Comments on: China Carbon Forum 2008 Review

By: The Green Leap Forward 绿跃进 » 1.7 Trillion Reasons to Clean Coal Up

The Green Leap Forward 绿跃进 » 1.7 Trillion Reasons to Clean Coal Up — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:59:28 +0000

[...] with what this blog has previously reported here (under subheader “Green Taxes”) and here (last [...]

By: The Green Leap Forward 绿跃进 » Carbon trading, taxes and putting the cart before the horse

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:27:32 +0000

[...] Yes, CBEEX and their new French partner, Blue Next, did make a showing at the UN climate summit, but only at the sidelines, and merely to promote their own efforts to develop their own standard for voluntary carbon offsets, kitschily called the “Panda Standard“. Nothing about a mandatory trading scheme, and certainly nothing even in the nature of a liquid secondary market of emissions trading–the fact that the Panda Standard speaks to voluntary carbon offsets indicate they are only considering the primary market. (For a distinction between primary and secondary carbon markets, see previous post “China Carbon Forum 2008 Review.”) [...]

By: The Green Leap Forward 绿跃进 » Green Hops: New Renewable Energy Targets, More Carbon Tax Chatter, Singapore-Nanjing Eco-city Announced

Thu, 07 May 2009 19:06:34 +0000

[...] sounds a bit familiar to you doesn’t it? Of course it does! We at GLF quoted Su Ming back last October (see last full paragraph of link) making the very same proclamations at the China Carbon Forum 2008 [...]

By: zm

zm — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:26:08 +0000

I am not sure if EU-ETS can be classified as a secondary market. It’s more of a compliance scheme outside of Kyoto Protocol. It’s just not project based but rather allowances based. I might be wrong but do want to hear other people’s thoughts.

By: Changever1

Changever1 — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:56:12 +0000

If you are interested in China carbon market, why not attend China’s largest event —- 2nd Annual Carbon Trade China 2009 http://www.chinacarbontrade.com.cn .
The 1st annual Carbon Trade China 2008 was strongly supported by governmental officials and senior executives from UNFCCC, UNEP Risoe Center, UNDP, European Commission, Japan and China. Nearly 250 international buyers & service providers from over 20 countries and 150 China’s powerful local sellers met in the conference. They talked actively and sought their future cooperation opportunities. The pre-arranged “One-to-One” meeting area never had empty seats in 2 days’ conference. 6 well-chosen CDM project introduction sessions were praised highly by international buyers.
Based on the great success and accumulated experience from Carbon Trade China 2008, Carbon Trade China 2009 will be held on April 21st-23rd, 2009. See more details by visiting http://www.chinacarbontrade.com.cn

By: China Law Blog

China Law Blog — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:52:31 +0000

Everything You Always Wanted To Know About China’s Carbon Markets….

In its post, “China Carbon Forum 2008 Review,” The Green Leap Forward blog provides an in-depth review of the China Carbon Forum, along with an excellent overview and prognosis of China’s primary and secondary carbon markets. I recommend this post t…

By: Vance

Vance — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:54:51 +0000

Great post, thanks for the detailed analysis, including the background info.

CDM has clearly exploded here in China, and it’s making a lot of people rich. However, there’s one big question I still have that no one involved with CDM seems to want to answer: how effective is it at accomplishing its fundamental purpose of reducing GHG emissions? Was this raised at the conference outside of Mr. Zheng’s comments?

Most of my discussions with CDM folks remind me of discussions with bankers, not environmentalists; I even once heard a disheartening lecture from a CDM consultant who point blank stated he cared only about making money, not about reducing emissions. Such attitudes, I think, are why CDM conferences (of which there are plenty) seem to revolve around the processes of applying and reporting and approval and pricing, not around the bigger picture questions of overall effectiveness and appropriateness for climate change mitigation.

Of course, my impression is that the unfortunate reality is that CDM just doesn’t work. Is it too bold to say that out loud? So then the question becomes, do you try to fix it post-Kyoto, or do you abandon it in favor of a carbon tax? Or is this too much of an oversimplification?