Airport Carbon Accreditation

10.7Permissable Offsets for the Airport

Airport Carbon Accreditation permits the use of the following internationally recognised offset instruments.

• 
  CERs
  
• 
  ERUs
  
• 
  VERs
  
• 
  EUAs
  

10.7.1Use of Bespoke Project Offsets

If an airport wishes to use project-based offsets it should also be able to demonstrate that the carbon reduction benefit from the project is not also being accounted for elsewhere in any carbon trading scheme, thereby avoiding the issue of “double-counting”. In other words, the same project should not also be registered as a CDM or JI project (for example) where those CDM or JI offsets are being traded elsewhere, outside of Airport Carbon Accreditation.

10.8Types of Carbon Offset Project

There are numerous different types of project within each instrument available for carbon offsetting. Each project type has its own cost/benefit profile. These are summarized in Table 1 below and additional characteristics of offset project are outlined in Table 2.

Good quality offset projects are characterised by:

• 
  Verification – offset is verified by an accredited third party according to a standard or protocol
  
• 
  Additionality – reductions are demonstrable when compared to business as usual
  
• 
  Leakages – take into account negative impacts beyond the project boundary
  
• 
  Impermanency – reductions are maintained over time
  
• 
  Double Counting – avoid offsets being counted more than once.
  

In considering offsetting, airports should evaluate projects against the criteria outlined above. Impermanency is a particularly critical issue for biological sinks and forestation projects which have been widely debated by the scientific community and criticised in the media. It is recommended that airports avoid forestation projects until widely accepted standards have been developed.

Examples of offset projects; pros and cons (reproduced from The Carbon Trust three stage approach to developing a robust offsetting strategy (Nov 2006).

	Category	Example	Pros	Cons
Project Type	Renewable energy	Hydro Biomass Wind Solar Photovoltaic	Easier to prove additionality; technology transfer benefits (to developing country); long-term benefits	Complex projects; delivery of credits could, for example, be affected by delays in making project operational, difficulties in establishing baseline, or changing baseline conditions
	Energy efficiency	Low energy lighting Industrial energy efficiency	Technology transfer benefits (to developing country); long-term benefits	Complex projects; delivery of credits could, for example, be affected by difficulty in establishing baselines or concerns over additionality
	Gas recovery or destruction	Methane recovery from landfill Destruction of by-project (HFC23) from refrigerant production	Simple projects, proven technologies	Concerns over additionality
	Fuel Switching	Oil/ diesel/ fuel oil to natural gas Liquid petroleum gas to biomass briquettes	Simple projects, proven technologies	Concerns over additionality
	Carbon Capture and Storage		Technology transfer benefits (to developing country); long-term benefits	Methodological accounting issues yet to be resolved, concerns over long-term environmental impact; early stage technology
	Biological sinks	Reforestation of land previously forested Avoided deforestation	Additional socio-economic and environmental benefits; reverses contribution of approximately 20% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions caused by land use change and forestry; viable way for least developed countries to participate in climate change mitigation and bring sustainable development benefits to those countries	Permanence issues (not able to guarantee CO2 capture over time); accounting and methodological issues; negative secondary effects (leakages); seen by some as distraction from real problem (world’s fossil fuel-based energy systems); credits granted on predicted CO2 absorption level rather than actual absorption levels

Additional characteristics of offset project (reproduced from The Carbon Trust three stage approach to developing a robust offsetting strategy (Nov 2006).

	Category	Pros	Cons
Standards	CDM / JI	Robust/reliable standards, broad acceptance as good quality credits	Difficult to buy compliance credits for voluntary purposes (depending on volume); price could be high
	Voluntary Gold Standard	Robust standard for small scale projects; aligned with CDM standards; strong focus on sustainable development component of project; good acceptance by stakeholders	No track record (standard just launched in May 2006); prices expected to be high
	Voluntary Carbon Standard	Robust standard aligned with CDM rules; strong backup from international organisations (IETA, WEF)	No track record (still under development, expected in December 2006)
	Climate Community and Biodiversity standards	Robust standard, use methodologies developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); strong stakeholder backup	Credit prices generated under CCB expected to be high
	Plan Vivo	Robust standard, seven years of field work experience	Small number of projects developed under this standard
	Proprietary VERs	In general, generates cheaper credits	More difficult to assess; weak standard can put credit buyer’s reputation at risk; not always accredited third party verification or auditing
Project Location	Developing Country	Easier to prove additionality; sustainable development benefits	Country risk, non-delivery
	Developed country outside Kyoto	Cheaper credits, lower country risk	Credibility concerns; subsidising free-riding from countries benefiting from carbon market but without themselves making commitments to reduce their emissions under a legally binding framework
	Developed country inside Kyoto	Promotion of reductions in home country	Additionality concerns
Additional benefits	Conservation	Buyers can be associated with particular projects that brings sustainable development benefits, improving the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) position of the organisation and providing positive Public Relations (PR)	Credits usually more expensive; exposure to additional reputational risks if social component of project goes wrong
	Social
	Technology transfer
Aggregation	Credits from project portfolio	Cheaper credits; minimises risk of underperforming (non-delivery, impermanency)	Credit cannot be associated to individual project; credit’s credibility could be affected by any individual project in portfolio (higher probability of reputational risks); non-customisable
	Credits from individual project	Credits can be associated with a particular project (can provide positive PR and improved CSR position); customisable	Expect higher credit prices; higher exposure to underperformance and credibility risks
Guarantees	Against no-delivery, permanence etc	Cover against uncertainties; provides insurance for biological sink projects	Expect higher credit prices

Directory: static
static -> "a state a Week" The State of Florida
static -> Today in rr history: January
static -> Danny Ainge (1959 ) byu basketball star and former nba player/coach; Played for the Boston Celtics, the Sacramento Kings, the Portland Trail Blazers, and the Phoenix Suns. Born in Eugene, or walter Wayne Backman
static -> Credit union mobile remote deposit services disclosure and agreement
static -> Karen Fittall, 2011, Good Health Issue 09/11 p096-098 10 Superfoods that keep you young
static -> Title: ap manager Accounting (Austin, tx) url
static -> Internship Jobs Title

Download 0.53 Mb.

Share with your friends: