It has long been the belief of many that if we are going to see any relevant and lasting change with regards to the state of our planet, the responsibility ultimately lies with those in charge of running the world. Individuals can only do so much, and although these efforts are not wasted, they essentially add up to nothing if those with the power to impact on a much larger scale sit back and do nothing.
In amongst the green washing of consumer products and the use of the environmental plight to win votes, the fundamental message is beginning to get lost. Our governments need to remember that we must cut emissions, not to make money or to gain power, but in order to save the human race. Now, perhaps this may sound like a spot of scare mongering. But nonetheless, it is widely accepted that if we continue to act in the same wasteful, inefficient way that we are now, we will effectively create the perfect conditions for our own extinction - no more need for money.
It is in this light that the governments of developed, first world countries must stop and think about their responsibilities.
Established through the Kyoto process, the UN's clean development mechanism (CDM) enables rich countries to meet emissions targets by funding clean energy projects in developing nations. Such rich countries have been routinely abusing the system however, as it has been alleged that the fund is being wrongly used by chemical, wind, gas and hydro companies who are claiming emission reduction credits for projects that should not qualify.
Such abuse results in no genuine emission cuts, and undermines assurances by world leaders that carbon markets are dramatically reducing greenhouse gases.
Research from two senior academics examined more than 3,000 projects applying for or already granted up to $10bn of credits from the UN's CDM funds over the next four years, and concluded that the majority should not be considered for assistance. "They would be built anyway," says David Victor, law professor at Stanford University. "It looks like between one and two thirds of all the total CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts."
Nevertheless, governments continue to assert that the CDM is vital to reducing global emissions. To earn credits under the mechanism, emission reductions must be in addition to those that would have taken place without the project. But critics argue this 'additionality' is impossible to prove and open to frequent abuse.
Another separate study found that many of the projects would have been built regardless of the funding, arguing that nearly three quarters of all registered CDM projects were complete at the time of approval.
"It would seem clear that a project that is already built cannot need extra income in order to be built," said Patrick McCully, director of the US watchdog group International Rivers. "Judging additionality has turned out to be unknowable and unworkable. It can never be proved definitively that if a developer or factory owner did not get offset income they would not build their project."
Yet the UK government continues to defend the clearly flawed scheme. A spokeswoman said, "We've worked consistently for and seen improvement in CDM processes over the past few years of its operation. We believe the CDM is essentially transparent and robust, though we will continue to press for the environmental integrity of projects."
If rich governments don't wake up soon, and understand that we need more than empty gestures, our individual efforts may in fact prove futile.
Related posts
Posted under Articles, Environmental News
This post was written by Natasha Barnes on May 26, 2008