Search

Recognizing the potential for over- as well as under-estimating the mitigation costs of non-CO2 greenhouse gases in an offset programme, this article examines the accuracy of cost estimates prepared by government agencies for the control of other types of emissions from small/medium sources via an offset programme. Specifically, analogy is made to the control of SOx and NOx controlled by California's Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) Program. Even allowing for the energy crisis in 2000-2001 that drove up NOx emissions and control costs, it appears that the engineering cost methods used turned out to be generally accurate, defined as ±25%. Although such a finding does not ensure that the same results will apply to the case of non-CO2 GHGs, it certainly reinforces the growing literature on ex ante-ex post cost comparisons of environmental controls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Managing local and global risks from the geological storage of CO2 under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) presents three main challenges. First, the CDM procedures must be adapted to the specifics of the technology. Second, storage must last far longer than the crediting period, leaving questions about the management of long-term risks. Third, management of local environmental, health and safety risks falls largely outside the CDM governance framework. CDM procedures could be adapted to successfully manage the short-term global risk of carbon dioxide re-entering the atmosphere during the CDM crediting period, but local environmental, health and safety risks and longterm global risk cannot be ensured under existing structures. To better manage these risks, the implications for the CDM are: (1) to provide guidance on site characterization requirements, and have an independent auditor verify that the proposed geological storage site has a high likelihood of safely containing the injected carbon dioxide; (2) to require that carbon capture and storage (CCS) project design documents specify post-crediting-period commitments; and (3) to support CCS specific capacity building. But because CDM governance is designed to strike a balance between respecting host country sovereignty and ensuring high-quality emission reduction credits, some limitations to risk management of geological storage under the CDM remain. These limitations should be weighed against the potential benefits of including CCS in the CDM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]