...
首页> 外文期刊>Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change >Project-based emissions trading: the impact of institutional arrangements on cost-effectiveness
【24h】

Project-based emissions trading: the impact of institutional arrangements on cost-effectiveness

机译:基于项目的排放交易:制度安排对成本效益的影响

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

In this paper we demonstrate that the institutional arrangement (or: design) of Joint Implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has a decisive impact on their cost-effectiveness. We illustrate our arguments by statistically analyzing the costs from 94 Activities Implemented Jointly (AIJ) pilot phase projects as well as by adjusting these data on the basis of simple mathematical formulas. These calculations explicitly take into account the institutional differences between JI (sinks, no banking) and the CDM (banking, no sinks) under the Kyoto Protocol and also show the possible effects on credit costs of alternative design options. However, our numerical illustrations should be viewed with caution, because AIJ is only to a limited extent representative of potential future JI and CDM projects and because credit costs are not credit prices. Some of the main figures found in this study are: an average cost figure per unit of emission reduction for AIJ projects of 46 dollar per tonof carbon dioxide equivalent (dollar/Mg CO_2-eq), an average potential JI credit cost figure which is lowered to 37 dollar/Mg CO_2-eq by introducing banking and an average of 6 dollar/Mg CO_2-eq per credit for potential low-cost CDM projects which includes sinks. However, at CoP6 in November 2000 in The Hague (The Netherlands), the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) did not (yet) reach consensus on the institutional details of the project-based mechanisms, such as the possiblearrangement of early JI action or the inclusion of sinks under the CDM.
机译:在本文中,我们证明了联合实施(JI)和清洁发展机制(CDM)的制度安排(或设计)对其成本效益具有决定性影响。我们通过统计分析94个联合实施的活动(AIJ)试点项目的成本以及在简单的数学公式的基础上调整这些数据来说明我们的论点。这些计算明确考虑了《京都议定书》之下的联合执行机构(汇,无银行业务)与清洁发展机制(银行,无汇)之间的制度差异,还显示了替代设计方案可能对信贷成本产生影响。但是,我们的数字插图应谨慎对待,因为AIJ仅在一定程度上代表了未来的JI和CDM潜在项目,并且信贷成本不是信贷价格。在这项研究中发现的一些主要数据是:AIJ项目每单位减排量的平均成本数字为每吨二氧化碳当量(美元/ Mg CO_2-eq)46美元,JI潜在成本的平均数降低了引入银行业务,将潜在的低成本CDM项目(包括汇)的信贷额度提高到37美元/毫克CO_2当量,平均每学分6美元/毫克CO_2当量。但是,在2000年11月于海牙(荷兰)举行的第六届缔约方会议上,气候变化框架公约(FCCC)的缔约方尚未(尚未)就基于项目的机制的体制细节达成共识,例如可能的安排。早期执行JI行动或将清洁剂纳入CDM。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号