A ton is not always a ton: A road-test of landfill,manure, and afforestation/reforestation offset protocols in the U.S. carbon market |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Stockholm Environment Institute, 1402 Third Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98115, USA;2. U.S.EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (6207-J), Washington, DC 20460, USA;1. Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, NO-1433, Ås, Norway;2. Faculty of Social Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 7030, NO-5020, Bergen, Norway;1. Appalachian State University, United States;2. Département de Droit et Sciences Politiques, Université de Caen, France;1. Kenya Forestry Research Institute, Migori Sub-Regional Research Centre, PO Box 464, 40400 Suna-Migori, Kenya;2. Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology, PO Box 210, 40601 Bondo, Kenya;3. Maseno University, Private Bag, Maseno, Kenya;4. Kenya Forestry Research Institute, PO Box 20412, 00200 Nairobi, Kenya;1. Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 10, DK-1350 København K, Denmark;2. Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), Theodor-Lieser-Str. 2, 06120 Halle (Saale), Germany;3. Integrated Research Institute on Transformations of Human-Environment Systems (IRI THESys), Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany |
| |
| Abstract: | The outcome of recent international climate negotiations suggests we are headed toward a more fragmented carbon market, with multiple emission trading and offset programs operating in parallel. To effectively harmonize and link across programs, it will be important to ensure that across offset programs and protocols that a “ton is a ton”. In this article, we consider how sample offsets projects in the U.S. carbon market are treated across protocols from five programs: the Clean Development Mechanism, Climate Action Reserve, Chicago Climate Exchange, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and the U.S. EPA's former program, Climate Leaders. We find that differences among protocols for landfill methane, manure management, and afforestation/reforestation project types in accounting boundary definitions, baseline setting methods, measurement rules, emission factors, and discounts lead to differences in offsets credited that are often significant (e.g. greater than 50%). We suggest opportunities for modification and harmonization of protocols that can improve offset quality and credibility and enhance prospects for future linking of trading units and systems. |
| |
| Keywords: | Carbon offsets Offset markets Carbon accounting Greenhouse gas Climate policy |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
