Talk:Clean Development Mechanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.

poor science[edit]

Lack of special concern for afforestation projects; no references, poor scientific knowledge, poor paragraph structure —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, contains many weasel words and is biased against the CDM. Also science is poor and contradictive in places.

This is a really bad article. It's far too long, confusing, baised and out of date. Total rewrite in order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC) -- (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

To Do[edit]

  • Include a little about small-scale CDM.
  • Include a little about major commercial players/brokers.
  • As more projects go through the process and documentation on this becomes available, sketch a clearer profile of credited CDM projects (renewable, N2O, etc.).
  • Section on types of eligible projects: not nuclear, status of sinks, and recent discussion of CCS inclusion.
  • Define all acronyms (e.g. NGO is undefined on first use)

Good sources not used for the article so far are the UNEP-RISOE homepage and the World Banks annual Report "State and Trends of the Carbon Markets" -> added that as source 22, refering to the share of renewables on newly registered projects.

Especially translation the UNEP Risoe page into text-information could greatly increase the qualitiy of the artice. (TimS TimS (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC))


I've restored the UNFCCC logo that removed. I consider the CDM as a child of the UNFCCC, or at least closely enough affiliated that adding the logo is appropriate. However, I am open to arguments for its removal. If you have, please post here. Jens Nielsen 20:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC) we should also look for that points which should be read before this article for e.g. reading cdm we should know what is annex 1 & annex 2 countries ,kyoto protocal etc .

Net reductions[edit]

OK, here goes. You feel that "The CDM as such does not reduce net global greenhouse gas emissions. For every tonne reduced in a host (developing) country, an investor is allowed to emit one more tonne at home." is fundamental and has to be included. I would argue this is very misleading to a lay reader. Let's say there are 200 tonnes of emissions worldwide. This sentence makes it sound like the Annex 1 country can reduce emissions in a developing nation by 5 tonnes (so 195 tonnes total) then emit 5 more tonnes, bringing the total back up to 200 tonnes. As you know, that's not the case. In reality, if there are 200 tonnes of CO2, 100 from, say, Germany (annex 1, Kyoto signer) and 100 from, say, China (classified as developing for the perposes of Kyoto), and Germany needs to reduce emissions by 5% (5 tons), they can do so by emitting 100 tonnes in Germany and financing a 5 tonne reduction in China instead -- reducing NET global emissions of GHG by the same 5 tonnes. Does it work that way? Not always. But that's the theory and that's what the lede needs to be about, except maybe for some short disclaimer that says it doesn't always work. Envirocorrector 20:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your objections. I believe you're confusing the CDM with the Kyoto protocol. The Kyoto protocol takes care of the net reductions, not CDM. The CDM is only a means to realise the required reductions, and here it works exactly as I just stated (and in fact I was semi-quoting from a paper of former CDM EB board member Axel Michaelowa). If Germany's Kyoto target is already 100 (to continue with your example), "sponsoring" the China CDM project would allow Germany to emit 5 more tonnes. If Germany's target would be 95, the CDM project would save Germany the trouble of having to reduce 5 tonnes in Germany. Net difference=0. Indeed, if the CDM and other international mechanism were to fall away, countries would need to realise their Kyoto target domestically, as just illustrated. Caveats aside, CDM leads to no net reduction in emissions, and that's exactly because countries can use CDM credits towards meeting their Kyoto targets. Jens Nielsen 07:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Randomly browsing the web (using google search, I'm compiliing some links where the issue of net global emissions in a CDM context is mentioned [1],[2],[3], and here's a whole quote for good measure from a US department of energy study:
"It is important to recognize that the market mechanisms are not designed to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions beyond emission reduction targets such as those specified in the Kyoto Protocol. Rather, the purpose of market mechanisms is to increase flexibility and reduce the costs associated with meeting emission reduction targets. The CDM for example, provides for a one-to-one trade between developed and developing countries. Thus, at least in the ideal, market-based projects will yield no net change in global emissions. In short, it is the emission reduction targets specified in some future international emission reduction agreements, and not the market mechanisms, that will act as the driving force for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions."
In fact, the issue was (as it originally said in the article) understood since the very beginning of the CDM, but this is frequently forgotten in today's frenzy for cheap emission reduction credits.Jens Nielsen 07:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not interested in a revert war here, but frankly, if you aren't willing to allow edits to this article, you might consider posting it on geocities instead of WP. I'm not "confusing the CDM with the Kyoto Protocol." In fact, I'm a master's candidate in Environmental Management. Beyond assuming good faith, you can safely assume I have a certain amount of knowledge. The issue, I think, is in our understanding of the CDM as it applies to net (worldwide) GHG reductions. You say that allowing Annex 1 countries to pay for reductions abroad allows them to emit more GHG. I disagree. CDM simply allows the same reductions to be moved around the world. I understand that's not a further reduction beyond the Kyoto targets, it's still net reduction of GHG emisions. Envirocorrector 12:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I have still seen no counter-arguments, beyond a reference to your diploma. I've offered arguments and references and I expect you to the same in support of your reversions, whatever your faith and qualifications. You say: "CDM simply allows the same reductions to be moved around the world". That is in principle correct and amounts to the statement that CDM does not reduce net global emissions. I'll revert unless you offer further arguments and sources to support retention of the current formulation. Jens Nielsen 08:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I made a reference to my background because you were attempting to discredit me, accusing me of "confusing CDM and the Kyoto Protocol," which is certainly not the case. On that note, I have been civil throughout this disagreement, and "I expect you to do the same." As for content, I´m surprised you say that my statement is in principle correct and that you'll revert it in the same posting. If you need a reference to word "net reductions," take a look at - the official glossary of acronyms used by the CDM's governing body. It states: "An A/R CDM project activity is an afforestation or reforestation measure, operation or action that aims at achieving net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks." Envirocorrector 11:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if my remarks have offended you, but I am convinced your first edit was an error. We can all be too quick to correct what we judge to be a mistake in wikipedia, and I know that from personal experience too. We can only learn from it and get on editing. I am in fact keen on retaining prominent mention of the fact (in one wording or another) that more CDM projects is not "good for the environment" - it does not as such result in lower emissions overall, only lower costs. It's a common misunderstanding, but the difference is crucial from an environmental policy point of view, so the article should state the truth clearly. As for the UNFCCC glossary, it refers to a "project activity", not CDM as a whole. The distinction is crucial - individual projects are of course supposed to reduce emissions compared to the project baseline, and that's what is meant in the glossary. CDM as a whole is intimately linked with national emissions and that is where the catch lies. Jens Nielsen 17:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"costs accepted to be lower"[edit]

On another, lesser, topic. I have deleted the phrase "where costs are generally accepted to be lower than in developed countries." I did so because the costs aren't just accepted to be lower, they are. If they weren't, there would be no incentive for Annex 1 countries to participate in the CDM. Envirocorrector 20:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What may be obvious to you is not obvious to everyone, and because it's a key fact behind the main rationale for CDM (reducing costs) it would do good to state the obvious here. I think it is important to use the phrase "generally lower", as it is by no means clear why costs should always be lower in developing countries. In fact, technology-intesive projects (say, a wind farm) may easily be more expensive in a developing country due to lack of infrastructure and high transport costs. Jens Nielsen 07:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine, we can say "sometimes." Your copy is wordy and over-emphasizes that there may not be cost savings. Anyway, I would ask you to find a specific example of use of the CDM that increased the cost of a project. I'm willing to bet it's extremely rare. Envirocorrector 12:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It's in fact a contribution from a third author, and as my example shows it's valid. As for your second challenge, it happens all the time. Getting your project CDM certified costs a small fortune in consultant salaries, and as these costs are being nearly independent on scale of project, projects need to be beyond a certain size to be viable as CDM projects - it is in fact the main reason few small-scale projects have been registered (a well known fact in the field). This has to some extent been ameliorated by the provisions for small-scale CDM projects with simplified methodologies, but it's not enough. Jens Nielsen 08:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

False Positive[edit]

In the section "The Risk of false credit" Clean_Development_Mechanism#The_risk_of_false_credits, the first paragraph describes a scenario where a project is registered as CDM even though it would have happened anyway. The last sentence here is: "Such a 'rejection' is termed a "false positive".

Shouldn't this be "Such a inclusion is termed a "false positive"?

If anyone agrees, please change it! Tobi Kellner (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree: "Rejection" is incorrect. "Inclusion" would be more appropriate. --JB1000 (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC) 'Bold text' I changed rejection to inclusion. I believe this whole section should really be cited properly since we have no evidence on this page about nations taking advantage of CDM. Thoughts? Rivvvers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC).

This article was changed significantly after 19 February 2009, please see the history. Prior to this date, there were several additional references and a number of useful charts. I think all of these should be added back but I'm not certain how to do this without effecting the subsequent edits. Any ideas? Brenan407 (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)brenan407


Headline text[edit]



The section "CDM projects to date" is not very useful as it is now, since new projects are registered every day. Instead, it would be better to introduce the sources that update this information every month, such as the CDM pipeline published in CD4CDM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for including avoided deforestation projects in the CDM[edit]

The part mentioned above is outdated, as it still talks about "what will be discussed in Copenhagen". I am not an expert in this issue, but it would be nice, if someone who knows about the results of Copenhagen could update this section of the article. QuéSéYo2 (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)