The Carbon Blog

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon opened the first formal talks in the drawn out process of drawing up the successor to the 1997 Kyoto climate change pact, telling attendees “the world is waiting for a solution that is long-term and economically viable.” Speaking on Monday in a video address to the 1,000 delegates from 190 nations, the Secretary General was openly optimistic for the at the U.N. headquarters in Thailand.

The week-long meeting is the result of a rare occurrence between nations during the 2007 meeting in Bali, where they decided to start negotiations to replace the Kyoto Protocol. As it stands, the Kyoto agreement only binds 37 wealthy nations to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by an average of 5% from 1990 levels by 2012. Any new agreement will aim to hold more countries accountable, while also setting the stage for developing nations.

U.N. climate experts are pushing to impose curbs on all nations, though there is quite a bit of disagreement about how to share the burden between developing and developed nations, like we see in the examples of China, India and the United States.

Although no major policy decisions are expected from this meeting, the real goal is to establish a timetable for further discussions, which will finish with a U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (C4, if you will) near the end of 2009.
That said, environmental groups are paying close attention to this meeting, looking for preliminary signs of continued commitment from the nations currently committed to the Kyoto Protocol, and developing nations that are in the midst of modernizing their infrastructure.

Like all U.N. negotiations, these talks are expected to be long and tortuous. However, a series of climate change reports from last year emphasized the need to curb and combat global warming.

One in particular said it was more than 90% likely that our activities are to blame for the changes in the weather system, which yields the potential for more droughts, severe storms, and glacial melt.

Punishing the New Players

Another big issue to be discussed is the ongoing reluctance of large developing nations, in this case China and India, to agree on measures that might curb their rapid industrialization.

Considering how Western nations have gleefully poisoned the planet since medieval times, one can certainly appreciate the reasoning behind these nations’ policies, but effective governance of carbon emissions and the development of atmospheric scrubbing mechanisms is crucial to the long-term viability of the Earth. It would be nice if there was some kind of reward for developing cleaner technologies or, baring that, a way to effectively scrub the carbon and other less-desirable elements from the atmosphere and eject them into the Sun.

What About America?

Negotiations are also expected to stagnate when dealing with the United States, as they’re the only developed nation that has not signed on to the 11 year old Kyoto Protocol. That said, American President George W. Bush is expected to leave Washington in January 2009, so this could improve matters.

It’s been seven years since Bush tossed the Kyoto agreement out the window, justifying his actions with a statement about how such limitations would hurt the American economy and was unfairly biased towards developing nations. There’s no doubt that the Kyoto Protocol would have hurt the interests of big business in the U.S., but some type of emissions cap could have been presented as a “conciliatory measure.”

Regardless of past stances, the American government has since changed their stance, saying it would accept emissions targets if other large nations do the same.

Greater Support Necessary

The fact that representatives from 190 nations can meet and discuss some of the most important questions facing the near-future of mankind is a great sign of international cooperation and, though it will be difficult in some cases, this is showing the world that global warming is something that the people of Earth want to combat. Once an agreement can be made regarding emissions, targets and caps, then we can begin to pressure our governments to ensure these targets are met or exceeded.

Fixing the world should be everyone’s responsibility.

In a recently released white paper, Japan’s Atomic Energy Commission failed to emphasize the role nuclear power needs to play in order to ensure a stable supply of electric power in the country. Electric power that the nation desperately needs as another hot summer is about to start, and pushing the existing power generation plants to their limits.

It’s been proven time and again that, despite the obvious risks, nuclear power generation is one of the best options available for nations with few options with hydro-electricity. It is also quite difficult to cut emissions of carbon dioxide that are said to be responsible for global warming without splitting the atom. Now, more than ever, the role of nuclear power needs to be widely understood.

The White Paper on Nuclear Energy (Japanese Only) is released annually in Japan and typically features a special section on key issues and provides information regarding federal initiatives from the standpoint of the development and usage of nuclear power. However, this year’s report provides only a simple overview of situations concerning nuclear power both at home and abroad. The commission is supposed to be the nation’s control center for nuclear power generation policy, but has seemingly given up its duty to promote the importance of such technologies.As of this writing, there is little chance of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant in Niigata starting up any of its 7 reactors, all of which were ordered shut down in the wake of a powerful earthquake in July of 2007. There is also no talk concerning the safe and effective disposal of high-level radioactive waste produced as a byproduct of the nuclear power generation process.

Clean, Yet Dirty

Problems relating to nuclear power generation are accumulating. Given this situation, it’s even more important for the Atomic Energy Commission to take a strong lead and work to solve these problems. Japanese ingenuity is a remarkable thing and, if they can solve the problems associated with this virtually carbonless source of power, the world could begin to replace the filthy coal-based plants with safe and clean atomic-based generators.

Countries all over the world are paying keen attention to the efficiency of the new generations of nuclear power plants, whose generating capacity is huge, while virtually no CO2 is released into the atmosphere.

Plans for construction of more generators have been gaining considerable momentum both rapidly and widely. Around the globe, there are approximately 435 nuclear reactors in use. This number is expected to jump to just over 800 by 2040.

Another report was written by a panel of experts set up by the commission to present possible applications of nuclear power in the future. The report suggested using this technology part of the effort to combat global warming, and even went so far as to list key measures to support the construction of nuclear power plants in developing nations as well as promoting innovations in the existing designs.

Apparently, It Can Wait

Although the Atomic Energy Commission was the group that had requested the forward-looking report, the annual white paper only briefly touched on the matter, and completely ignored the measures listed within. It almost seems as though nuclear power has been converted to a topic of discussion rather than a viable component of the government’s policy priorities.

In January, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda gave a speech on global warming at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, but made no mention of nuclear energy as a potential replacement for coal or oil-based power plants.

Some industry leaders are concerned that the issues regarding this form of electricity generation will not be on the agenda at the upcoming G8 meeting this coming June. The meeting will take place in Aomori Prefecture, where there are several nuclear-related facilities, including a reprocessing plant for spent fuel rods.

Although clean energy sources like solar and wind will be discussed, we can’t forget about other options which are better suited to feed our unquenchable thirst for electricity.

With the 2012 expiration date of the Kyoto Protocol fast approaching, Japan is already thinking about its future emissions goals.

Japan is one of the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases and has vowed to cut those emissions by 6% from 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.  The country’s environment minister, Ichiro Kamoshita, even went as far as to say that an environment tax could be instituted if there was the potential for Japan to miss their goals.

One of the key tools that Japan is considering when Kyoto expires involves a cap-and-trade emissions trading system.  This is seen as a major change in Japanese climate policy, which has appeared weak because of the lack of buy-in from the business lobby.  Because of this, the government has relied heavily on voluntary emissions cuts from businesses and citizens.

Another option, should the targets seem too difficult to meet, include the introduction of an environment tax for all businesses, scaled on how much carbon they are responsible for emitting.  Depending on how well the government handles the revenue from such a tax, this may prove to be one of the better options for the environment ministry to pursue.  Not only would it be controlled by a group of people that would monitor the actual amount of gases being released into the atmosphere, but it would offer some great incentives to businesses that have so far had no reason to clean up their pollution-causing processes.

Finally, Kamoshita also hinted at raising the price of oil and fuel further.  But with so many businesses already struggling with the 30 Yen/Liter increase since September 2007, this may not be the best option for reducing emissions while also keeping the struggling economy afloat.

When asked about the global climate policy, Kamoshita said that Japan is aiming to take the lead role of any high-level talks on the environment.  Considering how the Kyoto Protocol is almost exclusively responsible for Japan’s existing image as a “green” nation, you can’t blame him for this stance.

Good News For The Environment

Personally, I think this is a great thing for Japan to do.  One nation does need to take a lead role in cleaning up the environment as well as developing the systems and technologies necessary to scrub the grime from our atmosphere and biosphere.  Lord knows that other nations are not yet willing to take that role, so why not leave it in Japan’s capable hands?  They’ve already proven that they can meet and exceed their Kyoto promises, so we needn’t worry about hypocrisy on the part of the Japanese.

Considering how I live in Japan, I have a strong interest in this government’s environmental ambitions.  As more information becomes available, and as more nations begin working to combat their carbon footprints, I’ll be writing about the endeavors here on TheCarbonBlog.

Although TheCarbonBlog is only a few days old, I’ve already had a few people ask me what a carbon credit was, and how it was different from carbon trading or a carbon offset. Considering how the first 20 or so posts I have lined up for this site talk a great deal about various tactics to scrub this element from our atmosphere or otherwise compensate for our lifestyles, I should answer this question as best as possible right up front.

Carbon Credits

Carbon credits were created as a means to hold countries accountable for their emissions, which have been linked to global warming. They play a key role in reducing greenhouse effect emissions on an industrial scale by placing caps on nations and letting the market assign a monetary value to any shortfall through trading. Credits bought and sold between businesses either nationally or internationally. Credits can also be used to finance carbon reduction projects between partners around the world.

A listing of the emissions caps for each nation can be found on the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change site.

Personal Carbon Trading

Personal carbon trading is similar to carbon credits, but rather than work with businesses, it targets citizens of a nation. PCT is the act of allocating equal emissions credits to individuals on a per capita basis, within the national carbon budget. People are then responsible for supplying these credits when buying fuel or electricity. Individuals who need more energy, like businesses, can take part in emissions trading to secure more credits.

Personal carbon trading is often confused with carbon offsetting because of the similarities in paying for emissions, but where offsetting is a voluntary venture, personal carbon trading is passed as a law and mandatory for every citizen to ensure nations reach their carbon emissions targets.

Carbon Offsetting

Carbon offsetting is the act of neutralizing our greenhouse gas emissions. As stated above, a popular example of offsetting would be through the purchase of carbon credits. This would compensate for the emissions caused by a person’s air travel or otherwise typical lifestyle.

Like the idea of emissions trading, when we buy carbon credits, the actual offsetting takes place elsewhere. However, emissions trading is governed by a very strict legal framework to ensure the offsets are valid and unused. Carbon offsets are generally purchased through voluntary payments by individuals and businesses, and arranged by commercial or non-profit carbon offset providers. That said, as of February 2008, there are very few standards or certifications for these offsets in place, which makes the territory prime for internet scams.

There are quite a few different offsetting techniques, with planting trees being the most popular. But in addition to reforestation, there are renewable energy, energy conservation and methane capture offsets to consider. This offsetting has become part of the “carbon neutral” lifestyle that has become popular in recent years and is gaining momentum in many western nations as consumers become more aware of our effect on the world around us.

The Kyoto Protocol sanctioned the offsets as a way for governments to earn market credits that could be traded in the marketplace. The protocol also established the Clean Development Mechanism, which validates and measures projects to ensure these credits produce actual benefits and are genuine activities that would not have otherwise taken place.

Six of One, Half-Dozen of the Other

Hopefully this can help shed some light on the differences between carbon credits, trades and offsets. There’s quite a bit I haven’t yet had a chance to talk about but, in the coming weeks, there will be several more posts talking about the differences between emissions types, offset types, projects, plans and everything else related to environmental protection.

That said, if there are any questions or concerns, feel free to leave a comment or contact me directly.