with over 300 major businesses and thousands of small and medium sized companies. Over the last ten years, it has purchased carbon credits from over 200 projects across six continents.

CarbonNeutral® is the registered trademark of The CarbonNeutral Company and is the leading brand mark and quality standard for action on climate change. Permission to display the CarbonNeutral mark is only given to clients when CO2 emissions have been measured and reduced to net zero through a program implemented in accordance with The CarbonNeutral Protocol. This Protocol assures quality of offset projects, carbon footprint assessments and communication and is regularly reviewed by an Independent Advisory Group. The “audit trail” includes an annual independent verification of CarbonNeutral programs—from contracts with carbon offset partners through to contracts with clients and everything in between.

The CarbonNeutral Company has two regional operating headquarters in New York and London, as well as an office in Singapore, and a network of affiliates in Japan, Canada, France and UAE. The CarbonNeutral Company is a founding member of The International Carbon Reduction and Offset Alliance (ICROA), which provides leadership and a unified voice advocating for rigorous industry standards www.icroa.org.

###

Contact
Jeff Swenerton
Communications Director
Center for Resource Solutions
415-561-2119
jeff@resource-solutions.org

| Sourced From Money.cnn.com |

SAO PAULO, Brazil and WORCESTER, MA, Nov. 3 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ – World Energy Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: XWES; TSX: XWE), an operator of online exchanges for energy and green commodities, today announced a new partnership agreement with SOCIALCARBON(C) Standard, one of the world’s top voluntary standards. The alliance paves the way for more projects with the SOCIALCARBON imprimatur to be posted on the World Green Exchange, one of the world’s largest primary carbon marketplaces.

To date, World Energy has partnered with three leading carbon standards, including the Gold Standard, Canadian Standards Association, and now SOCIALCARBON Standard, developed by the Ecologica Institute, a Brazilian NGO. This backing not only provides buyers added assurance that the carbon commodities they purchase on the World Green Exchange are of high quality and independently verified, but, in the case of SOCIALCARBON, it also brings the added benefit of tight integration with a leading registry, Markit Environmental Registry (formerly TZ1 Registry), also a World Green Exchange partner. As a result, the World Green Exchange offers a “closed loop” between project supply, registry and exchange, which can streamline the purchase of verified emission reductions (VERs).

Most SOCIALCARBON projects have been developed by the Social Carbon Company (SCC), a for-profit offset project developer based in Brazil, which is the first organization accredited by the Ecologica Institute to use SOCIALCARBON(R). SCC will provide SOCIALCARBON credits to the World Green Exchange. The Ecologica Institute is now accrediting other companies and project developers with the goal of widening the geographical reach of SOCIALCARBON projects.

“We believe that measures World Energy has taken to help buyers and sellers on the World Green Exchange transact with confidence are in keeping with the goals of SOCIALCARBON,” said Luiz Leal, Director at Ecologica Institute. “This commitment, built on the premise of project and commodity transparency, supports the approach SOCIALCARBON has embraced to bring high value, high quality projects to market.”

Added Kenneth Ivanic, Vice President, Environmental Markets at World Energy: “Standards, registries and exchanges each play a distinct and pivotal role in the effective operation of the carbon market. The addition of SOCIALCARBON to the family of top standards bodies bringing projects to the World Green Exchange is an important step in the evolution of our platform and in the overall positive experience of the world’s carbon commodities buyers.”

The World Green Exchange(R) is an open, information-rich marketplace that enables buyers and sellers of carbon commodities to transact with confidence. Working with leading standards, registries, consultants, project developers and banks, the World Green Exchange streamlines the procurement process while delivering transparency, quality, choice and value. Over 100 million green commodities, spanning CERs, VERs, RECs, Alberta offsets and RGGI allowances, have been transacted on the World Green Exchange, making it one of the largest primary carbon marketplaces in the world.

SOCIALCARBON(R) is a standard developed to strengthen co-benefits of carbon offset projects (www.socialcarbon.org). It was developed by the Ecologica Institute (Brazil) as a set of analytical tools that assesses the social, environmental and economic performance of projects, thereby demonstrating, through continual monitoring, the project’s contribution to sustainable development.

About Ecologica Institute

The Ecologica Institute is a Non-Profit Organization, located in northern Brazil, that carries out projects in the Amazon Rainforest. Ecologica Institute’s mission is to help reduce the effects of climate change through scientific research, conservation, environmental preservation, and sustainable community development. For more information please visit www.socialcarbon.org.

About World Energy Solutions, Inc.

World Energy (NASDAQ: XWES; TSX: XWE) operates online exchanges for energy and green commodities. For buyers and sellers of electricity, natural gas, capacity, and green-energy assets who are impacted by today’s volatile markets, World Energy’s proven approach has transformed the normally complex procurement process into a powerful, streamlined vehicle for cost savings. In addition to enabling customers to seek competitive pricing on traditional energy commodities, World Energy is taking a leadership position in the emerging environmental-commodities markets. Its award-winning World Green Exchange(R) supports the ground-breaking Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative’s (RGGI) cap and trade program for CO(2) emissions. For more information, please visit www.worldenergy.com.

This press release contains forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ from those indicated in the forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to: our revenue is dependent on actual future energy purchases pursuant to completed procurements; the demand for our services is affected by changes in regulated prices or cyclicality or volatility in competitive market prices for energy; we depend on a small number of key energy consumers, suppliers and channel partners; there are factors outside our control that affect transaction volume in the electricity market; and there are other factors identified in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and subsequent reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

SOURCE World Energy Solutions, Inc.

J.R. Simplot Company, an Idaho-based food and agribusiness leader, and Blue Source LLC, an emissions-reduction project developer, have announced the formation of an alliance to engage American farmers in the carbon markets.  The two companies will help farmers identify opportunities and implement activities dealing with reduced emissions from sustainable farming.  Projects will include reduced tillage, preservation of grassland, and nutrient management.  This partnership will offer farmers a shiny new toolkit for capturing the benefits of emissions reductions, from the early stages of data collection to the final offset sale.

Continue Reading on Reuters

| Sourced From Businessgreen.com |

Voluntary Carbon Standard Association says new registry transfer system will make it easier for firms to trade offsets between regions

Trading in carbon offset credits between different countries should become significantly easier from today with the launch of an upgraded system designed to enable the transfer of offsets between different registries.

The Voluntary Carbon Standard Association http://www.v-c-s.org/index.html (VCSA), which monitors the so-called non-compliance carbon market that operates outside the confines of the UN and government-backed schemes, today announced that its new multiple registry system is up and running.

The system, which allows the transfer of Voluntary Carbon Unit (VCU) offsets across different national registries, was formally launched in March, but the critical transfer process was delayed as a result of technical problems.

“We are very pleased that the registry functionality originally envisioned by the VCSA is now in place,” VCSA chief executive David Antonioli said in a statement. “Being able to transfer VCUs from one registry to another both broadens the scope for transactions and strengthens the unique VCS system.”

The VCS registries were set up to help tackle the issue of double-selling, whereby some emissions-reduction projects were suspected of selling the same offset credit to a number of different purchasers. By providing an independent registry it is possible to track the owner of a given offset and ensure it can be matched to real and verifiable emissions reductions.

Previously, firms looking to transfer offsets between different regional and national registries had to go through a central clearing house, but the VCSA said the new functionality would allow companies to cut out the middleman, boosting liquidity in the global voluntary carbon market.

BusinessGreen.com Staff, BusinessGreen,

| Sourced From Worldchanging.com |

In spite of what you may have heard, Europe’s carbon market is working beautifully. The EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has been operational since 2005 and we’re now getting a good look at how it functions. It turns out, it’s a remarkable success story, both environmentally and economically.

Let’s briefly review the major pieces of evidence.

1. European Environment Agency. A November 2009 report finds that the continent is well on its way to meeting its Kyoto targets thanks in large part to its cap-and-trade program. In fact, by 2007,14 countries had already exceeded their reduction goals, including the wealthy industrial giants of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. To wit:

EU‑wide policies are expected to contribute towards most of the planned emissions savings by the end of the period 2008–2012, in particular the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), the promotion of renewable energy sources, policies targeting the energy performance of buildings and internal energy market policies.

Here’s a nickel summary from Joe Romm:

…the Europeans are poised to surpass their targets under the terms of the Protocol. It is no longer plausible for those who don’t want a U.S. cap-and-trade system to point to the European Trading System (ETS) as a failure. Quite the reverse.

…the EEA analysis concludes the EU-15 will not need to rely on offsets to meet their Kyoto target

(There’s more good stuff at Treehugger.) Importantly, the reductions analyzed in the EEA report do not include the effects of the global economic downturn, which has unintentionally provided much steeper reductions.

2. The German Marshall Fund of the United States. A July 2009 report is a goldmine of valuable lessons from the European experience, but for now I’m going to focus just on the carbon market aspects.

From the executive summary:

1. Emissions trading works

MIT estimates that the EU ETS has cut European emissions by 120–300 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide (MtCO2) during its first, highly imperfect phase—up to 5 percent of emissions from the covered sectors, despite excessive allocations of emissions allowances. It captured private sector attention like no other climate initiative, and its rapid introduction and impact contrasted with a decade of dispute over (failed) attempts to introduce a European carbon tax.

Recommendation: Develop an emissions trading system that learns from and improves upon the EU experience.

This is a hugely important point. The EU’s cap-and-trade program was, indeed, highly imperfect. It relied on inaccurate estimates of emissions, it distributed too many carbon permits, and it distributed permits in a way that conferred windfall profits on polluters. But here’s the kicker: it still worked! The ETS is ironing out its flaws and a future US program stands to benefit from Europe’s lessons.

There’s more good reading on this report at Climate Progress and Treehugger.

3. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. A May 2008 report provides additional context for understanding the ETS. There’s too much in the Pew report to fully explicate in a short blog post, but I want to highlight some of the findings about the carbon markets:

The EUA market has exhibited the same characteristics as markets for tradable permits in the U.S., such as those for SO2 and NOx. Notably, a market developed relatively quickly without special effort on the part of the government beyond creating the scarcity, distributing the permits, and enforcing compliance. In all cases, there has been no lack of intermediaries to facilitate trading among parties with either long or short positions and to create a single price at any one moment in time for trading instruments with similar attributes.

In other words, Europe’s carbon markets are functioning relatively smoothly. Despite the fact that Europe had virtually no experience with implementing a cap-and-trade program, and despite the fact that the program includes numerous sovereign nations, the cap-and-trade program works. It reduces emissions — and it does so inexpensively and efficiently.

The success of the EU’s cap-and-trade program shouldn’t be surprising. It’s entirely consistent with what we’ve seen in the US. Carbon markets working in the northeast states and cap-and-trade programs have worked across the nation for reducing air pollution.

****

Two updates (11/19/09): Jill Duggan at World Resources Institute has a good blog post on the subject.

Back in February, my colleague Clark also had a smart post http://rss.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2009/02/18/cap-and-trade-works about about the ETS. In fact, it’s worth repeating the quote that Clark pulled from the New York Times:
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/group-says-european-cap-and-trade-system-reduced-emissions/

In a boost for the system on Monday, however, a prominent research company, New Carbon Finance, said its calculations showed that the largest cause of a reduction in emissions in the European Union last year was attributable to the trading system — because it had encouraged greater use of gas in power generation rather than dirtier fuels like coal.

by Eric de Place

This piece originally appeared in Sightline Daily

| Sourced From Burtonmail.co.uk |

SEVERN Trent Water has received an award for its carbon reduction and management programmes.
The company, which supplies full water services to South Derbyshire and North West Leicestershire and sewerage services to East Staffordshire, was awarded the Carbon Trust Standard after it demonstrated a reduction in its carbon emissions and robust carbon management standard.

General manager for energy and carbon Andrew Gardner said: “Achieving the Carbon Trust Standard is good news as it clearly shows that the effort we’ve put into managing our carbon footprints is paying off.

“We’ve put a lot of work into energy management, and one of our stated goals is to minimise our carbon footprint by improving energy efficiency and generating more renewable electricity.

“In 2008/09 alone, we generated 17.5 per cent of our total electricity consumption from renewable sources.

“And we aim to produce 30 per cent our electricity demand from renewable sources by 2013, which we’ll seek to achieve by employing a number of initiatives including combined heat and power, energy crops, wind power and hydroelectricity, as well as encouraging our employees to think about steps they can take to reduce our energy consumption.”