An Empirical Comparison of Carbon Credit Projects Under the Clean Development Mechanism and Verified Carbon Standard

Andrea von Avenarius, D. Settygowda, R. Kiesel
{"title":"An Empirical Comparison of Carbon Credit Projects Under the Clean Development Mechanism and Verified Carbon Standard","authors":"Andrea von Avenarius, D. Settygowda, R. Kiesel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3168672","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Carbon credit projects generate carbon credits by abating greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon credits can then be traded on carbon markets or immobilized in order to compensate for caused emissions. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), as the two most important carbon credit mechanisms, are investigated and compared regarding the success of projects. We define success as the fulfilling of the ex-ante emission abatement estimation and apply regression analyses to explain its variation on a project level by technology, location, scale, duration and participation. The results are discussed in detail on technology level for wind power, energy efficiency, hydro power as well as biomass projects and are compared with regard to CDM and VCS. Our main results indicate that large scale projects often compensate for their under-performance due to economies of time. Furthermore, the duration of projects, their location and structure of participants have significant influence on the success of the projects. The sign of the coefficients of explanatory variables are broadly in line with intuition and related literature, although, due to data availability, they are not always highly significant statistically.","PeriodicalId":234456,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Energy eJournal","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics & Energy eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3168672","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Carbon credit projects generate carbon credits by abating greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon credits can then be traded on carbon markets or immobilized in order to compensate for caused emissions. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), as the two most important carbon credit mechanisms, are investigated and compared regarding the success of projects. We define success as the fulfilling of the ex-ante emission abatement estimation and apply regression analyses to explain its variation on a project level by technology, location, scale, duration and participation. The results are discussed in detail on technology level for wind power, energy efficiency, hydro power as well as biomass projects and are compared with regard to CDM and VCS. Our main results indicate that large scale projects often compensate for their under-performance due to economies of time. Furthermore, the duration of projects, their location and structure of participants have significant influence on the success of the projects. The sign of the coefficients of explanatory variables are broadly in line with intuition and related literature, although, due to data availability, they are not always highly significant statistically.
清洁发展机制与验证碳标准下碳信用项目的实证比较
碳信用项目通过减少温室气体排放来产生碳信用。然后,碳信用额度可以在碳市场上交易或固定,以补偿造成的排放。清洁发展机制(CDM)和验证碳标准(VCS)作为两种最重要的碳信用机制,对项目的成功进行了调查和比较。我们将成功定义为实现事前减排估计,并应用回归分析来解释其在项目层面上因技术、地点、规模、持续时间和参与而产生的变化。从风能、能源效率、水电和生物质能项目的技术水平等方面详细讨论了研究结果,并对CDM和VCS进行了比较。我们的主要结果表明,大型项目通常会弥补由于时间经济而导致的表现不佳。此外,项目的持续时间、项目的地点和参与者的结构对项目的成功有显著影响。解释变量的系数符号与直觉和相关文献大致一致,尽管由于数据的可用性,它们在统计上并不总是高度显著。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信