WO STANDFORD University academics have found in their
study that a significant number of projects in the developing countries
are earning huge amounts of cash on the back of hollow promises of
cutting back on their carbon emissions. The study described it as
'routine abuses' of the UN carbon offset programme. According
to the paper prepared by the academics, the projects, which earn the
money by selling carbon credits to companies in the developed nations
(mainly Europe and north America) actually don't necessarily require
that money in order to grow. They also point out the discrepancies in
the method of certifying projects as 'eligible' to sell carbon credits.
This is seen as a big blow to the global carbon credit business, which
by some estimates could grow into a three trillion dollar market by
2020.
Although the main idea behind the programme seems
salutary, since it has been able to avoid confrontations between the
developed and developing nations, over who would bear the economic
costs of reducing the carbon emissions, but it has become a tool for
the growth hungry companies of the developing nations to show that they
are trying to reduce their carbon emissions. Companies,
especially in India and China, have managed to work their way around
the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which allows these companies to
acquire fundings for their projects from the more polluting companies
in the developed world by projecting these as clean energy projects.
These include many coal-based power generation companies, gas
liquefaction plants and the supposed 'clean coal' plants. Most of these
companies start pilot projects based on new technologies, which promise
to reduce carbon emissions.
The problem with the CDM is
that, while looking to help the big emitters clean up for their extra
emissions and promoting renewable energy initiatives, it indirectly
supports these companies to remain trapped in the 'dirty energy' cycle.
If these pilot projects, which still involve the use of coal and
natural gas, are being continuously financed by the polluting
industries of the West, then how could we expect that one day in the
near future they would abandon their projects for the 'real clean
energy'. By financing such initiatives we are only
encouraging these companies to stay in the 'fossil fuel mode', which is
actually the very cause of the rising greenhouse gas emissions. Such
lapses in the CDM are actually turning the pollutants into sources of
easy money for these companies. The UN, however, defends itself,
claiming that care has been taken in protecting the CDM from any abuses.
Companies
in the developed world would keep buying carbon credits to show that
they are working to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions while they
keep up their production and the companies in the developing countries
would happily set up pilot projects to show their efforts at combating
their rising emissions. Thus both, the developed and the developing
nations would avoid arguments about the adverse effects on their
respective economies,
but the net result wouldn't be the one the UN envisaged. A
refinement of the CDM regulations is required. The CDM must fully
satisfy itself that a particular project would really reduce emissions
not only in the short term, but also in the longer term. Projects based
on the renewable energy and efforts for afforestation should be given
the highest priority and should be made a benchmark for others to
follow. The CDM could work efficiently; it just needs a
slight course correction. Promotion of renewable and clean energy
should be its goal and it should also show in its actions (and
transactions).