160 likes | 260 Vues
Exploring the Challenges and Opportunities for Establishing a North American Emissions Trading System November 14, 2007, Chicago, IL Kate Zyla World Resources Institute. Greenhouse Gas Markets. Cap-and-Trade Markets Currency: Allowances GHG emissions capped by total number of allowances
E N D
Exploring the Challenges and Opportunities for Establishing a North American Emissions Trading System November 14, 2007, Chicago, IL Kate Zyla World Resources Institute
Greenhouse Gas Markets • Cap-and-Trade Markets • Currency: Allowances • GHG emissions capped by total number of allowances • SO2 and NOx model • Carbon Offset Markets • Currency: Credits • GHG reductions purchased from uncapped sources • Which Work Together… • Credits may be bought and used as allowances under most GHG cap-and-trade systems
Greenhouse Gas Markets • Large and growing… • EU ETS valued at $24 billion in 2006 • Kyoto Protocol offset market: $5.5 billion • Voluntary offset market: $100 million • Chicago Climate Exchange: $38 million * World Bank, 2006 Data
Carbon Offset Markets • Hitting stride, led by CDM… Source: World Bank / IETA, State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2007
North American Compliance Offset Markets • Current Programs: • Climate Trust • Alberta • Numerous Others Contemplated or Under Development: • Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative • California / Western Regional Offset Program • British Columbia • Manitoba • Ontario • Canadian Domestic Offset Program • U.S. Federal?
Voluntary Offset Markets • Current transactions around 10 million tons per year and growing* • Valued at close to $100 million* • Projected potential volume of 400 million tons ca. 2012? * World Bank / IETA 2007
CDM Already a Common Compliance Currency RGGI: link if price hits $10/ton California: link contemplated EU ETS: Linking Directive CDM U.S. Federal: links contemplated Australia NETS: link contemplated
CDM Also Underpins the Voluntary Market • CDM Gold Standard • Voluntary Carbon Standard • ECIS Standard • VER+ Standard • 3C VER Standard • CCB Project Design Standards • UK & Norway “Best Practice” Standards • Others
But This Doesn’t Mean Full Harmonization… • Current links are all one-way, unilateral • No links (yet) between non-CDM offset programs and standards • Significant differences exist among programs on: • Accounting & Additionality Standards • Monitoring & Verification Standards • Registry & Enforcement Systems
Why Harmonize Offsets? • Reduce search costs for buyers • Reduce transaction costs for sellers • Establish common currency—first step towards future integration of emissions markets
The Challenge: Different Priorities for Offsets • Low-cost reductions that reduce overall compliance costs (and/or allow more ambitious emissions targets) • Reduction opportunities in sectors difficult to cap • Secondary social, economic, environmental objectives (co-benefits) • Political constituencies
Standardizing Offset Markets • Project eligibility rules • Types of allowable projects • Geographic locations of projects • Offset accounting rules • Real, quantifiable, permanent, additional, etc. • Standards-based vs. project-specific • Setting baselines • Leakage
Standardizing Offset Markets, cont. • Monitoring and Verification Procedures • Accuracy, frequency • Qualifications of verifiers • Registries and Administrative Systems • How much project information is disclosed • Fair amount of harmonization possible—single institution?
Possible Ways Forward: Key questions • Are rules and requirements of existing North American offset programs similar enough that linking and/or integration seem feasible? • How can programs whose rules are still being considered coordinate efforts with existing programs? • To what extent should North America rely on and/or recognize credits generated under other (international) offset programs? • Are there existing institutions that could provide a common registration/admin system?
Standardizing Offset Markets • Project eligibility rules • Types of allowable projects • Geographic locations of projects • Offset accounting rules • Real, quantifiable, permanent, additional, etc. • Standards-based vs. project-specific • Monitoring and Verification Procedures • Accuracy, frequency • Qualifications of verifiers • Registries and Administrative Systems • How much project information is disclosed • Fair amount of harmonization possible—single institution?