Americans try to shift into 'carbon neutral'

Gregory Lamb in his article talks about being carbon neutral, carbon-positive and negative, carbon footprint.

"...Some environmentalists worry that the idea of going "carbon neutral" could be detrimental if it leads to people only buying offsets and not changing their lifestyles..."

"...Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai, who won a 2004 Nobel Peace Prize, recently urged what might be the grandest plan yet to offset carbon emissions at last month's international meeting on climate change in Nairobi, Kenya. Ms. Maathai proposed that the world's citizens commit to planting 1 billion trees, which would absorb about 250 million tons of the carbon dioxide now warming the atmosphere..."

Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an amendment to the international treaty on climate change, assigning mandatory emission limitations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the signatory nations.

The Kyoto Protocol now covers more than 160 countries globally and over 55% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

At its heart, the Kyoto Protocol establishes the following principles:

• Kyoto is underwritten by governments and is governed by global legislation enacted under the UN’s aegis
• Governments are separated into two general categories: developed countries, referred to as Annex I countries (who have accepted GHG emission reduction obligations and must submit an annual greenhouse gas inventory); and developing countries, referred to as Non-Annex I countries (who have no GHG emission reduction obligations but may participate in the Clean Development Mechanism).
• Any Annex I country that fails to meet its Kyoto obligation will be penalized by having to submit 1.3 emission allowances in a second commitment period for every ton of GHG emissions they exceed their cap in the first commitment period (i.e, 2008-2012).
• By 2008-2012, Annex I countries have to reduce their GHG emissions by an average of 5% below their 1990 levels (for many countries, such as the EU member states, this corresponds to some 15% below their expected GHG emissions in 2008). While the average emissions reduction is 5%, national limitations range from 8% reductions for the European Union to a 10% emissions increase for Iceland; but since the EU intends to meet its target by distributing different rates among its member states,much larger increases (up to 27%) are allowed for some of the less developed EU countries. Reduction limitations expire in 2013.
• Kyoto includes "flexible mechanisms" which allow Annex I economies to meet their GHG emission limitation by purchasing GHG emission reductions from elsewhere. These can be bought either from financial exchanges (such as the new unrelated-to-Kyoto EU Emissions Trading Scheme) or from projects which reduce emissions in non-Annex I economies under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), or in other Annex-1 countries under the JI.
• Only CDM Executive Board-accredited Certified Emission Reductions (CER) can be bought and sold in this manner. Under the aegis of the UN, Kyoto established this Bonn-based Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board to assess and approve projects (“CDM Projects”) in Non-Annex I economies prior to awarding CERs. (A similar scheme called “Joint Implementation” or “JI” applies in transitional economies mainly covering the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe).

What this means in practice is that Non-Annex I economies have no GHG emission restrictions, but when a GHG emission reduction project (a “GHG Project”) is implemented in these countries, that GHG Project will receive Carbon Credit which can be sold to Annex I buyers.

The Kyoto linking mechanisms are in place for two main reasons:

• the cost of complying with Kyoto is prohibitive for many Annex I countries (especially those countries, such as Japan or the Netherlands for example, with highly efficient, low GHG polluting industries, and high prevailing environmental standards). Kyoto therefore allows these countries to purchase Carbon Credits instead of reducing GHG emissions domestically; and,
• this is seen as a means of encouraging Non-Annex I developing economies to reduce GHG emissions since doing so is now economically viable because of the sale of Carbon Credits.

All the Annex I economies have established Designated National Authorities to manage their GHG portfolios under Kyoto. Countries including Japan, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain and many more, are actively promoting government carbon funds and supporting multilateral carbon funds intent on purchasing Carbon Credits from Non-Annex I countries. These government organizations are working closely with their major utility, energy, oil & gas and chemicals conglomerates to try to acquire as many GHG Certificates as cheaply as possible.

Virtually all of the Non-Annex I countries have also set up their own Designated National Authorities to manage the Kyoto process (and specifically the “CDM process” whereby these host government entities decide which GHG Projects they do or do not wish to support for accreditation by the CDM Executive Board).

The objectives of these opposing groups are quite different. Annex I entities want Carbon Credits as cheaply as possible, whilst Non-Annex I entities want to maximise the value of Carbon Credits generated from their domestic GHG Projects.

Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’

Fiona Harvey and Stephen Fidler of the Financial Times explain:

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

The FT investigation found:

■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

Activities that affect the carbon footprint of individuals

The following activities affect the carbon footprint of individuals, according to the various calculators available:

• car travel: depends on distance driven, fuel efficiency, and number of passengers per vehicle.
• Air travel: depends on distance and number of flights. Take-off and landing use large amounts of fuel, so two short flights produce more carbon than one long flight of comparative distance. However, long distance flights need to carry larger amounts of fuel which lowers their fuel efficiency. Therefore only some calculators distinguish between short and long distance flights, while others just count total miles or hours of flight. Emissions per mile and passenger are roughly equivalent to a mile and passenger in car travel.
• Boat travel: depends on distance travelled, fuel efficiency, and size of the boat. Can produce up to 8 times more carbon dioxide than an airplane traveling the same distance
• Other motorised transport such as bus or train: normally counts for less per person than either car or air travel.
• Electricity use, if provided by non-renewable resources. Some calculators ask for figures from utility bills, while others estimate the amount from size of household and usage patterns (such as whether you leave equipment on standby overnight).
• Home heating: depends on fuel source and amount used.
• Food miles: how much food you buy from non-local sources.
• Diet: meat-eater, vegetarian or vegan, conventionally farmed foods or organic produce.
• Embodied carbon in the products and services consumed: depends on such factors as the energy intensity of the industrial process and transportation costs
• Carbon intensity in the usage of the products consumed: for example the energy efficiency rating of the freezer or computer used.

Is 'Carbon Neutral' Good Enough?

I liked this good review of the carbon neutral acts by business majors.

http://makower.typepad.com/joel_makower/2007/01/is_carbon_neutr.html

Man Eats At Taco Bell, Loses Carbon Neutral Status

A man lost his much-coveted "carbon neutral" designation Sunday, eating a Cheesy Bean and Rice Burrito, a Carne Asada Steak Taquito, and a Mexican Pizza. Sources said the man appeared "distraught" and also "somewhat gassy and bloated."

http://www.brokennewz.com/displaystory.asp_Q_storyid_E_1506carbonneut

Yahoo! to Go Carbon Neutral in 2007

Yahoo! to Go Carbon Neutral in 2007

By the end of 2007, Yahoo! intends to be fully carbon neutral. The company says it has already begun reviewing proposals for the first carbon-offset projects it will invest in, and reviews of the final batch of projects will occur over the rest of 2007.

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/news_third.cfm?NewsID=34915

Norway wants to cut its net greenhouse gas emissions

Norway wants to cut its net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050 in the world's toughest national plan for fighting global warming

Emissions of greenhouse gases by Norway were 8.5 percent above 1990 levels in 2005 at 54 million tonnes, boosted by emissions from offshore oil and gas platforms. Emissions per capita are about 11 tonnes, almost three times the world average

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/41482/story.htm

Carbon neutral driving

A car has become an essential part of most people's lives, but did you know that a 1.8 litre car produces around 4.30 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) every year?

Some journeys are unavoidable. For those that aren't, there are greener forms of transport like walking or cycling. You can also reduce CO2 production by car sharing and keeping your speed down.

Carbon offset

While lacking a formal definition, Carbon offset can best be described as an act of paying a third party for reducing ("offsetting") greenhouse gas emissions when one is unable or unwilling to reduce one's own emissions. A well-known example is the planting of trees to compensate for the greenhouse gas emissions from personal air travel.

The idea of paying for emissions elsewhere instead of reducing by own actions is also known from the closely related concept of emissions trading, but while emissions trading is mostly in a strict formal and legal framework, carbon offsets generally refer to voluntary acts, often arranged by a commercial carbon offset provider.

A wide variety of offset methods are in use — while tree planting has initially been a mainstay of carbon offsetting, renewable energy and energy conservation offsets have now become increasingly popular, and purchase and withdrawal of emissions trading credits is also seen.

The appeal of becoming "carbon neutral" has contributed to the increasing popularity of voluntary offsets which are often cheaper alternatives to reducing one's own fossil-fuel consumption. However, many environmentalists object to offsets in principle, and many have questioned the benefits of certain types of offsets (tree planting in particular), and numerous individual projects.