Carbon Standards and Non-nation-state Actors
a report by
Heather Lovell1 and Heike Schroeder2
1. Lecturer, School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh; 2. Tyndall Research Fellow, Environmental Change Institute
This article is based on recent UK Tyndall Centre for Climate Change research (2006–2009) on the involvement of non-nation-state actors (cities, corporations and carbon-offset organisations) in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and post-2012 climate regime. The overall objective of the Tyndall project has been two-fold: to conceptualise and assess current carbon commitments from non-nation- state actors, and to examine how these actors are engaging with post- 2012 international climate change policy. We have sought to understand the ways in which the explosion in parallel initiatives seeking to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) – in cities, at a regional level, through corporations, carbon-offset organisations, etc. – challenge traditional concepts and approaches to international co-operation. We have empirically assessed the significant initiatives being undertaken by non-nation-state actors in order to understand how they are attempting to reduce GHG emissions and the institutional factors that may facilitate greater benefits to the atmosphere. To investigate these matters, we performed two actions. First, we developed a comprehensive database of climate commitments and achievements by non-nation-state actors, comprising around 3,000 entries. We then conducted a series of in-depth case studies of selected non-nation-state actors, primarily through interviews and documentary analysis. Our cases include major cities (London, Los Angeles, Mexico City and Melbourne), businesses (Shell, Scottish Power and Corus Group) and carbon-offset organisations (Ecosecurities and Climate Care). Major findings from our research are that non-nation-state actors are typically acting with reference to the international climate regime, even if they are not directly part of it.1 Furthermore, non-nation-state actors consider themselves more effective, efficient and faster at tackling climate change than international policy because of the difficulty and slowness of reaching agreements between nation states.2
Heather Lovell is a lecturer in the School of GeoSciences at the University of Edinburgh. For the past 10 years, she has researched the human dimensions of climate change mitigation, previously at the University of Technology in Sydney, in the UK Parliament and at Durham and Oxford Universities. Dr Lovell’s work has been funded by the Tyndall Centre, the UK Economic and Social Research Council and most recently the Nuffield Foundation (2008–2011) to investigate the tensions in creating a single fungible (i.e. standardised and interchangeable) international unit of carbon.
E:
heather.lovell@ed.ac.uk
Heike Schroeder is a Tyndall Research Fellow at the Environmental Change Institute, where, as part of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, she is analysing the role of non-nation-state actors in the current post-2012 negotiating process. She is also a James Martin 21st Century School Research Fellow in forest governance, where she is examining the effectiveness of the evolving the Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD) mechanism. In addition,
Dr Schroeder is a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the new long-term international research project on Earth System Governance under the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP).
Parallel Initiatives to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Corporations, Cities and Voluntary Offsets
Over the last five years there has been a huge increase in the involvement of non-nation-state actors making commitments to tackle climate change. These commitments to reduce emissions come from a variety of sources: from corporations and carbon-offset companies to cities, households and individuals. For instance, one of the most significant pledges came from the State of California in 2006, setting a target to reduce emissions throughout the state to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. There are also notable examples of emission reductions that have actually occurred (i.e. not just pledges): BP had an absolute reduction in emissions of 14% between 1998 and 2004, and Prudential (the financial services company) saw a 35% reduction in
CO2 emissions between 2001 and 2003. The Tyndall database of emission reduction pledges by non-nation-state actors contains over 3,000 entries, with carbon reductions estimated at a total of
This suggests that (excluding some of the larger commitments similar to that made by California) the commitments are generally small compared with the cuts that scientists say are required, but are not dissimilar to the cuts required under the Kyoto Protocol (5.2% reduction from 1990 base levels – equivalent to approximately 0.7 billion tonnes of carbon reduction [CO2e] per year).
approximately two billion tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) by 2012.3
Proliferation of Carbon Benchmarks and Standards
With growing interest in carbon-emission reductions from a range of organisations and sectors, the last few years have witnessed a huge increase in the number of carbon standards. This has created some problems for organisations who feel uncertain about which standard to adopt. For instance, for carbon-offset organisations there are currently 17 voluntary offset standards to choose from.4
The development of voluntary
carbon-offset standards has been an attempt to counter criticisms – especially from the media, non-governmental organisations and some governments – about the rigorousness and credibility of carbon offsets, and as such should be welcomed. However, the downside for carbon- offset producers and consumers is that it creates the potential for confusion and considerable duplication of effort. In Los Angeles, one major way of governing has been the promotion of voluntary and mandatory standards set at the state or national level. So far, these have focused mainly on the building sector. More recently, California has taken on the transport sector more rigorously by introducing a low-carbon fuel standard. The mandatory standard is to regulate the full cycle of emissions from producing, transporting and using fuels, including emissions from the moment oil is drilled and emissions that result from land use change to grow crops for biofuels. The goal of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard is to lower the carbon intensity of fuels sold in California by 10% by 2020. From 2011, companies selling fuel in California will have to lower the overall carbon intensity of their portfolio of fuels at a rate that will increase every year until 2020 or buy credits from companies that sell cleaner fuels.
14
© TOUCH BRIEFINGS 2010
Industry Outlook
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148