• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Environmental Science & Technology >How You Count Carbon Matters: Implications of Differing Cookstove Carbon Credit Methodologies for Climate and Development Cobenefits
【24h】

How You Count Carbon Matters: Implications of Differing Cookstove Carbon Credit Methodologies for Climate and Development Cobenefits

机译：您如何计算碳物质：推迟使用Cookstove碳信用额度方法对气候和发展的共同好处

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The opportunity to apply for carbon credits for cookstove projects creates a source of funding that can be leveraged to promote the "win-win" environmental and development benefits of improved cookstoves. Yet, as in most environment-development efforts, unacknowledged trade-offs exist under the all-encompassing "win-win" claims. This study therefore compares different scenarios for calculating cookstove carbon credits, including comparing different types of stoves using different fuels, different methodologies and theoretical scenarios to account for a range of climate-relevant emissions. The results of the study highlight the following: 1) impacts of different assumptions made within carbon credit methodologies, 2) discussion around potential trade-offs in such projects, and 3) considerations needed to truly promote sustainable development. The Gold Standard methodology was more comprehensive in its accounting and generally calculated more carbon credits per scenario than the Clean Development Mechanism methodology. Including black carbon in calculations would be more reflective of climate-relevant stove emissions and greatly increase the number of credits calculated. As health and other development benefits are not inherently included in carbon credit calculations, to achieve "win-win" outcomes, deliberate decisions about project design need to be made to ensure objectives are met and not simply assumed.
机译：申请炊具项目碳信用额的机会创造了资金来源，可以用来促进改进炊具的“双赢”环境和发展利益。但是，就像在大多数环境开发工作中一样，在无所不包的“双赢”主张下，存在着无法承认的折衷。因此，本研究比较了计算灶具碳信用额的不同方案，包括比较了使用不同燃料，不同方法和理论方案的不同类型炉灶，以说明一系列与气候相关的排放。研究结果突出了以下内容：1）在碳信用额度方法论中做出的不同假设的影响； 2）关于此类项目中潜在折衷的讨论； 3）真正促进可持续发展所需的考虑因素。与清洁发展机制方法相比，黄金标准方法的会计处理更为全面，并且每种情况下计算出的碳信用额通常更高。在计算中包括黑碳将更能反映与气候有关的炉灶排放，并大大增加计算的信用额度。由于健康和其他发展利益并未固有地包含在碳信用额计算中，为了实现“双赢”结果，需要做出有关项目设计的审慎决策，以确保实现目标，而不是简单地假设目标。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Environmental Science & Technology》 |2014年第24期|14112-14120|共9页
  • 作者

    Olivia E. Freeman; Hisham Zerriffi;

  • 作者单位

    Institute of Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada,World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAP), ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins, United Nations Avenue, Gigiri, P.O. Box 30677, 00100, Nairobi, Kenya;

    Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia, 6476 NW Marine Drive, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z2, Canada;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《工程索引》(EI);美国《生物学医学文摘》(MEDLINE);美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号