|
| |
|
Special Report
on Selected Side Events at SB 24 |
| |
|
![]()
|
| |
|
Events
convened on Monday, 22 May 2006 |
| |
|
Where
next for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme? |
| |
|
Presented
by the UK |
| |
|
Merylyn Hedger,
Environment Agency, UK, presented the Life Emissions Trading
Scheme Update (LETS Update), which looks at the technical
feasibility of expanding the EU ETS in future phases to cover
additional sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and options for
improving the design and harmonization of this scheme. She
explained that the project was undertaken in two phases: a
scoping phase to prioritize the areas of greatest importance
for more detailed study; and a main phase focusing on
technical assessment overseen by various working groups. She
emphasized that the outcomes of the LETS Update project will
contribute to the European Commission’s 2006 review of the EU
ETS.
Domenico Gaudioso, Agency
for the Environment and Technical Services, Italy, noted that
the EU ETS currently covers approximately 50% of carbon
dioxide emissions across the EU and outlined the results
reached by the working group that considered the expansion of
the EU ETS to other sectors. He said criteria chosen to assess
inclusion of additional GHGs in the ETS include: the
significance of sources; the uncertainty of emissions
estimates; the availability of abatement technologies; the
number and size of emitters; and the effectiveness of other
policies. He stated that agriculture, landfills and transport
did not pass the initial screening because they consist of a
large number of small emitters or that emissions from these
sectors emanate from diffuse sources. He said the aluminum,
parts of the chemicals, and the coal mining sectors had been
recommended for inclusion in the ETS while the commercial and
industrial refrigeration sector had been examined but not
recommended for inclusion.
Noting that various
sectors are difficult to tackle due to the presence of a large
number of small emitters, Molly Anderson, Environment Agency,
UK, said these sectors should be addressed to ensure they
contribute to achieving the Kyoto targets. She explained that
the LETS Update project found that the introduction of a
domestic offset programme could provide an incentive for
emissions reductions in sectors not covered by the EU ETS. On
the interaction between the EU ETS and other EU policies, she
indicated that the LETS project concludes that existing
policies could be synergized to achieve overall environmental
objectives and that new policies could be designed to take
account of the EU ETS.
| |
| | |
| |
|
Presentation on
the MAC Directive |
| |
|
Presented by
the European Commission |
| |
|
Agnieszka Kozakiewicz, European Commission, stated
that the main objectives of the upcoming EU directive on Mobile Air
Conditioning systems (MACs) are phasing out and controlling the
leakage of fluorinated gases with global warming potential (GWP)
higher than 150. She indicated that the directive mainly applies to
passenger cars and that its review might lead to the extension of
the regulation to other vehicle categories. She emphasized that the
directive is technology neutral rather than prescriptive and treats
all manufacturers equally.
Jane Amilhat, European Commission, provided an
overview of the European regulation on fluorinated gases and
highlighted that it focuses on containment and recovery measures of
fluorinated gases in the Kyoto Protocol such as hydroflurocarbons,
perflurocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride gases. She stated that the
regulation also contains provisions on training, certification,
data-reporting, labeling, and market prohibitions. She emphasized
that the regulation and the MAC directive could lead to an emission
reduction of approximately 21 million tons of GHGs by 2012 and 40
million tons around 2020.
Participants discussed possible effects of the MAC
directive and the regulation on fluorinated gases on overall
emission reductions and climate change abatement.
| |
| |
|
Transfer of
innovative renewable energy technologies: experiences of German companies
with CDM/JI |
| |
|
Presented by
Germany |
| |
|
Volkard Riechmann, North Rhine-Westphalia State
Secretary, said energy efficient and renewable energy technologies
are the only valid energy choices that lead to sustainable
development. He described the outcomes of the 2004 International
Conference for Renewable Energy and noted North Rhine-Westphalia’s
expertise in operating efficient coal-fired power plants.
Sonja Butzengeiger, Ministry for the Environment,
Germany, stated that while Germany does not intend to use the CDM or
JI mechanisms to reach its Kyoto targets, the German private sector
is involved in these activities. She described the German CDM and JI
project portfolio, which includes 13 CDM projects primarily focused
on biogas and biomass.
Michael Fübi, RWE Power, discussed the industry’s
perspective on the future of the CDM and JI market, suggesting that
most of the low-cost GHG abatement projects will mainly be those
that abate hydrofluorocarbons, nitrous oxide or methane.
Stephan Waerdt, Pro2 Anlagentechnik, said the
capture of coal mine and landfill gas will substantially reduce GHG
emissions and could make significant contributions to meeting energy
needs, especially in South America and Asia.
Ahmet Lokurlu, Solitem GmbH, provided an overview
of a solar based air-conditioning and steam generation system,
noting that hotels are important clients.
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
Sharing of
experiences with the methods for adjustments of GHG emission
inventories |
| |
|
Presented by
the UNFCCC Secretariat |
| |
|
Katia Simeonova, UNFCCC,
highlighted Parties’ increased interest in the adjustments exercise
of GHG emission inventories over the 2004-2005 period.
Astrid Olsson, UNFCCC, described
the process for the 2005 adjustments exercise, emphasizing that the
interactions between the Parties and the expert review team (ERT)
are crucial to solving potential adjustment cases, in particular
when problems arise due to lack of transparency.
Newton Paciornik, Ministry of
Science and Technology, Brazil, described the 2005 adjustments
exercise from the perspective of lead reviewers, based on a single
case. He concluded that the review identified the problems easily
and that it was both useful and relevant.
Audun Rosland, Norwegian
Pollution Control Authority, highlighted discrepancies between
Norway’s and the ERT’s emissions estimates from the aluminum sector.
He stated that albeit disagreement, the adjustments exercise
provided Norway an incentive to review its accounting method for
perfluorocarbons from aluminum production.
Tinus Pulles, TNO Built
Environment and Geosciences, provided a second lead reviewer’s
perspective on the 2005 adjustments exercise. He said Parties
respond differently to the review and the adjustments procedure,
suggesting that a peer review might be more efficient than the
legalistic perspective, which leads to repeated interactions and
lengthy texts.
Tomo Aizawa, National Institute
for Environmental Studies Center for Global Environmental Research,
shared Japan’s experience on methods for adjustments and stated that
communication with the ERT provided an opportunity to check
country-specific methods used in reporting emissions.
Participants discussed: the
length of the exchange of views between Parties and the ERT when
disagrement on adjustments exists; and emissions estimates when
specific data is
unavailable. | |
| |
|
|
| |
|
Can sectoral
approaches to the CDM promote renewable energy
technology? |
| |
|
Presented by
the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and
Energy |
| |
|
Wolfgang Sterk, Wuppertal Institute for Climate,
Environment and Energy, highlighted the current status of renewable
energy technologies (RETs) in the CDM and the potential role of
sectoral approaches to the CDM. Noting some of the barriers to using
RETs in the CDM such as high transaction and up-front investment
costs, he outlined the different options for a sectoral approach to
the CDM. He listed some of the potential benefits of sectoral
approaches, including aggregation of small scale activities and
enhanced sector-wide transformations. Outlining the disadvantages,
he suggested that sectoral approaches might swamp the market with
CERs and exacerbate current geographical imbalances in CDM.
Klaus Oppermann, World Bank, highlighted the Bank’s
experience with programmatic CDM. He emphasized that while the CDM
is a success for renewables, many important areas such as household
heating and cooking, and transportation in developing countries are
underrepresented. He stressed that RETs can utilize the existing
bundling rules set by the CDM Executive Board, but noted problems
with availability of methodologies for rural electrification and the
new additionality tool. He added that there are high transaction
costs and loss of CERs involved in small-scale CDM projects.
Johannes Lackmann, German Renewable Energy
Federation, presented German and European experiences in promotional
schemes for renewable energies. He underscored the presence of large
subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuels as one of the main
impediments to the growth of the worldwide renewables market. He
outlined the major support schemes for RETs in Germany, such as
research and development budgets, eco-taxes and feed-in-tariff
systems. Emphasizing the effectiveness of some of the promotional
policies for RETs in the electricity sector such as the use of
differentiation schemes, he noted that the emissions trading scheme
is one of the most expensive options in terms of energy prices.
Christoph Bals, Germanwatch, examined whether
programmatic and policy CDM could promote RETs. Noting some of the
problems with programmatic CDM, he highlighted the prospects of
linking national incentive schemes for renewable energy such as
feed-in-tariff systems with the CDM.
Participants discussed the utility of eco-taxes
versus market based instruments in economies other than Germany and
the applicability of German policy tools to dual energy markets such
as those in
Africa. | |
|
The Earth
Negotiations Bulletin on the side (ENBOTS) © <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is a special
publication of the International Institute for Sustainable
Development (IISD). This issue has been written by Asmita Bhardwaj,
Alice Bisiaux, and Robynne Boyd. The photographer is Francis Dejon.
The Digital Editor is Diego Noguera. The Editor is
Soledad Aguilar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. The
Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree
VI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. The opinions
expressed in ENBOTS are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of IISD and funders. Excerpts from ENBOTS may be
used in non-commercial publications only with appropriate academic
citation. For permission to use this material in commercial
publications, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Electronic
versions of issues of ENBOTS from SB 24 can be found on the Linkages
website at http://www.iisd.ca/climate/sb24/enbots/. The
ENBOTS Team at SB 24 can be contacted by e-mail at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. | |
|
You are currently subscribed to enb as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Subscribe to IISD Reporting Services' free newsletters and lists for environment and sustainable development policy professionals at http://www.iisd.ca/email/subscribe.htm
|
