Examination of Witness (Questions 160-161)
MISS BRYONY
WORTHINGTON
1 DECEMBER 2004
Q160 Mr Challen: Are CDM projects more
likely to go to fast-developing countries than to the poorer ones
as they will be in a better position to take advantage of these?
Miss Worthington: I have to say
that I am not in anyway an expert on CDM but I would say that
it is open to those people who seek out the projects and then
seek accreditation through the executive board and to that degree
it is very difficult to second guess where they will come from.
I have read in reports, that countries like China will be potentially
big sources of CDM credits. It certainly is not going to be a
method which enables quite high cost abatement technologies to
be introduced into the poorest countries: it is going to be about
finding the least cost solutions internationally. If we are expecting
it to lead to big investment in, say, African renewable energy,
I suspect that is not what it will deliver. It is more likely
to deliver chemical or power-plant efficiency gains from those
countries which already have high emissions.
Q161 Mr Challen: Lastly, we have heard
this afternoon that part of the problem of verifying Kyoto and
the accountability of it is the use of carbon sinks. There still
seems to be a large debate about that. Do you think that they
ought to be included in future, post 2012, and that perhaps we
should reduce their role even now, as we were talking earlier
on about the UK?
Miss Worthington: Yes, we do not
support the use of sinks, for all the reasons which I am sure
have been rehearsed previously. They should be excluded and they
are currently excluded from the EU emissions trading scheme, but
there is provision for them to be brought into the second phase.
I think the UK should stand firm on keeping them out and we should
not be tempted to use them in our own country to try to fudge
the figures. There is evidence that that is occurring. The DTI
energy projections that were published in November were an embarrassment
because they showed that we were quite a long distance from our
20% target and one of the ways of softening the blow has been
to up our assessment of what we can get from land use change,
which could be the first signs of a government policy to move
into that direction. We would oppose that obviously. Abatement
is what is needed.
Chairman: Thank you very much. I think
that concludes our questions. Thank you very much indeed for your
time.
| 
