From the University of East Anglia some news that a Major shake-up of carbon markets is called for. To that I ask: what carbon market? Seems they are pretty much DOA now.
Research from the University of East Anglia calls for a major shake-up of carbon markets
Research from the University of East Anglia and University of Sussex calls for a major shake-up of carbon markets
A panel of experts will meet ahead of the Durban climate summit to discuss a new report from the University of East Anglia and University of Sussex which calls for an overhaul of how markets in carbon emissions are governed.
Environmental, economic and development experts will debate whether the commitment to carbon markets is the right approach to tackle climate change at the public event ‘Carbon Markets for the Poor – A Contradiction in Terms?’ on November 15 at UEA London.
The event will launch a new research briefing paper which calls for a major shake-up of the way the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is governed – to promote transparency and accountability, create channels for greater public input, and ultimately ensure the benefits of sustainable development are passed to poor communities.
The paper, entitled ‘Governing Clean Development: what have we learnt?’ is the third in a series published as part of the Governance of Clean Development project at UEA.
The three-year Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funded research programme was set up to explore the politics and governance of clean development in the energy sector.
It investigates which actors, institutions and policy-making processes involved in clean development are resulting in effective climate action and development benefits, which are not, and why.
The findings show why the CDM falls short on its promise to provide sustainable development benefits in developing countries.
The paper has been authored by Prof Peter Newell, from the University of Sussex (formerly of UEA) and Jon Phillips, from UEA’s School of International Development.
Key findings:
- Stronger and more effective institutions from local to international level are required to steer the CDM toward climate and development goals.
- Local communities and the public have few opportunities to directly engage with CDM procedures and little political influence over CDM policy. Improved access to information is important but it does not do away with the need for representation of stakeholders.
- The CDM’s potential to reach citizens bypassed by other forms of finance can be enhanced by aligning the mechanism with national policies and coordinated donor initiatives.
- Crucially, the political barriers to the uptake of clean technologies run deeper than carbon markets and the scope of technocratic reform programmes that have been proposed to date. Wider political changes are required in the way institutions function and politics are conducted to reward the winners from a low carbon energy economy as well as address the potential losers.
Prof Newell said: “Our research shows that important aspects of the politics and governance of clean development are performing badly, resulting in poor outcomes for both the climate and for development. Reform is vital if the CDM is to credibly position itself as a ‘win-win’ mechanism for climate change mitigation and sustainable development.
“These twin goals of the CDM are undermined by poor governance and the political realities of overcoming vested interests in the energy sector. We have found a strong link between who takes the decisions and who benefits. There is a real danger that the CDM could become a ‘rich man’s club’ of project developers, emissions verifiers and government officials, in roles that overlap and lack transparency.”
Jon Phillips added: “The potential of the CDM lies in reaching sectors, regions and people that are unlikely to benefit from other forms of carbon finance. Better public engagement coordinated planning and accessibility for poor communities is needed to ensure the mechanism benefits the majority of people.”
The paper will be launched and discussed at the event by leading actors and specialists in the field, including Prof Newell, who will speak about the project’s findings and open a public debate on the role of carbon markets in climate policy.
The panel will be made up of leading carbon market specialists – including Adrian Rimmer, chief executive of the Gold Standard Foundation – a certification body which aims to improve the pro-poor outcomes of CDM projects, Cambridge University’s Prof Michael Grubb, who is also editor in chief of the journal Climate Policy, Craig Bennett, director of Policy and Campaigns at Friends of the Earth and Dr Emily Boyd, Reader in Environmental Change and Human Communities at the University of Reading.
The UK government’s Martin Hession, chair of the CDM Executive Board, will provide reflections on key messages at the end of the debate and Simon Maxwell, a Senior Research Associate at the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) in London and chair of the Climate Change and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), will chair the panel.
The public event takes place on November 15 at the UEA London Study Centre, from 7-9pm. To attend, contact Peter Quinn at p.quinn@uea.ac.uk or call 44-1603-592329.
For further details of the event, including a map, visit http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/gcd/UEA+London+Public+Debate+on+Carbon+Markets
For more information on the Governance of Clean Development project visit http://www.clean-development.com
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Funny how thieves always have to argue about how to divvy up the loot.
Between watching the live-feed circus webcast earlier and reading this post, what comes to mind is: what kind of separate reality is controlling these people, to make them come up with stuff like this? It is barren, intellectually, economically and politically. The common man looks at this and shakes his head in disbelief….that is, if he ever hears about it.
To understand why they need a shake up you have to read this first, then ponder.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=197513
It is well known that 2 of the largest funders of AGW are Goldman Sachs and one Henry Paulsen. Follow the money
regards
When you funnel money through opaque and complex structures to the developing world, most of it gets skimmed or stolen.
This pretty much sums up everything the United Nations does.
In large part the whole CAGW circus depends the the complete refusal of the liberal/left to see this.
… the “requirement” for governments to “fix” the unfixable through “carbon markets” is the 21st Century’s version of Piltdown Man. I’m beginning to wonder when the Neolithic cricket bats will reappear …
I don’t see carbon markets (cap-and-trade) going away simply because they are a way to redistribute wealth both within and between nations (gotta atone for colonialism, the bourgeoisie West needs to be denuded, and we have too many freedoms), they are a way to reduce the deficit, and they are a way to enrich bankers (some who control the Fed and hence can buy politicians and influence the economy) via carbon derivatives that they already have in place.
The global carbon market has been estimated to be worth $20 trillion a year. That’s going to mean probably $600+ quadrillion dollars in carbon derivatives.
On top of this, the NYTimes said recently that carbon credits are expected to be the global currency (to link global systems, not sure what they mean by ‘systems’).
“Since the start of the Kyoto Protocol, Clean Development Mechanism credits have been widely expected to be the main global carbon currency that would link a network of global systems.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/business/energy-environment/carbon-trading-may-be-ready-for-its-next-act.html
I hope I’m wrong about the carbon markets not going away…
The UEA motto ‘do different’, no less prophetic than the choice of school colours- ‘black and blue’
Quote re Carbon Markets : ….In danger of becoming a ‘rich man’s club’ of project developers, emissions verifiers and government officials, in roles that overlap and lack transparency.’….
Bwahaha.. that was its original aim. Just ask Al Gore.
We have found a strong link between who takes the decisions and who benefits. and we have also found that umbrellas get wet when it rains!
I often get investment brokers calling me suggesting I make a fortune by investing in the carbon market and they are genuinely surprised when I decline, especially when they hear my reasons.
Hey ho!
Due Diligence would be a better motto for UEA.
‘Do Different’ in the logo is either poor English or Latin for ‘I disagree.’ In any event, they’re beating a dead horse, or one that’s going into a twenty year hibernation with the level to declining phase of the climate cycle.
“NYTimes said recently that carbon credits are expected to be the global currency ”
Over my dead body.
One of the goals should be to investigate weather derivatives and see if anyone is trying to manipulate the market.
Wish I’d known about this 24 hours ago. All the people I know who may be going that way have already left so no chance of a lift now. 🙁
DaveE.
Carbon markets for the poor…
I just shake my head.
Many have expressed their belief here at WUWT that a majority of people are getting wise to those who would tax the very air that we breathe, but this news from Durban serves as a warning that we are no closer to the end of IPCC foolishness than before: those people do not care that they are arrogantly making ridiculous pronouncements based in fantasy.
The elites have legions of the ‘concerned’ to carry their water and hordes of crooked pols and other minions to enforce their schemes.
The schools and mass media have been completely subverted by climate-scare fellow travelers.
It’s going to get worse before it gets better.
No, no, no, UEA. Not “shake up”.
It’s a “shake down”.
Mao Stlong* Lepolt.
Canada’s Liberal leader, Bob Rae, is a nephew of UNaBomber Maurice Strong*, c/o Red China.
…-
“Ottawa slammed for stand against Kyoto extension”
“Facing the danger of collapse in global climate negotiations, the host of the talks is making a hard-hitting appeal to the Harper government to abandon its opposition to an extension of the Kyoto Protocol.
A top diplomat from South Africa, host of a crucial round of United Nations climate negotiations this month, is attacking Canada in highly undiplomatic language for its refusal to consider extending the international commitments to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.”
““Are you going to follow the United States, are you also going to become a serial non-ratifier of any agreements?” asked Mohau Pheko, the South African high commissioner to Canada, in an unusually harsh criticism.
“Why take a moral high ground before, on the issue of the environment, and suddenly do an about-turn now?” she asked in an interview with The Globe and Mail.
“We can’t afford to sign on to UN conventions and, when we don’t like the toys that are inside there, start throwing out the toys that we don’t like.”
Despite South Africa’s pressure, there is no indication that the Harper government is ready to reconsider its position. In a speech last week, Environment Minister Peter Kent said the government “will not be swayed” from its stand, no matter how “stormy” the climate talks become in Durban.
“However acute the international pressure, we will not agree to taking on a second commitment-period target under the Kyoto Protocol,” he said.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-slammed-for-stand-against-kyoto-extension/article2236195/
Look where all this is leading to. The same gang of international reprobates want the U.S. [and all other countries in the West] to “share” our sovereignty. Doesn’t that sound nice?
I am hearing Monty Python voices . . .
“This Carbon Market, which I purchased in this very shop not more than ‘aalf an hour ago, is dead”
“Its not dead, its sleepin’, slagged out after a long scam at UEA”
“Beautiful plumage the “IPCC Blue”
Just bear in mind the good news:
The countries that have enough money to waste on religious idiocy (China, India, Russia, some Arabs) don’t believe in Gaia.
The countries that believe in Gaia no longer have enough money to waste on religious idiocy, and are gradually stopping the waste.
The only big exception is Australia, which is on the bankrupt side of the ledger but still roars ahead toward Carbon Hell.
More indications that CAGW is about money and wealth distribution than anything else. Who is the wealth being redistributed to…? Also I still have trouble connecting all the dots between sustainability, carbon markets and the world’s poor. Most poor societies have reached (maybe centuries ago) or are approaching their level of sustainability because of population growth, not because of CO2, whether you have concluded it causes climate change or not. Unfortunately humans are like fish and birds and every other living species – we will reach a level of sustainability when number of deaths = number of births because resources are being consumed at the limit. The only way to be able to sustain more people is with more energy and you won’t get that by shifting wealth away from richer countries.
Never forget what grandma said:
Mighty hoax from little Enrons grow.
If anyone has a question as to where the money would go from a Cap and Trade scheme, here it is in black and white:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405
“Do Different” is Norfolk vernacular, not bad English or cod Latin.
I note that the piece above comes from “Dev” (Development studies). When I was in “Env” (Environmental Sciences) we considered Dev as lightweight, a joke. Hmmm.
4 eyes says:
November 14, 2011 at 6:31 pm
More indications that CAGW is about money and wealth distribution than anything else. Who is the wealth being redistributed to…? Also I still have trouble connecting all the dots between sustainability, carbon markets and the world’s poor…..
_________________________________________
If you start with the Bankers/Oil it all will make sense.
For example Maurice Strong, Father of CAGW (1st Earth Summit 1972) is a senior Advisor to the World Bank and Rockefeller Fund Trustee. He is an Oil man, a rabid Socialist and very involved with the UN.
Harry Dexter White was a senior U.S. Treasury official and the man behind the Bretton Woods Conference that formed the World Bank and IMF. White was also a Soviet Agent.
The poor and the real face of the IMF & World Bank. The word Predatory comes to mind.
http://www.whirledbank.org/development/sap.html
http://www.whirledbank.org/development/debt.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/IMF_WB/Budhoo_IMF.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/IMF_WB/Budhoo_50YIE.html
Any real “wealth distribution” is always FROM the poor TO the rich despite what the socialists try to tell us. The bankers and politicians always get the big cuts and the poor get the left overs if any.
“Sustainability” by the way was written by Ged Davis a thirty year Shell Oil exec who also worked for the United Nations/IPCC….
Climategate e-mail on Ged Davis’ Global Governance & Sustainable Development (B1)
Here is more on the (B1) scenario IPCC Emissions Scenarios
Here is who Ged Davis is (Shell Oil executive with IPCC connection and bank advisor)