• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

“CDM has no validity”, says leading UK climate scientist

Posted on 30 June 20099 November 2021

On 23 June 2009, the UK Parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee interviewed Kevin Anderson, Research Director at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Anderson is one of the UK’s leading Climate Change scientists. The interview is available here.

It is highly recommended listening. Anderson points out that the UK government’s planned carbon cuts would have a “50-50 chance” of limiting the rise in global temperatures to 2°C. He notes that this is not really an acceptable level of risk, given the dangers involved of runaway climate change.

He stresses that deforestation, food, aviation and shipping should be included in any emissions reductions targets for the UK and insists that emissions reductions should be calculated on the basis of consumption (including the emissions of goods imported to the UK) not only on national emission levels.

Anderson also suggests that emissions from deforestation are not only the responsibility of forested countries:

Deforestation could be as high as 25 per cent of total emissions. That wasn’t taken into account by the committee as far as I’m aware, which you could argue implicitly suggests that deforestation is a responsibility of the countries that deforest. Given that we’ve already deforested in Annex I nations I think that is possibly not a fair allocation of those emissions. So I think countries that do deforest, and that will undoubtedly go on, some of those emissions are the burden of Annex I nations. And that significantly changes the budgets.

While he is not necessarily opposed to carbon trading, Anderson’s opinion on the clean development mechanism is clear: “I think CDM shouldn’t be allowed. I completely disagree with CDM.” His argument is that CDM might be valid if all countries had a cap based on reaching a maximum temperature increase of 2°C. “But that’s not what CDM is about. CDM’s about buying emissions from countries that have no caps.”

He suggests an interesting test for “additionality”:

If you can imagine Marconi and the Wright brothers getting together to discuss whether actually in 2009 Easyjet and the Internet will be facilitating each other through internet booking, that’s the level of additionality certainty you’d have to have over that period. You cannot have that. Society is inherently complex. The CO2 is there [in the atmosphere] for that long. So additionality is a meaningless concept in a complex system, which society is over that sort of time frame.

CDM has no validity as a mechanism for reducing CO2 emissions in the absence of caps.

Looking at the way the various government departments work in UK, Anderson compares the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), to “little snapping dogs on the ankles” of departments such as the Department for Business Innovation and Skills and the Treasury.
 

1 thought on ““CDM has no validity”, says leading UK climate scientist”

  1. Tanya Zeriga-ALONE says:
    24 July 2009 at 2:39 am

    Deforestation emission is calculated to be between 14 and 20%; according the CDM reasoning, if the 20% deforestation emission is successfully traded; fair enough but what about the other ~80% still taking place from energy use, burning of fossil fuels etc. If Annexe1 countries are serious in this matter – they must consciously cut down on their ~80% emission. REDD will not solve the problem. Just imagine. Money from the trade will result in improved standard of living – a bigger house, two more vehicles in the garage, a washing machine and a drier, a TV and other white goods, more travels overseas (..people from non-annexe1 countries have developmental aspirations too). Have we really succeeded in reducing the 20% emission?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

SUBSCRIBE!

Enter your email address to receive notification of new posts.

Recent themes
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

Recent Comments

  • shahid on James Moore sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for his role in the Bar Works scam
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Delton Chen on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Chris Lang on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl

Recent Posts

  • Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Papua New Guinea Environmental Alliance letter to Pogio Ghate, Minister for Environment, Conservation and Climate Change
  • Ecomapuá Amazon REDD Project, Brazil: Pública investigation reveals Ecomapuá Conservação is selling “illegal” carbon offsets from land it does not own, without transferring the money to local communities
  • Response from Steve Zwick, Verra: “Verra will ask Kanaka Management Systems to cease and desist any actions that may mislead communities into thinking that Verra has not already rejected the project”
  • Response from Kanaka Management Services: “Please do not conduct legal trail or castigate REDD+ project developers on the website by writing text which shows the project developer in bad light”

Recent Comments

  • shahid on James Moore sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for his role in the Bar Works scam
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Delton Chen on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Chris Lang on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl

Issues and Organisations

30x30 AB 32 Andes Amazon Boiler rooms California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Deforestation FCPF FERN Financing REDD Forest definition Fossil fuels FPP Friends of the Earth FSC Green Climate Fund Greenpeace Guest post ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations Poznan R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region Costa Rica DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sierra Leone Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2022 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!