Download Emissions Trading and Deforestation Casey McKenzie BUEC 560

Emissions Trading and Deforestation
Casey McKenzie
BUEC 560
Contents
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………….2
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..4
Background………………………………………………………………………………..5
Challenges for Carbon Credit Allocation for Standing Forest…………………………….6
Credit Trading and Deforestation…………………………………………………………8
Voluntary Emissions Reductions………………………………………………………...10
Credit Buyer Motivation in a Voluntary System………………………………………...11
Social Issues in Seller Countries…………………………………………………………14
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….15
Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………...17
2
Executive Summary
Emission trading has a proven track record as a cost effective method for reducing
pollution.1 Its early successes in the U.S. in curbing pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, has
made it one of the leading market based strategies being employed against greenhouse
gas emissions in an attempt to address global warming. While there are a number of
greenhouse gas emissions that may be exchanged, the most commonly traded one by far
is carbon dioxide. The World Bank estimates that global trade of carbon dioxide in 2006
was worth more than $20 billion. (Schultz, 2006) Such large sums of money have raised
the proposition that a thriving carbon exchange could be a possible solution for another
environmental issue; rapid deforestation in developing countries. Since forests are large
carbon sinks that draw CO2 out of the atmosphere, developing countries have argued that
they should be able to generate revenue by selling the carbon sequestration properties of
their forests. Such a scenario, it is felt, could provide an opportunity cost sufficient
enough to prevent much of the deforestation that is going on in developing countries
today. However, the Kyoto Protocol has thus far refused to allow carbon credits to be
issued for standing forest. Since the European Trading Scheme, the largest carbon
exchange in the world, is based on the Kyoto Protocol, the impact of carbon credits on
deforestation has been very limited.2
There are a number of difficult issues that need to be addressed before carbon
credits for standing forest will be included in the Kyoto Protocol. This paper will seek to
1
“While it is impossible to provide precise measures of cost savings compared to hypothetical control
approaches that might have been applied, the available evidence suggests that the increased compliance
flexibility of emissions trading yields cost savings of as much as 50%.” (Ellerman, Joskow, & Harrison,
2003)
2
There have been some voluntary projects that have been able to protect relatively small tracts of land in
Central and South America.
3
examine a number of them. For example, should credits be allocated based on the
sequestration properties of forested land, or a measurable rate of reduced deforestation?
The question of whether or not such contracts can be reasonably monitored and enforced
across different jurisdictions is also raised, along with what kind of opportunity cost
credits can attach to cutting down existing forest. Until Kyoto accepts carbon credits
from standing forest, voluntary trading schemes, such as the Chicago Climate Exchange
(CCX), represent the best chance that emissions trading can help with deforestation. The
motivation driving such exchanges is different from what we see in Europe where
emission reductions are mandatory by law. Companies join the CCX, or instigate their
own internal emissions reduction goals, for a number of reasons. Among these reasons
are; being seen as green by consumers, anticipating future regulatory regimes, and
competitive strategy.
Global warming is a problem that has many factors and needs to be addressed
from many different angles. Recognizing the fact that deforestation is a major
contributor to atmospheric CO2 concentrations and involving it in any key emissions
reduction strategy is important if we are to make any real headway against global
warming. While there are many challenges with regards to associating tradable credits to
standing forests, deforestation is a serious enough problem that it warrants the resources
required to solve those issues. Providing an immediate and significant opportunity cost
to deforestation is critical if we are to make any meaningful reduction in the amount of
land being cleared. Emissions trading, involving standing forests, will give us an
efficient means for providing that opportunity cost on a large scale.
4
Introduction
The notion of global warming was first proposed by the Irish physicist John
Tyndall well over a hundred years ago but it was not until the 1990’s, with the
introduction of the Kyoto Protocol, that society began to take his hypothesis seriously.3
And while there remain those that refute the idea of global warming, the main focus of
scientific debate has shifted towards the degree to which, if at all, man’s activities are
affecting the Earth’s climate. The recent IPCC report released on February 7, 2007,
claims that not only is global warming a reality, but that it is “very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”4(IPCC, 2007)
Though there are a number of greenhouse gases, the most important one is carbon
dioxide. As such, many governments have been seeking ways in which they can reduce
their emissions of CO2 without causing drastic harm to their economies. One of the ways
in which they may be able to accomplish this is through emissions trading.
Organizations, such as the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, are promoting the notion that
emissions trading can help developing countries with another environmental issue;
deforestation, which is itself a large emitter of CO2 and therefore a major contributor to
global warming.5 Although there is currently no formal framework under which tradable
credits can be granted to owners of standing forests, the issue is to be considered during a
scheduled review of the Kyoto Protocol in 2008. (Euractive.com) Encouragingly, despite
3
The Kyoto Protocol recognizes the impact of economic activity on the earth’s climate, and represents the
international community’s first serious effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Though it was adopted
in 1997, and put into force on February 16, 2005, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the
United States, is currently not a member.
4
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established by the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to “assess
scientific, technical and socio- economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its
potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.” www.ipcc.ch
5
“Globally, tropical deforestation is the second leading cause of climate change behind fossil fuel
combustion.” (UNFCCC, 2005)
5
the lack of such a framework there has already been considerable effort put forward by
different stakeholders to place economic value on the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere
that results from standing forests being kept in place.
Background
In 2001, carbon dioxide comprised 82% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the
United States. (eia.doe.gov) The primary source of CO2 emissions in the world comes
from burning fossil fuels. Since the industrial revolution, greenhouse gas emissions have
increased dramatically, driven in large part by population growth as well as economic
expansion. The effects on CO2 levels in the atmosphere are intensified when carbon
dioxide absorbing forests are cut down.6(James & Fusaro, 2006) Today, according to the
IPCC 2007 report, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide far exceeds the
natural range the Earth has seen over the past 650,000 years. It was realities such as
these that led to the development of the Kyoto Protocol. In general, the Protocol calls for
a reduction of emissions to 8% below 1990 levels by 2008 – 2012.7 It is left up to
national governments to determine how their economies will absorb the new regulations
and meet their requirements. There exists a number of options available to legislators,
such as carbon taxes, pollution caps, and emissions trading schemes.
Emissions trading was first proposed by John Dales, a Canadian Economist, in the
late 1960’s, as an economic way of reducing the cost of pollution controls.8 (James &
Fusaro, 2006) The basic principle is simple. Take, for example, the case of a cap and
6
“Over the past 8,000 years the Earth has lost approximately 50% of its forest cover. The most recent data
available through the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization’s 2000 Global Forest Resources Assessment
show a net loss of 9.4 million hectares of forest a year during the 1990’s.” (UNFCCC, 2005)
7
Reduction levels vary by country; most rich countries that are large emitters fall in the 6% to 8% range.
8
“Experience in the United States and other countries has shown that well designed emissions trading
programs can reduce environmental policy costs by as much as 50%” (Pew Center, 2005)
6
trade regime, where companies are limited in how much CO2 they may release in a year.
If company A is unable or unwilling to reduce its emission so as to meet its target, it is
able to buy the right to pollute from company B, which has reduced its own emissions
and met its own target. If, for example, the cost of reducing emissions by one tonne was
$10 for company B, and the penalty for exceeding emission requirements was to be $30 a
tonne for company A, then both parties would be better off if they could trade carbon
credits for a price that is between $10 and $30.9 The system described above, though
somewhat more sophisticated in practice, is sanctioned by the Kyoto Protocol and has
been put into place in Europe.10 The European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has
already started to alter the way some companies do business, especially high emitters
such as power generators. “The cost of emissions, like that of fuel costs, is now taken
into account when determining power-station profitability.” (James & Fusaro, 2006).11
Challenges for Carbon Credit Allocation for Standing Forest
With respect to forestry, the approach to emissions trading is more complicated.
The impact of deforestation on atmospheric CO2 levels is twofold. First, the physical act
of deforestation is a huge source of CO2 release. Forests, in general, naturally act as a
carbon sink, drawing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it in biomass, as well as in the
soil. When forested land is cleared, the stored carbon is released back into the
atmosphere. According to the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization, global
deforestation emits at a rate of almost two billion tonnes of carbon a year, accounting for
9
A carbon credit represents a tonne of carbon removed from the atmosphere or saved from burning, and
can be traded on the international market under the terms of the Kyoto protocol.(Laurance, 2006)
10
Emissions trading was commenced in the EU on January 1, 2005. That year, emission reductions traded
on the European and UK carbon markets reached 2.2 million tons a day. (Moutinho & Schartzman, 2005)
11
In the U.K., power generation is moving away from coal to natural gas as the cost of emissions erodes
coal’s usual price advantage. “All of this is due to the EU ETS, which is designed to discourage power
production from heavy carbon-emitting power plants. (This) should mean that the most carbon-efficient
generation sources run first and, indeed, this appears to be what is happening.” (James & Fusaro, 2006)
7
25% of all man-made emissions. The second impact that a reduced level of forest cover
has on CO2 levels is that the remaining carbon sink is smaller. So not only does cutting
down trees or clearing land though burning, a common practice in Africa and Latin
America, release CO2 into the atmosphere, but the forest is no longer there to sequester
the greenhouse gas.
One of the main problems in determining how to allocate carbon credits to
standing forests is determining what the credits should be tied to. Could allocation be
based off a measurably reduced rate of deforestation and be quantified in that way? One
issue here is that the amount of CO2 released depends on how a piece of land is cleared.
Logging does not release as much carbon into the atmosphere as burning does. If, for
example, land slated to be cleared through slash and burn practices was instead harvested
for its timber, would this qualify as a reduction of CO2 and therefore be eligible for
carbon credits? One project would certainly release more carbon into the atmosphere
than the other, but in both cases the land would have been cleared. On the other hand,
could credits be allocated on the basis of a forest’s potential to sequester CO2 already in
the atmosphere? Here, again, there are complications. A forest may be either a net
source or a sink of CO2, depending on biological and physical factors which include;
management of the forest, environmental factors (fire, pests), and even the age of the
forest.12 (Wisniewski et. al, 1993) Determining the amount of carbon sequestered by a
given lot of standing forest remains a challenge; developing an efficient and reliable
12
The notion that rainforests are huge carbon sinks is now being called into question. According to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Carbon accumulation in forests and soils eventually reaches a
saturation point, beyond which additional sequestration is no longer possible.” (http://www.epa.gov) A
2002 report out of the University of Missouri stated “the underlying data do not indicate a significant
biomass carbon sink in old-growth forests of the humid Neotropics.” (Clark, 2002)
8
method of doing so will be an important step towards the large scale granting of carbon
credits to forested land.
Another issue with associating carbon credits with the sequestration abilities of a
forest will be proving that there was, in fact, a net reduction of CO2 that resulted from not
cutting down a given area of forest. How to prove that a project requiring deforestation,
slated for a specific piece of land, did not simply take place in a different location? Such
a scenario would be analogous with closing a factory and receiving carbon credits, only
to open another factory in a different location and continue emitting at the same rate. The
result could be the creation of carbon credits without the requisite reduction of CO2
emissions. In order for carbon credits associated with deforestation to have true value,
and be traded over the long term, buyers will need to know that a purchased credit
actually represents a reduction of CO2.13
Credit Trading and Deforestation
The discussion above begs the obvious question: if a fair and efficient way of
tying carbon credits to forested land is found, how will it help to reduce deforestation?
The short answer is that it is hoped that the carbon credits will create an opportunity cost
that forest stakeholders will take into account. The vast majority of the world’s rainforest
lies in developing countries, and the forests are often home to some of the poorest people
in those countries.14 Currently, rainforest land is cleared for two primary purposes;
agriculture and logging, and very often neither of these activities are done in a sustainable
way. Perhaps surprisingly, rainforest land usually does not make for good agricultural
land. Rainforest ecosystems are so efficient at recycling organic material, that few
13
“In the past the complexity of quantifying the amount of rainforest destruction, let alone any change in
the rate of destruction, led to the issue being sidelined under the Kyoto Protocol.” (Pease, 2005)
14
The top five countries with the highest amount of rainforest are: Brazil, Congo, Indonesia, Peru, Bolivia.
9
nutrients reach the soil, leaving it nearly sterile. (wildmadagascar.org) Farmers typically
get only a few growing seasons out of the land before their plot is exhausted and they are
forced to move on and clear new land. For these farmers and small landowners, the
standing forest simply represents unrealized economic potential. Were they able to
access money available through carbon exchanges, they might very well choose to alter
their activities with regards to the forest. In Latin America, according to the 2007 World
Bank report “At Loggerheads”, “dense tropical forest is often cleared to create pastures
worth a few hundred dollars a hectare, while releasing 500 tonnes of CO2 per hectare.
This implies, at a societal level, a CO2 abatement cost of less than $1 a tonne.” The
report goes on to point out that the price of a carbon credit in the European market,
though volatile, has been around $20 of late. “In other words, deforesters are destroying
a carbon storage asset theoretically worth $1,500 - $10,000 to create a pasture worth $200
- $500 per hectare.” (World Bank, 2007) With respect to logging, the difference between
the two income sources is even more pronounced. “After an initial selective cut of
timber, the present value of the next cut – 30 years hence – may be only pennies a
hectare.” (World Bank, 2007)
The Kyoto Protocol does recognize the benefits of allowing wealthy countries to
partake in carbon offsetting practices in developing nations.15 One of the ways it allows
for this is through Clean Development Mechanisms (CDMs). This practice takes into
account the differing costs of carbon reduction between nations. A firm in Canada could,
for example, offset its Canadian emissions by planting trees in Peru, or building a wind
farm in the Philippines where such projects are cheaper to undertake than they would be
15
A carbon offset is a service that reduces the net carbon emissions of a party, by reducing the carbon
emissions—or increasing the carbon dioxide absorption—of another party. (www.wikipedia.org)
10
in Canada. While Kyoto currently does not allow for CO2 reductions to be attached to
standing forest, if and when that stipulation changes, CDM projects will offer yet another
means for developed country industries to work with rainforest stakeholders in
developing countries towards meeting their own emission targets.
Voluntary Emissions Reductions
Despite the fact that Kyoto currently does not reward standing forest carbon
sequestration, some private firms have started to undertake projects that do. For example,
“DTE Energy, along with other partners, is involved in the Rio Bravo Carbon
Sequestration Project to protect 65,000 acres of endangered rainforest in Belize. The
project combines land acquisition and sustainable forestry and is expected to sequester
approximately 2.4 million metric tons of carbon over 40 years.” (pewclimate.org) While
this particular project entails a transfer of ownership regarding the land involved, rather
than just a transaction for carbon credits, it does involve scientifically verified carbon
sequestration that is to be inspected by an independent third party, and used as a carbon
offset for the companies involved. (www.we-energies.com)
In the United States, where Kyoto was not ratified, a voluntary emissions
exchange has been set up in Chicago. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) allows for
members to offset their emission through forest conservation projects in both Brazil and
Mexico.16 Members of the exchange have made voluntary, but legally binding,
commitments to reduce their emissions by 6% below a baseline period (1998-2001) by
the year 2010. (chicagoclimatex.com) Closer to home, a number of energy companies in
Alberta have undertaken carbon sequestration projects both domestically and abroad that
16
The CCX is North America’s only, and the world’s first, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission registry,
reduction and trading system for all six greenhouse gases (GHGs). (www.chicagoclimatex.com)
11
fit with their own corporate goals. For example, TransAlta is a member of the UtiliTree
Carbon Company which invests in forestry projects as a carbon offset strategy. It also
trades about 4 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent annually through different offset
projects, and has another 80 million tonnes worth under contract. (pewclimate.org) Other
companies such as Keyera and BP have undertaken expensive projects of their own, such
as pumping CO2 back into the ground, to help offset their carbon footprint.17 Until the
Kyoto Protocol is amended to recognize carbon credits for existing forest, voluntary
actions such as these represent the best chance that economic incentives will be provided
to rainforest stakeholders with the aim of reducing deforestation.
Credit Buyer Motivation in a Voluntary System
Why do companies in North America, where there are few binding emission caps,
partake in carbon sequestration projects of any kind? For many of these companies the
right to pollute is essentially free, whereas the carbon sequestration projects they
undertake can often cost millions of dollars. One reason is undoubtedly public relations.
Most large energy companies today have an extensive corporate social responsibility
section on their website and many incorporate such themes in their communications with
the public. As consumers become increasingly aware of, and concerned with,
environmental regulations, companies are responding in kind by increasing their
environmental profile. All members of the CCX have voluntarily taken on emission
reduction targets. Even some companies that are not members of the exchange are
starting to set internal emission guidelines and their progress in achieving them is
17
“In particular, Canadian companies that have committed to achieve voluntary emission reduction targets,
such as Ontario Power Generation, TransAlta, Epcor, and Suncor, have purchased significant quantities of
reductions to meet their commitments.” (Rosenzweig, et al, 2002)
12
reported publicly. Because emission trading in North America is still voluntary, such
projects can both display leadership, as well as portray a company in a proactive light.
Another reason companies have started to take on carbon sequestration projects of
their own volition is that they are hedging risk. “Many companies and governments
believe that, despite present regulatory uncertainty, binding limitations will be imposed
on GHG emissions in the future.” (Rosenzweig, et. al. 2002) This hedging strategy
serves companies in several ways. First, it allows them to develop systems and have
them in place should the government change the regulatory regime in which they
operate.18 As the environment becomes a more important political topic among voters
and politicians, this seems a more likely scenario.19 Second, some companies feel it can
give them a competitive advantage. If their competitors have not kept pace in
recognizing the benefits of GHG reductions, they will be in a weakened position when it
comes to discussions with government over policy formulation or contract bidding. It
could also make them less able to adapt to any new regulatory regime.
In the case of carbon credits associated with standing forest, companies that
purchase them will get the added benefit of being publicly seen to be helping reduce
deforestation in one of the most ecologically diverse regions of the world. Rainforest
destruction has been one of the most publicized environmental issues of our time.
Indeed, companies linked to rainforest destruction, such as McDonald’s and KFC, have
taken the accusations seriously and worked hard to distance themselves from such
18
In the U.S., “A poll last year suggested that more than four-fifths of the electric power industry’s top
managers expected binding carbon-emissions mandates to be in place within a decade.” (Economist, 2007)
19
Rona Ambrose, former minister of the environment for the current Conservative government, was
removed from that cabinet seat on January 4th over pressure from opposition parties not happy with the
government’s “Clean Air Act”. With Canada facing a federal election in the near future, the environment
has become perhaps the leading topic being discussed by the different parties.
13
claims.20 If companies are voluntarily purchasing carbon credits partly so they can
publicize their green credentials, then surely being viewed as working towards saving
tropical rainforest would be an added bonus.
It should be noted that it is not only companies that need to come on board to
make the benefits of a carbon exchange meaningful. Consumers need to understand at
least the basics of the process and be willing participants, especially in North America
where any carbon exchange is currently voluntary. The cost of emissions reduction will
be borne by both consumers and suppliers; for consumers this will translate to higher
prices. People will need to essentially put their money where their mouth is; if
consumption patterns do not back up the public’s declared concern for the environment
then any voluntary emissions exchange will little impact. It is partly the reluctance for
higher prices that has kept carbon credits often less than a tenth of the price seen for
similar credits on the legislated European exchange. People’s concern for the
environment, it seems, is often outweighed by their price sensitivity. The decreased
prices for carbon credits that are necessary under a voluntary exchange system will
therefore not be as enticing an alternative to landholders in rainforest countries as they
would be were the credits traded under a legislated system similar to that found in
Europe. However, until the Kyoto Protocol allows for the issuance of carbon credits for
standing forest, they remain the only meaningful, potentially large scale, option available.
20
“But whatever the fast food giant wants you to believe the golden arches stand for, McDonald's today
stands for rainforest destruction.” (greenpeace.org)
"We can confirm that we will be investigating this claim fully and will review it for consistency in line with
our existing policy not to source beef from recently deforested areas.” - Keith Kenny, senior director of
quality assurance for McDonald's Europe. (www.news.mongabay.com)
14
Social Issues in Seller Countries
A difficult question for policy makers in rainforest countries to find an answer for
will be how to balance revenue derived from carbon credit sales with other forms of
economic activity? While many of the soy farms have become highly mechanized, as a
group they still employ a significant number of people. When we take into account cattle
ranching as well as timber harvesting, there is a considerable number of people whose
livelihood may be put at risk if landowners were to switch their revenue source to carbon
credits. Since many of the people that live in the rainforest regions of developing nations
are among the poorest people in those countries, this could pose serious political
problems for governments, as well as difficult enforcement issues regarding verification
of carbon credit validity.21 If being seen as not only green, but also helping protect the
ecology of developing countries is seen as a bonus by buyers of carbon credits, the legal
systems and enforcement mechanisms in such countries may be viewed as a hindrance.22
“In a market fraught with uncertainties, buyers have regarded it as particularly important
to specify in contracts what recourse they would have if sellers fail to fulfill their
obligations.” (Pew Center, 2002) The World Bank points out “many forests are
nominally owned by governments, but actual control is unclear or disputed. Elsewhere,
private and community rights are not respected. Who should have the right to manage
the forests? How can rights be reliably enforced?” (World Bank, 2007)
21
The fact that Latin America tends to elect populist governments, who typically shy from having to make
difficult reform, could be another obstacle to implementing large scale carbon credit sales if it will result in
the displacement of many workers.
22
The IMF on Latin America: “Foreign investors are similarly frustrated with the high level of corruption.
Indeed, cross-regional comparisons of the business climate generally portray Latin America in a poor light.
The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report suggests that Latin America ranks well
behind emerging Asia and Europe.” (Singh & Collyns, 2005)
15
Another issue to be considered will be the potential for increased inequality, in a
part of the world that suffers from some of the most unequal income distributions in the
world.23 It is the elite that are usually far more able to gain access to land and resources;
if the benefits of carbon credit sales are largely enjoyed by wealthy landowners while
poor labourers are put out of work, the resulting social and economic situations may
make the system unsustainable politically. It is also unlikely that in a voluntary
emissions trading system, where companies are often banking on the perceived image
benefits of their actions, that being associated with the displacement and impoverishment
of thousands of peasants would be much of a selling point. The politics of emissions
trading in such a region will be an obstacle that will require careful negotiation by
companies as well as national governments.
Conclusion
Emissions trading has an important role to play in the reduction of greenhouse
gases. Most resistance to regulatory change aimed at addressing climate change is
associated with the perceived costs of doing so. Allowing for firms to find a least cost
method of reducing their emissions will help to mitigate some of this resistance. Setting
up a system where credits may be exchanged globally will take this even further, similar
to how firms today are able to involve other, lower cost, parts of the world in their
production processes. Many have argued that it is simply a matter of time before such a
system is in place; governments and industry alike have started to take the climate change
issue seriously and are investing considerable resources looking for possible mitigating
23
The Gini coefficient measures the inequality of income distribution within a country. It varies from zero,
which indicates perfect equality, with every household earning exactly the same, to one, which implies
absolute inequality, with a single household earning a country's entire income. Latin America is the world's
most unequal region, with a Gini coefficient of around 0.5. (Economist.com)
16
strategies. There has also been a push by a number of developing countries to have the
carbon sequestration of their forests recognized under any such trading scheme; this may
also simply be a matter of time. The first round of Kyoto expires in 2012. Granting
carbon credits for standing forests may be added to the next round of Kyoto, starting in
2013, as a concession to get large developing countries such as Brazil and Indonesia to
agree to binding greenhouse gas reduction targets.
The environmental importance of rainforests has long been recognized by the
scientific community and, due to successful awareness campaigns, the general public as
well. Rainforests are not only significant carbon sinks, they are also important for their
huge levels of biodiversity. Seeing them managed in a sustainable way does not simply
represent the interests of the countries in which they are found; it is in the world’s best
interests that these vital resources be maintained properly. As mentioned above, the main
resistance to environmental protection programs is usually due to the costs involved.
How fortuitous then that a market based solution designed to deal with climate change
may actually allow us to kill two birds with one stone.
17
Works Cited
1. Clark, Deborah. (2002) Are Tropical Forests an Important Carbon Sink? Reanalysis of the
Long-Term Plot Data. Ecological Society of America. Online at:
http://icte.umsl.edu/docs/deborah_clark/2002%20Clark%20Ecol%20Apps%20Are%20tropical%
20forests%20an.pdf
2. Economist, The Business of Climate Change, January 23, 2007
3. Ellerman, D., Joskow, P., and Harrison Jr, D. (2003) Emissions Trading in the U.S.,
Experience, Lessons, and Considerations for Greenhouse Gases. Pew Center on Global Climate
Change. Online at: http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/emissions%5Ftrading%2Epdf
4. Euractive.com Forest Sector Seeks Inclusion in Emissions Trading Online at:
http://www.euractiv.com/en/sustainability/forest-sector-seeks-inclusion-emissions-trading/article160133
5. IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policy Makers.
Online at: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
6. James, Tom, and Fusaro, Peter. Energy and Emissions Markets: Collision or Convergence?
Toronto, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2006
7. Laurance, William. (2006) The Value of Trees. New Scientist, issue 2547. Online at:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19025475.200-the-value-of-trees.html
8. Moutinho, P., and Schwartzman, S. (2005) Tropical Deforestation and Climate Change.
Amazon Institute for Environmental Research. Online at:
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/4930_TropicalDeforestation_and_ClimateChan
ge.pdf
9. Pease, Roland. (2005) Request for Forest Carbon Credits. BBC Online at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4557541.stm
10. Pew Center (2005) The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Insights and
Opportunities Online at: http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/EUETS%20White%20Paper.pdf
11. Pewclimate.org Emissions Trading, JI, & CDM Solutions. Online at:
http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_business_community/trading.cfm
12. Rosenzweig, Varilek, Feldman, Kuppalli, and Janssen. (2002) The Emerging International
Greenhouse Gas Market.. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Online at:
http://www.pewtrusts.com/pdf/env_pew_climate_trading.pdf
13. Schultz, Rebecca. (2006) Africa's Kyoto Stakes: Continent Needs Carbon Emissions Trading.
Center for American Progress. Online at:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/11/africa_global_warming.html
18
14. Singh, Anoop, and Collyns, Charles. (2005) Latin America’s Resurgence. Finance &
Development, IMF. v. 42, number 4. Online at:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2005/12/singh.htm
15. UNFCC (2005) Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries:
Approaches to Stimulate Action Online at: http://www.rainforestcoalition.org/documents/COP11Misc01-AgendaItem6.pdf
16. wildmadagascar.org
17. Wisniewski, J., Dixon, R., Kinsman, J., Sampson, N., and Lugo, A. (1993) Carbon Dioxide
Sequestration in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Climate Research v. 3:1-5. Online at: http://www.intres.com/articles/cr/3/c003p001.pdf
18. World Bank. (2007) At Loggerheads? Agricultural Expansion, Poverty Reduction, and
Environment in the Tropical Forests. Online at:
http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTPRRS/EXTT
ROPICALFOREST/0,,contentMDK:21092971~pagePK:64168098~piPK:64168032~theSitePK:2
463874,00.html
19