Inter-trading permanent emissions credits and rented temporary carbon emissions offsets: Some issues and alternatives

Climate Policy

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 435-444

  Sedjo, Roger A ^a   Marland, Gregg ^b  

^a RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE   (United States)

^b OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

Biological sequestration; Carbon offsets; Permanence; Rents

Indexed keywords

CARBON EMISSION; ECONOMIC INSTRUMENT; EMISSION CONTROL; EMISSIONS TRADING; KYOTO PROTOCOL;

EID: 0348224603     PISSN: 14693062     EISSN: 17527457     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1469-3062(03)00051-2     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Blanco, J., Forner, C., 2000. Special Considerations Regarding the "Expiring CERs" Proposal. Paper Prepared for Presentation at the International Forum on Enhancement of Japan's Private Sector's Overseas Re-afforestation Cooperation, Fall, 2000. The Ministry of the Environment, Colombia, 17 pp.
2. Chomitz, K.M., 2000. Evaluating Carbon Offsets from Forestry and Energy Projects: How Do They Compare? WorldBank Policy Research Working Paper 2357, New York. See http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/ Research/workpapers.nsf/5ade973899c8608685256731006834d5/ d92de72e3c60be77852568f9004b40e3?OpenDocument.
3. Colombia, Ministry of the Environment, 2000. Expiring CERs. A Proposal to Addressing the Permanence Issue in United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC/SBSTA/2000/MISC.8. 13 September 2000, pp. 23-26. Available at http://www.unfccc.de
4. Denmark, 2002. On behalf of the European Community and its member states. Views on issues related to modalities for the inclusion of afforestation and reforestation project activities under the CDM in the first commitment period, pp. 38-48 in document FCCC/SBSTA/2002/MISC.22, Methodological Issues: Land Use, Land-use change and forestry. Available at http://www.unfccc.de
5. Fearnside, P. M., Lashof, D. A., & Moura-Costa, P. (2000). Accounting for time in mitigating global warming through land-use change and forestry. Mitigation Adaptation Strategies Global Change, 5 239-270.
6. Herzog, H., Caldeira, K., Reilly, J., 2003. An issue of permanence: assessing the effectiveness of temporary carbon storage. Clim. Change (in press).
7. Hull, J., Lempriere, T., 2002. Implementation Issues for the Creation of Offsets in the Agriculture and Forestry Sectors for Use in a Potential Canadian Domestic Emission Trading System. Paper Delivered to the Forestry and Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Modeling Forum Workshop #2: GHG Mitigation, 8-11 October, Shepherdstown, WV.
8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2000. Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry: A Special Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
9. Kauppi, P., et al., 2001. Technical and Economic Potential of Options to Enhance, Maintain and Manage Biological Carbon Reservoirs and Geo-engineering. In: Metz, B., et al. (Eds.), Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Contribution of Working Group III, Third Assessment Report on Climate Change of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, Chapter 4, pp. 303-343.
10. Korhonen, R., Pingoud, K., Savolainen, I., & Matthews, R. (2002). the role of carbon sequestration and the tonne-year approach in fulfilling the objective of climate convention. Environ. Sci. Policy, 5 429-441.
11. Marland, G., Schlamadinger, B., & Leiby, P. (1997). Forest/biomass mitigation strategies: does the timing of carbon reductions matter?. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 27 S213-S226.
12. Marland, G., Fruit, K., & Sedjo, R. (2001). Accounting for sequestered carbon: the question of permanence. Environ. Sci. Policy, 4(6), 259-268.
13. Meinshausen, M., Hare, B., 2000. Temporary Sinks Do Not Cause Permanent Climatic Benefits. Manuscript distributed at the Sixth Meeting of the Congress of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, The Hague, The Netherlands, September. Available at http://www.carbonsinks.de
14. 2 avoided emissions and sequestration-description and applications in forestry. Mitigation Adaptation Strategies Global Change, 5 51-60.
15. Nordhaus, W., Boyer, J., 2000. Warming the World: Economic Models of Global Warming. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
16. Richards, K. R. (1997). The time value of carbon in bottom-up studies. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 27 S279-292.
17. Sedjo, R.A., Toman, M., 2001. Can Carbon Sinks Be Operational? RFF Workshop Proceedings. RFF Discussion Paper 01-26, July. http://www.rff.org/disc_papers/PDF_files/0126.pdf
18. Tipper, R., de Jong, B.H., 1998. Quantification and Regulation of Carbon Offsets from Forestry: Comparison of Alternative Methodologies, with Special Reference to Chiapas, Mexico. Commonwealth For. Rev. 77, 219-228, as cited in IPCC, 2000.
19. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 1998. The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Document FCCC/CP/1997/7/Add.1. Available at http://www.unfccc.de
20. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2002. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Seventh Session, Marrakesh, 29 October to 10 November 2001, Document FCCC/CP/2001/13/add.1 (21 January 2002). Available at http://www.unfccc.de
21. Van Kooten, G. C., Binkley, C. S., & Delcourt, G. (1995). Effect of carbon taxes and subsidies on optimal forest rotation age and supply of carbon services. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 77 365-374.
22. Van Kooten, G. C., Grainger, A., Ley, E., Marland, G., & Solberg, B. (1997). Conceptual issues related to carbon sequestration: uncertainty and time. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 27 S65-82.