The carbon cycle in forests and climate change - Understanding the past to adapt to the future [Le cycle du carbone dans les forêts et le changement climatique: Comprendre le passé pour s'adapter au futur]
Bellassen V.,CDC Climat Research |
Luyssaert S.,CEA Saclay Nuclear Research Center
Revue Forestiere Francaise | Year: 2012
A series of extreme events affecting forests that are perhaps related to climate change - pests, storms, fires and droughts - has recently received much coverage in the media and in scientific publications. These documents describe forests as sources of carbon. In contrast, all the methods for estimating the carbon balance of forests worldwide show a net absorption, a global sink of over a billion tons of carbon per year (1 PgC/yr.). Changing land use strongly affects the global balance, especially in the tropics, highlighting that an even greater "natural" forest sink is necessary to ensure consistency with the values recorded in the atmosphere. The four main determining factors for this "natural" forest sink are: climate change, increased carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere, increased nitrogen deposition and changes in the intensiveness of forest management. Even though our understanding of the causes of forest sinks is still imperfect, it appears that the concentration of CO2 and nitrogen deposition are the major causes on the global scale. The effect of CO2 is particularly important in the tropics while nitrogen deposition is thought to be predominant everywhere else. Simultaneous assessment of different adaptation options for forest management in terms of their benefits in the areas of adaptation and mitigation shows up examples of "no regrets" measures in spite of the uncertainty connected with climate risk.
Mansanet-Bataller M.,Climate Economics Chair CEC |
Mansanet-Bataller M.,University of Valencia |
Mansanet-Bataller M.,CDC Climat Research |
Chevallier J.,University of Paris Dauphine |
And 3 more authors.
Energy Policy | Year: 2011
This article studies the price relationships between EU emissions allowances (EUAs) - valid under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) - and secondary Certified Emissions Reductions (sCERs)-established from primary CERs generated through the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Given the price differences between EUAs and sCERs, financial and industrial operators may benefit from arbitrage strategies by buying sCERs and selling EUAs (i.e. selling the EUA-sCER spread) to cover their compliance position as industrial operators are allowed to use sCERs towards compliance with their emissions cap within the European system up to 13.4%. Our central results show that the spread is mainly driven by EUA prices and market microstructure variables and less importantly, as we would expect, by emissions-related fundamental drivers. This might be justified by the fact that the EU ETS remains the greatest source of CER demand to date. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd.
Cormier A.,CDC Climat Research |
Bellassen V.,CDC Climat Research
Energy Policy | Year: 2013
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), launched in 2001, has attracted more than 7000 projects. Many, however, did not fully deliver the emissions reductions promised in their project design documents: out of 1.8 billion of expected Certified Emissions Reductions (CER) by April 1, 2011, only 576 million had been issued. This study classifies the risks incurred by CDM projects, attributes a share of the non-delivered CER to each risk, and identifies the most influential factors driving each risk. 29% of expected CER will never be issued due to failure of projects (negative validation, project withdrawn, ...), 12% were not issued on time due to delays during the approval process (validation and registration), 27% were not issued on time due to delays at issuance, and only 1% will never be issued due to underperformance of projects in terms of CER delivered per day. Technology is identified as a key driver for all these risks: some technologies are less risky than others. Time is mainly influencing approval process and issuance delay. Other factors such as location, size of the project, auditor or consultant are occasionally important, but not for each risk. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd.