Cop15 Failure Analysis PART 3a Transparency, Base Model

Why COP15
Danish Accord Failed?

The devil was in the details.

PART 3 a

TRANSPARENCY (Base Model)

Comparing the “DANISH TEXT”

with the OBAMA BASIC Deal
=

MANIPULATING EMISSION TRANSPARENCY.

ECO
THRUST

THE 10 PART ANALYTICS :

PART 1 DISTRUST http://bit.ly/5TNFhd

PART 2 EQUITY http://bit.ly/6dtoYm

PART 3a TRANSPARENCY
Understanding the Base model

PART 3b TRANSPARENCY
Benefits and Drawback assessment

PART 3c TRANSPARENCY
Developing a suitable architecture

PART 4 DEFORESTATION

PART 5 ADAPTATION

PART 6 FINANCE

PART 7 GREEN CLIMATE FUND

PART 8 KYOTO AND ANNEXURE 1

PART 9 TECHNOLOGY RE-ASSESMENT

PART 10 DIRECTIONAL CHANGE

2

ECOTHRUST

CONTENTS IN PART 3 A

TRANSPARENCY : UNDERSTANDING THE BASE MODEL

Emissions as per KYOTO pact

Carbon Trading mechanism

MRV and Transparency of Emissions

Excerpt of the Danish Text on MRV & Transparency for poor nations

Excerpt of the OBAMA BASIC Deal on MRV & Transparency

Transparency

MRV & Transparency for Emission Control : Robust and effective

Use of EU ETS as BASE MODEL and U.K as BASE NATION

What the EU-ETS covers

What the EU-ETS does not cover

C02 Emissions monitored and mitigated under the EU ETS 2 in E.U.

Emission mitigation in U.K as per EU ETS 2

References of previous works on COP15

3

ECOTHRUST

Emissions as per KYOTO pact

Twelve years ago in 1997 the Kyoto Deal at the 3rd COP conference was
enacted under pressure from environmentalists by economists and scientists
who obviously did not understand too much of how to control emissions or
even measure it. The flaws of the Kyoto pact have been already discussed in
detail in our extremely popular presentations at Slide Share during October
2009 COP15 : Gassing 15 Years on Carbon Economy http://bit.ly/4kzzIz .

One of the primary reasons why the U.S. has not signed the treaty is because
the administration and the U.S. Congress was not sure of its outcome. The oil
and coal lobbies within the U.S. who had initially pushed forward the
mechanics of Cap and Trade, the principal mode of mitigation and curbing
emissions in the Kyoto pact had designed it as a profitable venture for the
industry. It made the energy user pay for the costs of emission reduction
including the state and the regulator to act as a buffer to ensure the process.
The profits from the carbon trade would according to them more than
compensate the cost of emission control and by involving the Wall street they
could get support of high finance and liquidity .

Carbon Trading mechanism

A flexible global carbon trading concept was designed so that they could buy
cheap credits from poorer nations to mitigate additional emissions created in
the rich nations. In short a 1000 tree plantations in the Congo Basin should
pay for a few million tones of C02 emissions added in Pennsylvania. Under
this mitigation pact the emission allowances would be issued based on the
actual emissions initially generated by the industries. These units of Carbon
credits would be issued free initially . Additional units could be bought or sold
based on the emission credits needed at the plant above or below the
stipulated norms. Hence it would be profitable to reduce emissions and
expensive to emit more if the measurement, verification and trading system
was transparent and the reporting was honest , considering that the carbon
prices would be high enough.

MRV and Transparency of Emissions

The inherent problem with emission monitoring and control is that they cannot
be stored. It is a transient phenomenon that has to be recorded at that point of
time and leaves no evidence behind in most cases. Auditing is possible but
never foolproof as the fuel firing mix of fossil fired plants can be changed from
minute to minute to cause emissions to rise or drop. And fossil fired fuels in
the energy and transport industry account for more than three quarter of the
global emissions.

4

ECOTHRUST
Excerpt of the Danish Text on MRV & Transparency for poor nations

“ In order to promote transparency and accountability the developing country
Parties will report on inspection of their individual mitigation actions and
emission outcomes achieved in relation to their estimates in attachment B
The supported mitigation actions and the related reductions are subject to
robust MRV.MRV of supported actions must verify that financing as well as
action is delivering towards full commitments. Implementation of developing
country mitigation action that are not externally supported will be subject to
national MRV based on internationally agreed guidelines and a consultative
mechanism under UNFCCC “

Excerpt of the OBAMA BASIC ACCORD on MRV and Transparency

. “Mitigation actions taken by Non-Annex I Parties will be subject to their
domestic measurement, reporting and verification the result of which will be
reported through their national communications every two years. Non-Annex I
Parties will communicate information on the implementation of their actions
through National Communications, with provisions for international
consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure
that national sovereignty is respected. Nationally appropriate mitigation
actions seeking international support will be recorded in a registry along with
relevant technology, finance and capacity building support. Those actions
supported will be added to the list in appendix II. These supported nationally
appropriate mitigation actions will be subject to international measurement,
reporting and verification in accordance with guidelines adopted by
Conference of the Parties”

Transparency

The emphasis on transparency, therefore becomes crucial in any such
system, the reason why the EU and the U.S. are so keen on China, India and
the G77 accepting the required verification clauses that will ensure that all
countries are transparent in their dealings on emissions. Whereas there is no
doubt that setting up transparent systems in the developing world to counter
climate change are required, let us examine in detail where Asia must follow
the EU model and where it must move away only to save the wasteful
expenditure that the Western economies incur so often on hypothetical goals.
This is important as there are at times when expensive and redundant
methods employed, usually added to enhance value addition of associates
and advisors who help develop such systems. For unless the mechanism to
counter climate change is cost effective, solutions will not work in the
developing world despite agreements at international levels.

5
ECOTHRUST

MRV and Transparency for Emission Control: Robust and effective

This is a very critical and highly technical aspect of climate talks that cannot
be ignored if climate change has to be stopped or even pushed back.
Unfortunately politics amongst nations have put technological issues on the
back burner, as a result of which less than desirable results have been
achieved in emission control and people have stopped trusting the
international emission pacts. As this is the turning point in the history of
climate talks where key parameters and approaches are again being re-visited
as per the OBAMA BASIC deal, we examine this aspect in detail.

In part 3a of this series we therefore take a look first at what is the adopted
robust and transparent MRV model used today by the developed nations

In part 3b of the series we shall see what is their overall transparency and
their effectiveness to control emissions and what is the cost of such
mechanism to the national economies of developed countries.

In part 3c of the series we shall discuss a transparent adaptation model for
developing economies in view of the lessons from the current practices

Use of EU ETS as BASE MODEL and U.K as BASE NATION

With the US refusing to ratify Kyoto pact, the European Union have been the
first movers. They have started to implement the provisions of Kyoto pact
since the year 2005. Immediately after Kyoto pact the EU started devising the
mechanism of mitigation and control now popularly known as the EU ETS
(Emission Trading System) which was done in the 6 year period 1997-2003.

The first legislation called the EU-ETS 1 had several drawbacks and has been
revised to make way for EU-ETS 2 which is currently applicable. From the
year 2013 this again will be replaced by EU-ETS 3 which is nearly ready and
will incorporate some lessons learned from EU ETS 2 . Since EU-ETS 2 is
currently in operation we will examine the same and see what guidelines and
insights, drawbacks and pitfalls it offers to Asia and Africa on the issue of
Transparency, and how a model country wise code can be developed for use
after studying and analysis of the current EU ETS.

The Kyoto pact calls for independent Nation wise Action Plans NAP for
mitigation and reduction of GHG. It is not possible or practical to have one
solution for all nations due to variations in usage, industries, demography, and
political set-up. Here we will be use the feedbacks from 1 nation, the U.K.
considered as an early implementer of the EU ETS. Hence let us first study
what the U.K. framework is for implementing the EU-ETS 2 architecture
6
ECOTHRUST

What the EU-ETS covers

The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) was the first
international and fully operative trading system for mitigation of Carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions in the world. As per the 1997 Kyoto pact, the then 15
member EU and the 12 East European nations subsequently merged in the
EU accepted targets for reducing six (6) Greenhouse Gas emissions by 5 %
within 2020 .

It covered aprox10,000 energy intensive facilities across the 27 EU Member
countries; entities that emit around 43 % of the EU’s overall emissions.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/change_energy/tackling_
clima/emissions/eu_ets/phase_II/phase_II.aspx

This included medium and large industrial units like oil refineries, power
plants over 20 megawatts (MW) in capacity, coke ovens, and iron and steel
plants, along with cement, glass, lime, brick, ceramics, and pulp and paper
installations etc.

What the EU-ETS does not cover

The trading program covers neither CO2 emissions from the transportation
sector, which account for about 25% of the EU’s total greenhouse gas
emissions, nor emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases largely due to
technological limitations of computation of emissions from these sources.

The six main anthropogenic greenhouse gases GHG considered under Kyoto
are Carbon Di- oxide (CO2), methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide N2O), besides
fluorocarbons like per fluorocarbons (PFCs), hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs), and
sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), Of the six GHG gasses in consideration only
C02 measuring and reporting mechanism is somewhat ready for world wide
implementation having gone through the trial and test period within EU during
the last four to six years , while others are still in various stages of
development .

It is important to understand why the EU ETS 2 does not cover the small
plants below 20 MW in the Energy industry or equivalent emitting industries in
the Steel, Petroleum, Cement or any other industrial sector. It is because
compliance in the small industry sector are inherently difficult as they are not
only financially weaker units unable to go green but are extremely numerous.

7

ECOTHRUST

Similarly the measurement of other Green house Gasses is extremely difficult,
being in small quantities as compared to Carbon Di-Oxide which accounts for
around 80 % of overall the emissions. As a matter of fact the effectiveness of
measuring and monitoring carbon or the numerous gasses (over 600,000 )
that create toxicity in the atmosphere is elaborated in the presentation here
http://bit.ly/4kzzIz with details on how Fluorocarbons are constantly evolving..

C02 Emissions monitored and mitigated under the EU ETS 2 in E.U.

12%
C02 Emissions under EU
ETS Scheme

43% C02 Emissions in
20% Transport sector
GHG Emissions

Other Emissions

25%

8

ECOTHRUST

EU comprising of the developed nations of the rich western economies as well
as the industrial powerhouses of East Europe that shrunk during the Soviet

block meltdown have large units. This is much unlike China or India, Brazil,
Mexico or Africa which have more numerous tiny units strewn all over the
land with very little financial muscle or infrastructure support. Thus to issue a
directive of compliance for MRV and to ensure its transparency in the
developing world more difficult unless the exact mechanism is known.

Emission mitigation in the U.K as per EU ETS 2

Under the EU – ETS 2 Scheme for carbon credits, the first auctions in U.K.
held in November 2008 yielded only GBP 54 million with a mere 4 million
allowances sold at a unit price of 13.6 GBP per unit. In effect 7 % of the total
C02 emission allowances were auctioned and 93 % were distributed as free
allowances as per Telegraph report http://tinyurl.com/62pyw9 This means
that effectively 3% of the emissions of U.K. were mitigated by the EU-ETS
scheme almost 12 years after Kyoto pact.

Carbon prices have dropped since and today those who saved their Carbon
Credits under the EU ETS 1 are unable to use the same for EU ETS 2
Scheme.This has further eroded the user confidence of using Carbon credits
as a long term investment proposition. However we will go into the detailed
analysis of the benefits and pitfalls of the EU ETS Scheme later in Part 3b of
this document. Here we are simply demonstrating the current standing and
effectiveness of the EU ETS2 scheme in mitigation by ensuring a robust
measurement, reporting and verifying of C02 to control GHG emissions

C02 Emissions under
free permits in EU ETS
12% Scheme
C02 Emissions under
auction in EU ETS
40% Scheme
20%
C02 Emissions in
Transport sector

GHG Emissions

3%
25%
Other Emissions

9

ECOTHRUST

References of previous works on COP15

Why COP15 Danish Accord Failed. http://bit.ly/5TNFhd DISTRUST Part 1 (Slide Share )

Why COP15 Danish Accord Failed. http://bit.ly/80E0jV DISTRUST Part 1 (Scribd)

Why COP15 Danish Accord Failed http://bit.ly/6dtoYm EQUITY Part 2 (Scribd)

Why COP15 Danish Accord Failed http://bit.ly/5DsBKg EQUITY Part 2 (Slide Share)

COP 15 : Deal Sabotage : Burying Kyoto at Copenhagen http://bit.ly/XUrUd ( Slide Share)

COP 15 : Gassing 15 years on Carbon Economy http://bit.ly/4kzzIz ( Slide Share )

COP 15 : Bullshitting 15 yrs on Climate change http://tinyurl.com/luzxss (Slide Share)

The Imelda story of Cap & Feed. Why the planet earth suffers http://bit.ly/79wmG4 (You tube)

Cap & Trade Energy Mathematics http://bit.ly/55yAsZ (You tube video)

The Imelda Story http://bit.ly/5pPfBT ( Scribd)

Cap & Trade energy maths at Scribd http://bit.ly/5sIs82 ( Scribd)

For any Queries, Objections or Source confirmation of data please contact the
author Sandip Sen at sen.sandip@gmail.com

10

ECOTHRUST

Cop15 Failure Analysis PART 3a Transparency, Base Model

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Sandip Sen

More from Sandip Sen (11)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (8)

Cop15 Failure Analysis PART 3a Transparency, Base Model