The Beijing Organic Guide 2008 is out!
You Are Here:
- What We Do >
- Climate >
- Governments >
- Kyoto
Flames consume huge areas of forest in Vale Alto, Portugal. Portugal has declared a national disaster after the worst forest fires in more than two decades killed nine people, torched thousands of hectares of forest and destroyed homes.
Enlarge Image
The Kyoto trading mechanisms rely on a robust and, ideally,
‘leak-proof’ architecture including national accounting systems and a
system of international controls to ensure that the actual overall
emissions reduction targets are achieved. The Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) to some extent lies outside this architecture as it
depends on ensuring that projects in developing countries reduce
emissions below a hypothetical baseline, ‘what would have happened
without the project’. Unlike trading and Joint Implementation (JI), it
also permits Annex B Parties (industrialized countries) to increase
their overall allowed emissions because of the ‘credits’ earned from
the reductions in developing countries.
These problems mean there is an acute need to ensure that project methodologies for the CDM are watertight and achieve real climate benefits. Much of the wrangling over the past seven years has been over maintaining the integrity of this architecture. The result is less than perfect, but overall provides a solid basis upon which future progress can be built. Its greatest weakness is the mixing of fossil carbon emissions and organic carbon stocks, generating credits from so called ‘carbon sinks’, which result in more fossil carbon being introduced into the biosphere in the name of emissions reductions.
The trouble with 'sinks'
Under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol certain changes to land use and forestry activities that can sequester carbon can be counted toward meeting emissions reduction obligations under the Protocol. The theory is that if a ton of carbon is stored in a tree (a so called ‘sink’ for carbon) and hence removed from the atmosphere, then a country would be allowed to add a ton of carbon to its allowed emissions from burning fossil fuels.
This whole theory - that creating ‘sinks’ in forests, plants and soils, whereby carbon dioxide is taken out of the climate system to offset higher fossil fuel emissions - is quite wrong. Unfortunately, carbon stored in trees is not permanently removed from the atmosphere and there is a high probability that the ton of carbon counted as stored in the tree will find its way back into the atmosphere eventually. The result of this is that the burden of reducing emissions is simply shifted to future generations.
The main point, however, is that the use of sinks must not divert any political or financial resources away from the primary task: reducing emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Really, sinks do not even “buy us time”, as some have argued. If the industrialized countries do not achieve major emission reductions in the near term, we may lose our ability to avoid dangerous climate change, by anyone’s definition.
The goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to reduce emissions, not to create mechanisms for avoiding reductions. Therefore, Greenpeace seeks to minimize the use of sinks in the Protocol as much as possible, and we note that a number of countries have already pledged they will not take advantage of this loophole at all.
We all need to work together in order to keep our governments honest. There is always pressure from the fossil fuel industry to "take the easy way out" by reducing emissions on paper only. While this might work well for the fossil fuel industry's short-term profits, it would spell disaster in the longer run. Find our how you can help on our Take Action page.
Back to Kyoto Protocol
These problems mean there is an acute need to ensure that project methodologies for the CDM are watertight and achieve real climate benefits. Much of the wrangling over the past seven years has been over maintaining the integrity of this architecture. The result is less than perfect, but overall provides a solid basis upon which future progress can be built. Its greatest weakness is the mixing of fossil carbon emissions and organic carbon stocks, generating credits from so called ‘carbon sinks’, which result in more fossil carbon being introduced into the biosphere in the name of emissions reductions.
The trouble with 'sinks'
Under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol certain changes to land use and forestry activities that can sequester carbon can be counted toward meeting emissions reduction obligations under the Protocol. The theory is that if a ton of carbon is stored in a tree (a so called ‘sink’ for carbon) and hence removed from the atmosphere, then a country would be allowed to add a ton of carbon to its allowed emissions from burning fossil fuels.
This whole theory - that creating ‘sinks’ in forests, plants and soils, whereby carbon dioxide is taken out of the climate system to offset higher fossil fuel emissions - is quite wrong. Unfortunately, carbon stored in trees is not permanently removed from the atmosphere and there is a high probability that the ton of carbon counted as stored in the tree will find its way back into the atmosphere eventually. The result of this is that the burden of reducing emissions is simply shifted to future generations.
The main point, however, is that the use of sinks must not divert any political or financial resources away from the primary task: reducing emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Really, sinks do not even “buy us time”, as some have argued. If the industrialized countries do not achieve major emission reductions in the near term, we may lose our ability to avoid dangerous climate change, by anyone’s definition.
The goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to reduce emissions, not to create mechanisms for avoiding reductions. Therefore, Greenpeace seeks to minimize the use of sinks in the Protocol as much as possible, and we note that a number of countries have already pledged they will not take advantage of this loophole at all.
We all need to work together in order to keep our governments honest. There is always pressure from the fossil fuel industry to "take the easy way out" by reducing emissions on paper only. While this might work well for the fossil fuel industry's short-term profits, it would spell disaster in the longer run. Find our how you can help on our Take Action page.
Back to Kyoto Protocol
