KYoto Carbon

8/18/2019 KYoto Carbon

1/38

Understanding the

Flexibility Mechanismof Kyoto Protocol

Dr. J. Nagendra BabuAssistant Professor

Centre for Environmental Science and Technology

School of Environment and Earth Studies

Central University of Punjab

Mansa Road, athinda !"#" $$"


2/38

Raid !ndustrial "ro#th

!ncreased energy consumtion

!ncreased $%& and other "'" emissions

"lobal (arming due to increased concentration of"'"

!ncreasing sea le)el$hanges in #ind and

reciitation$hanges in $ro

yields


3/38

Ma*or $ontributors to +mission of $%&

US

Russia

%a&an

'ermanyU(

Canada

)taly

Poland

*ranceAustralia

S&ain

+eherlands


4/38

"reenhouse "ases , "lobal(arming Potential

'lobal arming Potential based on the time!integrated global mean R* of a&ulse emission of " -g of some com&ound .i/ relative to that of " -g of thereference gas C01, 2as develo&ed .)PCC, "33$/ and ado&ted for use in the

(yoto Protocol4

2here T5 is the time hori6on, R*i is the global mean R* of com&onent i,ai is the R* &er unit mass increase in atmos&heric abundance of

com&onent i .radiative e7ciency/, 8Ci.t/9 is the time!de&endent

abundance of i, and the corres&onding :uantities for the reference gas.r/ in the denominator4 The numerator and denominator are called theabsolute global 2arming &otential .A'P/ of i and r res&ectively4


5/38

"(P of -arious "'"ecies

$hemicalformula

/ifetime0years1

"lobal (arming Potential02ime 'ori3on1

&4 years 544 years 644

years C01 C01 variable " " "

Methane < C5= "1>? #@ 1" @4#

+itrous oide +10 "1$ 1B$ ?"$ "$

5*C!1? C5*? 1@= 3"$$ ""$$ 3B$$

5*C!?1 C51*1 #4@ 1"$$ @#$ 1$$

5*C!=" C5?* ?4 =3$ "#$ =#5*C!=?!"$mee C#51*"$ "4" ?$$$ "?$$ =$$

5*C!"1# C15*# ?14@ =@$$ 1B$$ 31$

5*C!"?= C151*= "$4@ 13$$ "$$$ ?"$

5*C!"?=a C51*C*? "=4@ ?=$$ "?$$ =1$

5*C!"#1a C15=*1 "4# =@$ "=$ =1

5*C!"=? C15?*? ?4B "$$$ ?$$ 3=5*C!"=?a C15?*? =B4? #$$$ ?B$$ "=$$

5*C!11ea C?5* ?@4# =?$$ 13$$ 3#$

5*C!1?@fa C?51*@ 1$3 #"$$ @?$$ =$$

5*C!1=#ca C?5?*# @4@ "B$$ #@$ "$

Sul&hurheaDuoride

S*@ ?1$$ "@?$$ 1?3$$ ?=3$$

PerDuoromethane C*= #$$$$ ==$$ @#$$ "$$$$


6/38

7ro)ed "(P for KP

. No. "reenhouse "as "lobal (armingPotential 0"(P1

5. $arbon dioxide 5

&. Methane &5

8. Nitrous %xide 8549. 'ydro:uorohydrocarbons 594;55&44

=. ulhur 'exa:uoride &8>44


7/38

United Nations Frame#or?$on)ention on $limate $hange

0UNF$$$1• "@# nations signed the "331 United +ations

*rame2or- Convention on Climate Change.U+*CCC/ at Rio de %aneiro

• The Convention divides countries into t2o maingrou&s ! 7nnex ! Non;7nnex ! Countries

• Anne ) .develo&ed countries/ agreed to reducetheir '5's by #41 F belo2 "33$ levels in "st commitment &eriod 1$$B G 1$"1


8/38

United Nations Frame#or?$on)ention on $limate $hange

0UNF$$$1• Convention is based on three &rinci&les – Common but diHerentiated res&onsibility

– Precautionary a&&roach

– Sustainable Economic 'ro2th andIevelo&ment

• The (yoto &rotocol deJned ho2 to bring do2n the

emissions in C0P ? in "33


9/38

Kyoto Protocol

• )t 2as ado&ted in (yoto, %a&an, on ""th Iecember"33

• 0bjectiveKLstabilisation of greenhouse gasconcentrations in the atmoshere at a le)elthat #ould re)ent air ollutioninterference #ith the climate system


10/38

Kyoto Protocol

• The (yoto Protocol is only binding Nindustriali6edO or Ndevelo&edOcountries4 These are states listed in Anne " of the U+*CCC

• The &rotocol commits develo&ed countries to s&eciJc targets for reducingtheir green house emissions

• Countries .those listed in Anne )/ are legally bound to reduceman!madegreen house gases emissions by a&&roimately#41F

• )ndividual countries have their o2n reduction targets outlined in Anne of the (yoto Protocol

• Each country has a &rescribed number of Nemission unitsN 2hich ma-e u&the target emission

• The (yoto Protocol &rovides mechanisms for countries to meet theiremission targets


11/38

Kyoto Protocol7nnex ! Partiesa +mission limitation or

reduction 0exressed inrelation to total "'"

emissions in the baseyear or eriod inscribedin 7nnex B to the KyotoProtocol1b

Austria, elgium, ulgaria, C6ech Re&ublic, Ienmar-,Estonia, Euro&ean Community, *inland, *rance, 'ermany,'reece, )reland, )taly, atvia, iechtenstein, ithuania,

uembourg, Monaco, +etherlands, Portugal, Romania,Slova-ia, Slovenia, S&ain, S2eden, S2it6erland, United(ingdom of 'reat ritain and +orthern )reland

GBF

United States of Americac GF

Canada, 5ungary, %a&an, Poland G@F

Croatia G#F

+e2 Qealand, Russian *ederation, U-raine $

+or2ay "F

Australia BF

)celand "$FaAt the time of &ublication of this manual, the amendment to the (yoto Protocol that contains an emissions target for elarus .GBF/ had not been ratiJed by a su7cient number of Parties for it to enter into force4bCountries 2ith economies in transition have Deibility in the choice of base year4c

Country 2hich has declared its intention not to ratify the (yoto Protocol4


12/38

7chie)ed

Party

Quantified

emission

limitation or

reduction

commitment

(%of baseyear

Base

year for

CO2,

CH4 and

N2O

Base

year

for F-

ases

Base year le!el of total

national emissions as

determined by t"e initial

re!ie# (tonnes CO2

e$ui!alent

&ustralia 108.0 1990 1990 547,699,841

&ustria 87.0 1990 1990 79,049,657

Belarus'a 92.0 1995

Belium 92.5 1990 1995 145,728,763

Bularia' 92.0 1988 1995 132,618,658

Canada 94.0 1990 1990 593,998,462Croatia 95.0 1990 1990 31,321,790

Cec"

)e*ublic' 92.0 1990 1995 194,248,218

+enmar 79.0 1990 1995 69,978,070

stonia' 92.0 1990 1995 42,622,312

uro*ean

.nion 92.0 1990

1990

or

1995

4,265,517,719

Finland 100.0 1990 1995 71,003,509

France 100.0 1990 1990 563,925,328

/ermany 79.0 1990 1995 1,232,429,543

/reece 125.0 1990 1995 106,987,169

Hunary' 94.0 1985-87 1995 115,397,149

0celand 110.0 1990 1990 3,367,972

0reland 113.0 1990 1995 55,607,836

0taly 93.5 1990 1990 516,850,887

1a*an 94.0 1990 1995 1,261,331,418

at!ia' 92.0 1990 1995 25,909,159

233 2335 2363

&ustralia 549,487,320.96 547,478,363.61 542,690,755.70

&ustria 86,955,534.17 79,739,349.14 84,593,938.62

Belium 136,686,238.71 125,186,550.63 132,459,223.20

Bularia 68,603,668.24 58,895,136.31 61,427,055.16

Canada 730,598,641.36 690,015,027.41 691,710,043.05

Croatia 31,048,976.64 29,056,475.66 28,597,025.08

Cec"

)e*ublic 143,662,621.14 134,722,299.48 139,157,863.09

+enmar (7P 64,273,049.35 61,312,351.50 61,780,796.68

stonia 19,705,014.55 16,391,072.16 20,516,762.21

uro*ean

.nion (68 3,999,053,774.44 3,719,154,028.68 3,797,613,005.37

Finland 70,242,849.87 66,118,734.22 74,555,635.33

France (7P 537,297,119.35 514,568,024.27 522,372,577.88

/ermany 975,966,969.61 911,802,225.43 936,543,816.86

/reece 131,263,403.57 124,692,765.37 118,286,730.18

Hunary 73,291,666.20 66,864,213.79 67,679,050.24

0celand 4,958,679.29 4,700,224.22 4,542,054.06

0reland 67,567,039.99 61,741,498.86 61,313,916.10

0taly 541,589,393.27 491,528,492.77 501,317,658.71

1a*an 1,281,257,535.66 1,207,379,826.82 1,257,981,874.17at!ia 11,724,415.71 10,961,899.77 12,077,033.94


13/38

tatus of $as , +mission7chie)ed

233 2335 2363

iec"tenstein 264,576.16 248,535.08 233,172.19

it"uania 24,330,849.56 19,959,466.95 20,809,736.94

u9embour 12,047,394.47 11,515,121.23 12,075,340.05

:onaco 95,574.21 90,938.92 87,791.94

Net"erlands 204,568,959.96 198,931,064.70 210,053,016.34

Ne# ;ealand 74,197,678.93 71,482,867.58 71,657,158.39

Nor#ay 53,820,490.92 51,470,471.93 53,895,679.32

Poland 401,338,537.93 381,769,667.12 400,865,393.68

Portual 77,824,630.56 74,371,586.06 70,599,090.59

)omania 146,668,381.17 123,382,298.86 121,354,547.98

)ussian

Federation 2,227,609,083.81 2,111,548,993.69 2,201,885,044.49


14/38

Kyoto Protocol

• (yoto is a Ocap and tradeN system that im&osesnational ca&s on the emissions of 7nnex !countries4 0n average, this ca& re:uires countriesto reduce their emissions #41F belo2 their "33$

baseline over the 1$$B to 1$"1 &eriod4

• The ty&es of *leibility mechanisms areK

– )nternational Emissions Trading .)ET/ – %oint im&lementation .%)/

– Clean Ievelo&ment Mechanism .CIM/


15/38

Flexibility Mechanism

• !+2 A Purchasing AAUs!emission allo2ancesunder the (P! from other Anne &arties4 .(P7rticle 5


16/38

$arbon Mar?et• 7llo#ance Based 2ransactionsA The asset being traded eists before the

transaction, the main ris- is delivery ris-4

• Pro*ect Based 2ransactions 0%set1A Asset being traded is createdduring the &rocess4 So, in addition to the delivery ris-, there is a non!creation ris-4

2yes of +mission $ertiCcates

• Assigned Amount Unit .AAUs/

• Removal Unit .RMU/

• Emission Reduction Unit .ERU/ .Converted from AAU RMU/• CertiJed Emission Reduction .CER/

• Tem&orary CER .tCER/

• ong!term CER .lCER/

• Euro&ean Union Allo2ance .EUA/


17/38


18/38

$lean De)eloment Mechanism0$DM1

• Partici&ation of both Anne!) and non!anne!) &arties in (P

• Essentially im&ortant to )ndia in terms of its enclosure in non!anne!)countries

•Essentially )ndia shares ?"F of the total 2orld carbon trade through CIM

• )f )ndia can ca&ture a "$F share of the global CIM mar-et,annual CERrevenues to the country could range from US "$million to ?$$ million

• The Major contributors are –

'ujarat *luoro Chemicals – Tata steels

– +TPC

– (al&ataru Po2er Transmission td,

– The Clarion &o2er &roject in Rajasthan and

– The Iehar &o2er &roject in 5imachal Pradesh


19/38

$DM Pro*ectsA Key $oncets

• Baseline• aseline scenario is the onethat 2ould have occurred inthe absence of the&ro&osed CIM &roject4

• Emission reductions arecalculated by com&aringbaseline emissions vs4&ro&osed &roject emissions4

• 7dditionality• A CIM &roject activity is

additional if '5' emissionsare reduced belo2 thosethat 2ould have occurred in

the absence of theregistered CIM &rojectactivityK

– Economic demonstration.Jnancial/

– Technology demonstration.not usiness as UsualAU/

– )nstitutionaldemonstration .arrier

analysis/

Emission Reductions

Baseline

Project Emissions

Beginning of the project End of the Project

Real Project Emissions


20/38

$DM Pro*ect $ategories

• End Use Energy E7ciency )m&rovement

• Su&&ly!side Energy E7ciency )m&rovement

• Rene2able Energy

• *uel S2itching

• Agriculture

• )ndustrial Processes

• Solvent other &roduct use

• aste Management

• Sin-s .AHorestation and Reforestation/


21/38

mall cale $DM Pro*ects

• Rene2able energy &rojects 2ith maimum out&ut of "#M

or e:uivalent

• Energy e7ciency im&rovement &rojects "#'h &er year

• Reduce anthro&ogenic emissions by source and directlyemit less than "#$$$ tC01e annually

• Major &rojects under this category fall into

– Rene2able energy &rojects

– Energy e7ciency im&rovement &rojects – 0ther &roject activities including

• Agriculture

• S2itching fossil fuels

• Emission reduction vehicles• Methane recovery avoidance


22/38

$DM Pro*ect $ycle

Pro*ect!dentiCcat

ion

Pro*ect

!dea Note0P!N1

Pro*ect$oncet

Note

0P$N1"o)ernme

nt+ndorsem

ent

Pro*ectDe)elom

entDocument

-alidation

Registration

Monitoring

-eriCcation

!ssuanceof $+R


23/38

Pro*ect Baseline

• aseline methodologies have been develo&ed based on thethree &rinci&le in Marra-ech Accord

– Eisting actual or historical emissions

– Emissions from a technology that re&resents aneconomically attractive investment

– Average emission of a similar &roject activity underta-enin &revious # years under similar circumstances 2hose&erformance is among to& 1$F of their category,


24/38

Baseline $alculation for Rene#able +nergy

• Electricity generation by user

– An estimate of avg4 individual consum&tion .in -h/observed in closest grid electricity systems among ruralgrid!connected consumers belonging to the samecategory

– 0r the estimated annual out&ut of the installed REtechnology

– Emission baseline $43-gC01 -h


25/38

!P$$ $%& +mission Factor 0+F1Fuel t$%&2J

Natural gas 6=.5/P" =8.5

"asoline =>.8

Jet Petroleum


26/38

7dditionality

• A Do2chart or series of :uestions that lead to narro2ing of&otential baseline o&tions

• A :ualitative and :uantitative assessment of diHerent&otential o&tions and an indication of 2hy the non!&rojecto&tion is more li-ely

• A :uantitative or :ualitative assessment of one or morebarriers facing the &ro&osed activity

• An indication that the &roject ty&e is not common &racticein the &ro&osed area of im&lementation


27/38

Pro*ect Design Document

• 'eneral Iescri&tion of &roject activity

• aseline methodology• Iuration of the &roject activitycrediting &eriod

• Monitoring methodology

• Calculating '5' emissions by sources

•Environmental im&acts• Sta-eholders comments

– Anne "4 Contact information on &roject &artici&ants .PP/

– Anne 14 )nformation regarding &ublic funding

– Anne ?4 +e2 baseline methodology – Anne =4 +e2 monitoring methodology

– Anne #4 Table for baseline data


28/38

Duration of Pro*ect 7cti)ity $P

• Iuration of the &roject activity including the starting dateand o&erational lifetime

• Choice of crediting &eriod

– A &eriod of maimum "$ years

– A &eriod of maimum years, 2ith the &otential forrene2al for t2o additional &eriods at most

• Credits for the &rojects initiated after %an 1$$$ and beforethe ado&tion of decision "CP4 on "$ +ov 1$$", andregistered before ?"st Iec 1$$#, may be claimedece&tionally &rior to the registration

• Crediting &eriod starts after &roject registration4 Ostartingdate of a CIM &roject activity is the date at 2hich theim&lementation or construction or real action of a &roject


29/38

Monitoring Methodology , Plan

• PII should include

– Reference of U+*CCC a&&roved methodology – %ustiJcation of choice of the methodology

– Tables to be Jlled 2ith information on data to bemonitored

– +ame and contact information of the &erson entitydetermining the monitoring methodology

• Monitoring &lan must &rovide for

– Collection and archiving of data necessary for

calculating emissions 2ithin &roject boundary – Collection and archiving of data necessary for

determining the baseline, as a&&licable

– Collection and archiving of data necessary forcalculating lea?ages, 2here there is need to be

considered – Vualit assurance and control rocedure


30/38

/ea?ages

• )t is a measurable emission increase or decrease that isattributed to the &roject, but 2hich is outside of the CIMboundary or timeframe

•ea-age calculation are re:uired for small scale CIMece&t for rene2able energy tech and energy e7ciencye:ui&ment is transferred for another activity


31/38

$alculating the "'" +mission byources

• Direct onsite emissions

• Direct osite emissions

• !ndirect onsite emissions

• !ndirect osite emissions

• Ieciding on the &artici&ation of the various ty&es ofemission in the sco&e of CIM &roject

• Use of tools li-e the E* and the 'P


32/38

'o# /arge Does a Pro*ect Needto be to De)elo as $DM Pro*ect

• Assume a grid emission baseline of $$ -g C01Mh

• Assume &roject needs to generate W"$,$$$ tonsyear in CERs

• Project si6e needs to savegenerate X "#,$$$ Mhyear

hat does that mean for the &rojects consideredK

Min. i3e

(ind ?#F Ca& *actor

W1 M

olar 1$F Ca& factor X # M

(' Avg @ Mhyr55 1,$$$ 55Units

/ams # W 1$ ?hrsday X1#$,$$$C*EIs

(&+ B#F Ca& *actor

W# M


33/38

$ountry;#ise Distribution of +Rand $+Rs


34/38

Registered $DM Pro*ects A (orldcenario


35/38

Registered $DM Pro*ects A !ndia


36/38

tate#ise Distribution ofRegistered $DM Pro*ects


37/38

$arbon 2rading at M$G

The Multi Commodity Echange of )ndia td enteredinto an alliance 2ith the Chicago Climate Echangein 1$$# to introduce carbon credit trading in )ndia

MCY is the futures echange4 Peo&le here are getting&rice signals for the carbon for the delivery in netJve years4 The echange is only for )ndians and

)ndian com&anies

The )ndian government has not Jed any norms nor

has it made it com&ulsory to reduce carbon


38/38

2han? Hou

Documents

KYoto Carbon