Voluntary Carbon Registry Archívum - Voluntary Carbon Registry

Registry and Query System

rampi — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 23:18:40 +0000

A Registry and Query System bejegyzés először Voluntary Carbon Registry-én jelent meg.

About

rampi — Mon, 04 Sep 2023 15:19:03 +0000

Voluntary carbon market registrars are organizations or platforms that enable companies or individuals to voluntarily reduce or offset their own carbon emissions. These registrars typically operate as intermediaries between emitters and projects offering carbon credits. Here is some information about the topic: Carbon Credits: Voluntary carbon market registrars allow companies or individuals to purchase carbon credits from projects that reduce or offset carbon emissions. These projects may include activities such as reforestation, renewable energy production, or other sustainable practices. Measurement and Assessment: Voluntary registrars often provide opportunities for measuring and assessing emissions. They assist companies or individuals in determining how much carbon dioxide they emit through their activities and what measures can be taken to reduce or offset these emissions. Market Linkage: Voluntary carbon market registrars create platforms where transactions can occur between emitters and projects engaged in emissions reduction or offsetting. This helps support sustainable initiatives and promote environmentally friendly endeavors. Regulation and Certifications: Some voluntary registrars issue certifications that validate emissions reduction or offsetting efforts.

A About bejegyzés először Voluntary Carbon Registry-én jelent meg.

Phantom carbon credits

rampi — Thu, 18 May 2023 10:34:57 +0000

Phantom carbon credits is a term that suggests that the existence or impact of certain carbon credits may be doubtful or questionable. Carbon credits are credits given for actions or projects that reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions. These credits are tradable on carbon markets and are used to help emitters reduce their emissions. The problem of phantom carbon credits arises when projects or measures do not demonstrably reduce emissions, yet credits are issued for them. This may be because the results of the project are difficult to verify, the emission reduction effects are overestimated, or the measure as a whole does not result in effective emission reductions. This problem is dangerous because by purchasing or using phantom carbon credits, some organisations or companies may give the false impression that they have made significant reductions in their emissions, when in fact they have not made any real effort to reduce their environmental impact. In order to avoid the problem of phantom carbon credits, it is important to develop transparent and reliable carbon credit systems that ensure that projects actually reduce emissions and that credits are verifiable and credible. Such systems will ensure that carbon credits make a real contribution to the fight against climate change through effective verification mechanisms and strict standards. Carbon offsets through carbon credits run the gamut from good to bad. Credible offsets can contribute to climate solutions – if coupled with concrete action to reduce emissions. Unfortunately, there are many examples of projects of dubious value, so it is important to check their credibility. This is not a problem for carbon credits in international registers. Each series is assigned an identification number and documentation is available on request. The use or use of discredited carbon credits is a deception of the market and the authorities and is a criminal offence. László A. Rampasek

A Phantom carbon credits bejegyzés először Voluntary Carbon Registry-én jelent meg.

How Much Carbon Dioxide Are We Emitting?

rampi — Tue, 03 Aug 2021 13:10:10 +0000

Visualizing the Quantities of Climate Change By Matthew Conlen At standard temperature and pressure, one metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO₂) would fill a sphere 32 feet (about 9.8 meters) in diameter. The average car in the U.S. will produce this over a three-month period. The amount of carbon dioxide released due to burning fossil fuels has been increasing since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-18th century. In 1900, almost 2 billion metric tons of CO₂ were released due to fossil fuel usage. By 1960, that number had more than quadrupled to over 9 billion metric tons. The latest data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center shows that over 35 billion metric tons of CO₂ were released in 2014.* Because emissions are only partially reduced by natural land and ocean sinks, the rest of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from the human burning of fossil fuels remains in Earth’s atmosphere, resulting in the annual year-over-year rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, as seen here. Explore NASA’s climate vital signs to learn more about carbon dioxide and other factors related to climate change. * Latest annual data from CDIAC Data sources: Our World in Data, CDIAC

A How Much Carbon Dioxide Are We Emitting? bejegyzés először Voluntary Carbon Registry-én jelent meg.

The price of carbon credit is the fight for values

rampi — Mon, 26 Jul 2021 17:04:31 +0000

Discount rates: A boring thing you should know about (with otters!) Unless you’re an economics geek, you’ve probably never heard of “discount rates.” Behind that technical term, however, hides a social and ethical debate at the heart of climate policy. David Roberts explains (otters included). How much is it worth to us today to avoid climate disruption later this century? To understand how that question has typically been answered, you need to understand what economists call “discount rates,” key parameters in the economic models used to assess climate policy costs. Such models inform policymaking and shape conventional wisdom, but their use of discount rates has led them to lowball the threat and recommend insufficient action to meet it. You see my problem here: You’re already bored as sh*t. And the literature on this is as voluminous as it is technical. You could be much more bored. Trust me. But don’t give up! It really does matter. Understanding discount rates will help you understand the climate-policy landscape — not only the technical details, but the struggle over values that lurks underneath them. So stick with me. To help counter the soporific effects of the subject, I shall endeavor to explain it in a lively, accessible fashion. Failing that, I’ll use otters. OK! Let’s recall a vexing fact about climate change: There’s a substantial time lag between causes and effects. Greenhouse gases emitted today affect global temperatures in 50 years or so, just as we’re experiencing temperature rise caused by emissions 50 years ago. This time lag complicates efforts to do something about the problem, to say the least, as people are not generally temperamentally inclined to sacrifice now to gain benefits (or to avoid costs) 50 years down the road. We prefer instant gratification; we’re pretty myopic. The policy challenge, then, is to pull those damages out of the future and into the present. We need to amplify that distant signal so that it is heard in everyday economic decision-making. The preferred way to achieve this goal is to put a price on carbon, via a tax or a cap. The carbon price is meant to reflect the damages emissions will cause later, or, in dork-speak, to “internalize the externalities.” To do this properly — to figure out the “right” price for a ton of CO2 emissions — we have to answer two questions. One, how much damage will a ton of carbon do? And two, how much is it worth to us to avoid that amount of damage? Climate science can help answer the first question, though it can’t, and likely never will be able to, give us a precise figure. Especially at regional or more granular levels, precision is impossible given the limitations of current science and the inherent complexities of the global atmospheric system. But if we want a figure or range of figures to work with, we can choose from the center of the probability distribution and get something that’s “good enough for government work,” as they say. The second question is trickier. The physical sciences cannot answer it. How much future climate mitigation is worth to us today — what’s called the social cost of carbon — is a matter for economics and ethics. And it’s here that discount rates enter the picture. We must prepare ourselves with an otter. “Ready to sink my teeth in.” (Photo by Mike Baird.) To get our heads around discount rates, let’s first focus on how they work in individual decision-making. There are two concepts to grasp here: revealed time preferences and opportunity costs. (Hey, I just gave you an otter.) Here’s a thought experiment. Say I gave you a choice: I’ll give you $100 today or $100 in 10 years. You’d choose today, obviously. What if the choice was $70 today or $100 in 10 years? Hm … tougher. $50 today? If you choose $50, you’re saying you value dollars today twice as much you value as dollars 10 years from now. The degree to which you prefer present benefits (money today) over future benefits (money in the future) is known as your “revealed time preference.” It is “revealed” in that it is reflected in your savings and investment decisions, even if it is never articulated. Now, here’s another scenario. What would you pay today to avoid $100 in damage to your car a year from now? In making this decision, you would think about what else you could do with the money in the meantime. “Hm, I could put $100 in a bank account and, at a 3 percent interest rate, in a year I’d have $103. I could pay off the repair bill and pocket $3 in profit!” In a situation of 3 percent interest rates, it’s only worth $97 to you today to avoid $100 in damage a year from now. Otherwise you could make more by investing the money differently. What if the $100 in damage was in 10 years? Then it would only be worth $67. How about 30 years? Just $41. How much an investment pays relative to other uses of the same resources is known as its “opportunity cost” — for every investment, you choose to forego other opportunities. Revealed time preference and opportunity costs together lead us to discount the value of future benefits. Think of it like compound interest, only run in reverse; to an investor today, returns lose some percentage of their “net present value” each year they recede into the future. That percentage, the amount that a benefit declines in value each year into the future it extends, is the discount rate. In financial transactions, the discount rate is typically set somewhere around prevailing market interest rates. OK! We know what discount rates are and how they factor into savings and investment decisions. So far so good. Things get a little stickier and more complicated when it comes to climate change, though. So let’s take a quick otter break. Shutterstock – Eric Isselee Why are discount rates a vexed subject when it comes to climate change? Mainly because climate change involves long time spans and globe-spanning geography — and therefore multiple generations and multiple societies. Let’s focus on the time spans. Consider: If we have a discount rate of 3 percent — which is a fairly representative rate in economics — and we face $100 of climate damages in 2100 (roughly 87 years from now), it is worth about $7 to us to avoid it. Hardly anything. To make it more vivid, imagine climate change were on track to cause $5 trillion ($5,000,000,000,000) in damages by the end of the century. That’s an unthinkably large number. (Go ahead, try to think about it.) And it represents unthinkable suffering. But at a discount rate of 3 percent, it would be worth just $382 billion to us today to avoid it. For perspective, that’s a little more than half the annual U.S. military budget. It starts to seem a little absurd. And it gets even crazier if you apply a discount rate of 5 percent, as some people suggest (5 percent is roughly the return on U.S. Treasury bills). That would mean avoiding $5 trillion in damages in 2100 is worth about $72 billion today. By comparison, that’s just over what China expects to invest in high-speed rail this year. So you see: If we use discount rates in the 3-5 percent range, we can’t justify spending much of anything on climate policy today. And that’s what some popular modeling shows. Yale economist William Nordhaus, for instance, uses a discount rate of 3 percent, so his modeling tells us that all we need at the moment is a modest (around $5/ton) carbon tax. (Or, put another way, the social cost of carbon is $5 in today’s dollars.) [UPDATE: OK, this is slightly off. Nordhaus’s optimal CO2 price was $7.40 a ton in 2005, meant to rise 2 or 3 percent a year, so it would be around $9 or $10 today. Still pretty low.] If that doesn’t jibe with your moral intuitions, you’re not alone. U.K. economist Nicholas Stern, in his famed Stern Review, used largely the same scientific data as Nordhaus, but with a discount rate of just 0.1 percent. [UPDATE: Stern used 0.1 percent for time preference but 1.4 percent for the full discount rate; my bad.] Not surprisingly, Stern’s modeling suggests that the social cost of carbon is closer to $85 a ton and rising. Again, these two, the “delayer” and the “alarmist,” do not disagree on the scientific facts of climate change. They just disagree about how much we should value damages to future people. That’s the difference between apathy and panic. So what should the discount rate be? What number should economists use when modeling climate change policy? And how do we decide? Before we get into that heaviness, we need a little otter. Otter – neelsky So who’s right about the discount rate, Nordhaus or Stern? Suffice to say, this is a subject of vigorous dispute. If you want to dig in, you have many long and excruciatingly boring journal articles to choose from. I will merely scratch the surface here. Long story short: There’s no “right” answer, only a judgment call. Those who argue for a higher discount rate (in the 3-5 percent range), like Nordhaus himself [PDF], favor what they see as a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach. Ours is not to ask what the discount rate “should” be, ours is but to determine people’s actual time preferences as revealed in their everyday market behavior (i.e., look to prevailing market interest rates). It’s the only way to avoid “paternalism,” smuggling moral judgments into economics. One of their primary assumptions is that people in the future will be richer than us, and thus better prepared to deal with climate damages. If it’s a choice between making them richer and reducing their climate damages, we should generally lean toward making them richer. Only if climate mitigation investments offer a rate of return higher than prevailing interest rates are they worthwhile. Otherwise, we’d be better off just putting the money in a bank. For my part, I find arguments for a lower (or even zero) discount rate much more persuasive. This does not strike me as an area where “paternalism” can or should be avoided. We’re literally the parents (and grandparents) in this situation! First, let’s discuss this notion that people’s revealed time preferences are a kind of neutral baseline discount rate, devoid of ethical judgment. I like this point from professor Paul Kelleher, who wrote a short review on “energy policy and the social discount rate” [PDF]. He’s responding here to Martin Weitzman, who argues that the social discount rate should reflect prevailing interest rates (i.e, prevailing time preferences): Weitzman is surely correct that prevailing interest rates reveal ethically relevant information. But it is information about how individuals, acting as individuals and largely in their own interests, weight present versus future well-being. However, the social discount rate should reflect explicitly moral, other-regarding judgments about the relative importance of well-being that exists far into the future. It is by no means clear that individuals’ self-regarding behavior yields any insight whatsoever about what even those same individuals believe we owe to future generations. Right. It’s one thing for an investor to make decisions about how much future value she will sacrifice for present value. It’s another for her to make decisions about how much value future people will sacrifice for her present value. Those are decisions that affect other people, paradigmatically ethical decisions, so it is no longer her discount rate alone that’s relevant. There’s no avoiding ethical judgment here. More arguments against high discount rates can be found in this post from NRDC chief economist Laurie Johnson (to whom we will return later). I’ll share her top-line points. First: An increasingly disrupted climate may hamper economic productivity, causing economic growth rates to deviate below their historical trajectories. If worse-case climate risks materialize, climate change could even reverse economic growth. In that instance, people in...

A The price of carbon credit is the fight for values bejegyzés először Voluntary Carbon Registry-én jelent meg.

Voluntary Carbon Registry

rampi — Sat, 24 Jul 2021 17:46:48 +0000

OurOffset Nonprofit LLC. is a leading, multi-role infrastructure provider for environmental markets of greenhouse gases in Central Europe. EM global CO2 assessment certified RESPONDENT. As a member of the ever-growing global network of EM respondents from over 40 countries since 2014, in 2021 it reported CO2 market inspections and offset trades with regard to projects in 80 countries, contributing to EM’s goal of advancing the CO2 market transparency. The users of these systems include all key market players, from project developers and companies to NGOs and governmental organisations, as well as all small and medium sized enterprises. OurOffset is not only a technology partner, but also invests in relationship building to support the success of each of our carbon registry supporting partners, tailoring our approach to the unique needs of each registry. OurOffset acts as an extension of the support organization, pairing in-depth knowledge of their programs with expert insight into industry trends and requirements. We are continually evolving with the voluntary carbon industry, identifying strategic advances to help our partners meet market needs with technologically advanced, efficient, cost-effective and intuitive approaches to achieve carbon neutrality as quickly as possible.

A Voluntary Carbon Registry bejegyzés először Voluntary Carbon Registry-én jelent meg.

The Social Cost of Carbon

rampi — Sat, 24 Jul 2021 17:46:48 +0000

Estimating the Benefits of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. EPA and other federal agencies use estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) to value the climate impacts of rulemakings. The SC-CO2 is a measure, in dollars, of the long-term damage done by a ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in a given year. This dollar figure also represents the value of damages avoided for a small emission reduction (i.e., the benefit of a CO2 reduction). The SC-CO2 is meant to be a comprehensive estimate of climate change damages and includes changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, and changes in energy system costs, such as reduced costs for heating and increased costs for air conditioning. However, given current modeling and data limitations, it does not include all important damages. The IPCC Fifth Assessment report observed that SC-CO2 estimates omit various impacts that would likely increase damages. The models used to develop SC-CO2 estimates, known as integrated assessment models, do not currently include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature because of a lack of precise information on the nature of damages and because the science incorporated into these models naturally lags behind the most recent research. Nonetheless, the current estimates of the SC-CO2 are a useful measure to assess the climate impacts of CO2 emission changes. EPA and other federal agencies also use estimates of the social cost of methane (SC-CH4) and the social cost of nitrous oxide (SC-N2O) in analyses of regulatory actions that are projected to influence CH4 or N2O emissions in a manner consistent with how CO2 emission changes are valued. The SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates are taken from a paper by Marten et al. (2015a and 2015b), which provided the first set of published SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates that are consistent with the modeling assumptions underlying the SC-CO2 estimates. Both the methodology for valuing the damages from CH4 and N2O emissions and the application of the SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates to regulatory cost-benefit analysis have been subject to rigorous independent peer review and public comment. See the Addendum to the SC-CO2 Technical Support Document (TSD) for further details. As discussed in the 2010 SC-CO2 TSD, estimates of the social cost of these greenhouse gases increase over time because future emissions are expected to produce larger incremental damages as physical and economic systems become more stressed in response to greater climatic change, and because GDP is growing over time and many damage categories are modeled as proportional to gross GDP. The tables below present the current set of SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates used in Federal regulatory analyses to value emissions changes occurring in certain years. The full set of annual SC-CO2 estimates between 2010 and 2050 is reported in the Appendix to the 2016 TSD. The Addendum to the TSD presents the full set of annual SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates between 2010 and 2050. The full set of model results for the SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O are available on the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) website. Social Cost of CO2, 2015-2050 a (in 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2) Source: Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 (May 2013, Revised August 2016) Discount Rate and Statistic Year 5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average High Impact (95th pct at 3%) 2015 $11 $36 $56 $105 2020 $12 $42 $62 $123 2025 $14 $46 $68 $138 2030 $16 $50 $73 $152 2035 $18 $55 $78 $168 2040 $21 $60 $84 $183 2045 $23 $64 $89 $197 2050 $26 $69 $95 $212 aThe SC-CO2 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. Social Cost of CH4, 2015-2050a (in 2007 dollars per metric ton CH4) Source: Addendum to the Technical Support Document for the Social Cost of Carbon: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide (August 2016) Discount Rate and Statistic Year 5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average High Impact (95th pct at 3%) 2015 $450 $1,000 $1,400 $2,800 2020 $540 $1,200 $1,600 $3,200 2025 $650 $1,400 $1,800 $3,700 2030 $760 $1,600 $2,000 $4,200 2035 $900 $1,800 $2,300 $4,900 2040 $1,000 $2,000 $2,600 $5,500 2045 $1,200 $2,300 $2,800 $6,100 2050 $1,300 $2,500 $3,100 $6,700 aThe SC-CH4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. Social Cost of N2O, 2015-2050a (in 2007 dollars per metric ton N2O) Source: Addendum to the Technical Support Document for the Social Cost of Carbon: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide (August 2016) Discount Rate and Statistic Year 5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average High Impact (95th pct at 3%) 2015 $4,000 $13,000 $20,000 $35,000 2020 $4,700 $15,000 $22,000 $39,000 2025 $5,500 $17,000 $24,000 $44,000 2030 $6,300 $19,000 $27,000 $49,000 2035 $7,400 $21,000 $29,000 $55,000 2040 $8,400 $23,000 $32,000 $60,000 2045 $9,500 $25,000 $34,000 $66,000 2050 $11,000 $27,000 $37,000 $72,000 aThe SC-N2O values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. EPA has used estimates of SC-CO2 to analyze the carbon dioxide impacts of various rulemakings since 2008. The interagency group’s recommended estimates, which were first issued in 2010, have been used to analyze both rulemakings directly targeting carbon dioxide emissions, such as the car and truck standards, as well as others that set standards for conventional or toxic pollutants that indirectly affect carbon dioxide emissions, such as the final rulemaking to control mercury and other air toxic pollutants (PDF, 510 pp, 8.3 MB) from power plants. The rulemakings directly targeting carbon dioxide emissions have projected notable climate-related benefits for society. For example, the projected net present value of carbon dioxide mitigation benefits over the next forty years from three vehicle rulemakings was estimated to range from $78 billion to $1.2 trillion ($2010), depending on which of the four SC-CO2 estimates were used (i.e., the average SC-CO2 at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent and the 95th percentile SC-CO2 at 3 percent). These three rulemakings are: The Joint EPA/Department of Transportation Rulemaking to establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (2012-2016) Joint EPA/Department of Transportation Rulemaking to establish Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards Joint EPA/Department of Transportation Rulemaking to establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (2017-2025) EPA has also used the SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates to estimate the benefits of reductions in non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in recent rulemakings, such as the final emission standards for New and Modified Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector (see RIA Chapter 4). For more information about the SC-CO2, see the SC-CO2 Fact Sheet, as well as the OMB Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases site, which presents the SC-CO2 TSD, Addendum on non-CO2 greenhouse gases, and the OMB response to the public comments received through its solicitation for comments on the SC-CO2 site estimates used in Federal regulatory analyses. In this response, OMB announced plans to obtain expert, independent advice from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine EXIT on how to approach future updates to the estimates. In January 2016, the Academies issued an interim (Phase 1) report which recommended against a near-term update of the SC-CO2 estimates within the existing modeling framework. Longer-term recommendations about how to approach a comprehensive update to the estimates, including research priorities, are expected in the Academies’ final report in January 2017. See also the following documents for information about ongoing research to improve the SC-CO2. EPA and Department of Energy hosted a series of workshops to inform SC-CO2: workshop one, workshop two. EPA funded a workshop EXIT on discounting, a critical SC-CO2 modeling input. World-recognized experts discussed how the benefits and costs of regulations should be discounted for projects with long time horizons.

A The Social Cost of Carbon bejegyzés először Voluntary Carbon Registry-én jelent meg.

Contact

rampi — Sat, 24 Jul 2021 17:46:48 +0000

Company name: OurOffset Nonprofit LLC. Postal address / Office: 1126 Budapest, Fodor u. 13/a. Hungary Address: 9600 Sárvár, Alkotmány u. 69. 1. em. 8. VAT number: HU26796123 Company Register No.: 18-09-114028 EUID: HUOCCSZ. 18-09-114028 Telefon number: +36 1 227 3846 Mobil: +36 30 070 8900 Email: office(@)voluntaryregistry.com Webmail:

A Contact bejegyzés először Voluntary Carbon Registry-én jelent meg.