UEA: shake-shake-shake up your Carbon at Durban

University of East Anglia
UEA coat of arms: Image via Wikipedia

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

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bruce Cobb
November 14, 2011 4:33 pm

Funny how thieves always have to argue about how to divvy up the loot.

November 14, 2011 4:41 pm

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.

November 14, 2011 4:49 pm

To understand why they need a shake up you have to read this first, then ponder.
It is well known that 2 of the largest funders of AGW are Goldman Sachs and one Henry Paulsen. Follow the money

Philip Bradley
November 14, 2011 4:50 pm

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.

November 14, 2011 4:53 pm

… 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 …

November 14, 2011 4:54 pm

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.”
I hope I’m wrong about the carbon markets not going away…

November 14, 2011 4:57 pm

The UEA motto ‘do different’, no less prophetic than the choice of school colours- ‘black and blue’

Peter J
November 14, 2011 4:58 pm

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.

November 14, 2011 4:59 pm

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!

Third Party
November 14, 2011 5:00 pm

Due Diligence would be a better motto for UEA.

Mike McMillan
November 14, 2011 5:16 pm

‘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.

November 14, 2011 5:20 pm

“NYTimes said recently that carbon credits are expected to be the global currency ”
Over my dead body.

November 14, 2011 5:22 pm

One of the goals should be to investigate weather derivatives and see if anyone is trying to manipulate the market.

David A. Evans
November 14, 2011 5:33 pm

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. 🙁

Luther Wu
November 14, 2011 5:56 pm

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.

November 14, 2011 6:00 pm

No, no, no, UEA. Not “shake up”.
It’s a “shake down”.

November 14, 2011 6:01 pm

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.”

November 14, 2011 6:10 pm

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?

Fred from Canuckistan
November 14, 2011 6:21 pm

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”

November 14, 2011 6:29 pm

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.

4 eyes
November 14, 2011 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. 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.

November 14, 2011 6:33 pm

Never forget what grandma said:
          Mighty hoax from little Enrons grow.

November 14, 2011 6:35 pm

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:

Hector Pascal
November 14, 2011 6:59 pm

“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.

Gail Combs
November 14, 2011 7:35 pm

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.
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)

Gail Combs
November 14, 2011 8:26 pm

Camburn says:
November 14, 2011 at 6:35 pm
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:
GEE, the same company responsible for the 2008 food riots and the starvation of millions of children. What a coincidence… NOT!
Matt Taibbi also did a great job of explaining the stuff behind “Foreclosuregate” http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/25/aig_and_the_big_takeover_matt
More on Foreclosuregate and why Obama’s Loan Modification plan plays right into the banker’s hands by setting a homeowner up for foreclosure. (I have been there)

November 14, 2011 8:49 pm

IF you know some going cheap the australian Govt needs some

November 14, 2011 9:21 pm

“…a Major shake-up of carbon markets is called for.”
I hope they shake them up really, really hard just before the markets open.

Brian H
November 14, 2011 9:36 pm

Lets guess: will the benefits to be funnelled to the poor go through the hands of governmental and international bodies before being “distributed”? That’s a true “trickle-down” system; a trickle is all that escapes.

Pete H
November 14, 2011 10:25 pm

“The panel will be made up of leading carbon market specialists!”
It matter not one jot what any “Expert” panel or University come up with when the money market is involved. If dealers can see a way of making a $/£ they will trade in it. Is it not obvious (apart from our poor Antipodean friends government) that the dealers know its a crock and will not touch carbon trading with a barge pole? The real shakers and movers can see all the experts need to keep the AGW farce running or they are out on their ears but its the old “Would you buy a second hand car from this man”!
Hell, with the current demise in Europe of the Euro there simply is not the money to support this rubbish. Its just taking them a little time to wriggle out of it without looking to stupid!

November 14, 2011 10:38 pm

Gail Combs: Some threads back when I was unable to respond you railed against the dosing of children for various “hyper” conditions, mostly imaginary. I just wish to endorse your remarks and encourage you to “maintain the rage”.

peter miller
November 14, 2011 10:56 pm

I have said it before here, so I will say it again:
The best analogy to a seller in the carbon market is a hooker.
You have it, so you sell it. But you still have it, so you sell it again, but you still have it so you sell it again, and again……………
The buyer has a fleeting feel good factor, while the seller has found the mythical fountain of money by the continuous selling of something intangible.
No wonder the carbon market, like organised prostitution, is a magnet for organised crime.

November 14, 2011 11:49 pm

So, it never was about the science then. Who knew?

November 14, 2011 11:53 pm

Who pays for all this garbage which passes for research? As always, we the taxpayers do. We are ripped off right, left and center. Democracy no longer exists.

November 15, 2011 1:43 am

Consensus climate scientists (I’ll simply count these carbon market specialist scientists as ordinary consensus climate scientists; cogs in the machine just like Phil Jones or James Hansen) obviously have been given the order to devise new embezzlement schemes; the old ones aren’t working anymore.

John Marshall
November 15, 2011 1:50 am

A meeting of experts?
Definition of expert:- X the unknown quantity. Spurt a drip under pressure.

November 15, 2011 5:06 am

Someones not getting there share. I’d look at who finaced this study. Sorry got my day job to do or I’d do more than a drive-by comment.

November 15, 2011 6:01 am

Here is another half-dead euromarket
No volume for some time; Frankenstein was a European invention, too….

Roger Longstaff
November 15, 2011 6:34 am

From the fraudsters who gave us Climategate – and they now want to lecture to us on carbon markets!
Send a clear message to the UK government, and get rid of these clowns:

November 15, 2011 7:17 am

So, basically they are going to push the Kyoto Protocol version New as if their purpose for begin is sinking like the Titanic. It’s as if the captain of the Titanic kept steering the ship while it up-ended and sank. Do we give him credit for NOT knowing when to quit? NO!
These clowns all know that carbon trading has nothing to do with climate and all to do with wealth redistribution and profit-taking.

G. Karst
November 15, 2011 9:10 am

And little Red Riding Hood said “My what big teeth you have grandma!” GK

George E. Smith;
November 15, 2011 12:32 pm

I’d pay more attention; well maybe some, anyway, if the UEA gurus, at least had some inkling of the difference between adjectives and adverbs.

November 15, 2011 2:46 pm

You cannot create a commodity with intrinsic value out of thin air.
Every time its tried, it falls flat on its face.
Of course, scam artists like Maurice Strong profit handsomely in the between time.

November 16, 2011 3:42 am

Roger Carr says:
November 14, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Never forget what grandma said:
Mighty hoax from little Enrons grow.
Very good!

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights