View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new iOS app!Introducing SlideShare for AndroidExplore all your favorite topics in the SlideShare appGet the SlideShare app to Save for Later — even offline
View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new Android app!View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new iOS app!
Summer ‘09: Waxman-Markey Bill reported out of Subcommittee to full Energy & Commerce Committee; then to the full House of Representatives. On Senate side, Boxer has established 5 “Committees” to go through W-M line by line in preparation for eventual uptake in the Senate
Summer/Fall ‘09: W-M passed by the House. Probably hearings of Senate version in Subcommittee; Senate unable to pass bill before adjournment in late Fall
December ‘09: US State Department negotiators head to Copenhagen with uncertain domestic mandate; negotiate basic structure to be fleshed out later
Winter ‘10: 111 th Congress, 2 nd Session convenes, Senate passes bill by mid to late spring; conferenced bill passed and signed by president by summer 2010; COP 15 bis commence to flesh out details.
Waxman-Markey Bill: Targets Year Emissions Budget (Offsets + Allowances) in mmt % Reduction % Offsets Allowed Emission-to-cap (E-t-C) Gap in mmt (no comp policies) Emission-to-cap (E-t-C) Gap in mmt (comp policies) 2012 6627 3% 29% 205 87 2020 7056 17% 28% 1363 761 2030 5533 42% 35% 3138 2050 3035 83% 63%
EPA/State Department to identify sectors/countries where sectoral crediting is appropriate, and in those instances credit offsets ONLY on a sectoral basis
Identification of sectors guided by considerations, e.g. host country GDP, absolute emissions, comparable treatment of sector in US, heterogeneity of sector emissions, competitiveness concerns, leakage risks, MRV, etc.
Non-Sectoral International Credits (CDM/CDM 2.0)
EPA may issue “US international offsets” in exchange for CERs, IF EPA determines CDM EB requirements provide equal or greater integrity to domestic program
What do countries need to do to engage in sectoral crediting?
Qualify as a “developing country” in the eyes of US
Prove ability to monitor, report, and verify (MRV) emissions to satisfaction of US EPA/OAB/State Department
Undertake some subset of other actions – either demonstrate some level of “comparable” effort, or prove that country circumstances are so disadvantageous as to justify investment/ linkages in the absence of effort (least developed countries)
Potentially, demonstrate willingness to transition towards more binding reduction targets over time
Major question – will sectoral agreements with the US be attractive to developing countries and, if so, why?
2 years after enactment (2012-ish), EPA/State/ USAID/Offset Advisory Board to promulgate regulations for international offsets if the US is a party to bi/multilateral arrangement that includes the host country
Kyoto/Copenhagen not necessarily sufficient
Host country must be a developing country
No international offsets for black carbon or HFC destruction activities
Limiting Factors for International Offsets
Eligible Project Type List
Certainly a very restrictive asset class base for domestic offsets
May apply to international offsets , so CERs developed in US capped sectors in US potentially ineligible
CERs also ineligible in countries/sectors where U.S is crediting sectorally
Projects receiving funds from Int’l Clean Tech Fund ineligible for offsets
EPA may issue credits against a historical baseline for REDD activities, discounted for uncertainty, country-specific circumstances, etc.
National Level : Baselines shall consider ≥5 years average annual historical deforestation rates, establish trajectory to no deforestation in ≤20 years, and account for all significant deforestation sources
State/Provincial REDD : EPA may credit against state/provincial baselines (phase out by 2017) subject to same reqs for national DD baselines for states/provinces in countries with:
No country-wide eligible baseline but an eligible state/regional one, major REDD emissions
REDD at the Project/Program Level : EPA/USAID/State to make list of countries responsible for ≤1% total global GHGs and <3% total forest emissions making good faith efforts to develop strategic LULUCF plans. EPA may issue project-based credits against a baseline consistent with NAMAs, accounting for historical deforestation rates over the past 5 years, etc., phase out by 2017; 2025 at the latest
Lima Madrid Manila Manama Mexico City New York Oxford Portland Rio de Janeiro Rome San Jose Santiago Singapore The Hague Tokyo Countries where EcoSecurities has projects EcoSecurities’ current office locations or representatives