Tackling Climate Change – False solutions and real solutions


Climate change is the most important challenge facing mankind today. Its existence cannot be contested any longer, it is happening right before our eyes. The dangers are immense and time is extremely short. According to the leading scientific body for the study on climate change, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) an increase of 2 degrees Celsius of average global temperature above pre-industrial levels would have devastating effects: mass extinction of species, millions of people put at risk from crop failures, water shortages, flooding and homelessness. If temperature increase is to be limited to between 2.0 and 2.4 degrees Celsius, global emissions must peak no later than 2015 – that is, five years from now!1 And even the goal of 2 degrees Celsius can be questioned: it would probably lead to sea-level rises submerging several small island states and Bangladesh – the Allaince of Small Island States (AOSIS) is therefore calling for the international community to aim for a 1.5 degree target.
It is the irony of faith, that climate change affects those the most, who have caused it the least. The developed world representing only about 15% of world population is responsible for almost three quarters of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions historically. But this inequality exists today as well: emissions per person are about 6-7 times greater in developed countries than in developing ones. Nonetheless: the poorest people are likely to be hit hardest, indeed poor communities of the global South are already feeling the impacts of climate change disproportionately. And it is these communities that have the least resources to adapt to the changes happening around them.
Realizing the magnitude of the problem, the international community agreed on a new environmental treaty in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, setting out a framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle climate change. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has been ratified by 192 countries since. Under the UNFCCC, developed countries (so-called Annex I countries) have committed to take the lead on reducing greenhouse gas emissions; to provide financial and technological assistance to developing countries to support their efforts of GHG emissions mitigation; and to support developing countries in the process of adaptation to the unavoidable consequences of climate change.
Despite the international commitments, progress has been very slim, to say the least. Developed countries have largely avoided taking substantial action to reduce their emissions: GHG emissions have continued to increase and have even accelerated since 2000. If current trends continue, Annex I signatories to the Kyoto Protocol as a whole will most likely fail to meet their targets under the first commitment period (2008-2012). The commitments made by developed countries at the Copenhagen Climate Summit in December 2009 were sobering as well. Reduction-commitments of at least 40% by 2020 would have been needed to be on the safe side, however even the EU has only offered reductions of 20% by 2020, or 30% at most on the condition that other developed countries made similar commitments. Similarly, developed countries’ financial and technical support to developing countries have been ridiculously low. Although in the Convention developed countries recognise their historical responsibility, the notion of ‘climate debt’ is still not on the official agenda.
The clock is ticking and it is getting more and more obvious, that current measures to fight climate change are not real solutions but rather a distraction from the real problems that should be addressed. Despite the failures, market solutions such as carbon trading and the techno-fixes of geoengineering are getting more popular among decision-makers of the developed world, pushed forward by powerful interest groups. The climate crisis is not seen as symptom of a deeper malady, namely our current patterns of production and consumption, but as a business opportunity. Instead of rethinking ‘development’, economic growth is – as always – seen as the only solution to the problem. The politics of climate change are not dealt with in an ethical dimension, but dominated by rationality: costs and instruments determine the discourse. But can nature by expressed in monetary values? And is it acceptable, that through the Kyoto mechanisms governments to a large extent give up their responsibility for the general good and the environment? 2
This paper aims at providing a critique of the currently dominant solutions to climate change, identifying them as ‘false solutions’ and presenting some alterative measures, tried and tested methods that could provide ‘real solutions’ to the biggest challenge mankind is facing today.


1. Carbon trading

Carbon trading is a complex mechanism with the underlying idea that emissions reductions should be made first where they are the cheapest – however, it is designed in a way that allows targets to be met without actual reductions. Carbon trading takes two forms: cap and trade and offsetting.

The cap and trade mechanism consists of two elements, the ‘cap’ and the ‘trade’. The cap part is supposed to do the work to reduce emissions by setting a legal limit to permissible pollution within a period of time. Governments and intergovernmental bodies such as the European Commission hand out licenses to pollute called carbon permits to major industries. The idea is that carbon permits will be reduced gradually thus ensuring scarcity, forcing reductions in pollution. The trading component gives companies greater room for manoeuvre, making it cheaper to meet reductions targets in a way, that one polluter can sell its permits to an other actor who can make the same level of reductions more cheaply.

The largest carbon trading scheme in place today is the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), worth 63 billion USD in 2008. The ETS covers around 11500 power stations, factories and refineries in 30 countries including the 27 EU member countries and Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein. These account for approximately half of the EU’s CO2 emissions, excluding emissions from road transport, aviation, shipping, agriculture and forestry. The emissions permits are distributed according to a Burden Sharing Agreement among the states with stricter limits for some states (most importantly for Germany and the UK) and the possibility to increase emissions for others. Collectively, they have to reach a reduction of 8% by 2010 compared to 1990 levels. As a next step all countries allocate targets among individual industrial sites by a National Allocation Plan (NAP) to add up to the overall cap of the country. Allowances are based on historical emissions and the majority is granted for free. Phase 3, running from 2013 to 2020 shall change this with a far greater use of auctioning. In addition, formal limits on the use of offset credits will be set and NAPs will be replaced by EU-wide allocation.

Since the EU ETS is the oldest and largest carbon trading scheme in operation, it makes sense to analyze its performance as an indicator of the likely success of carbon trading schemes in general. Unfortunately, as numbers show, the scheme contributes to emissions reductions only in theory.
In the first phase of the ETS (2005-2007) a combination of industrial lobbying and measurement difficulties made governments hand out more permits than the industries needed, leading to a sharp fall in the price of permits. In phase two of the ETS (2008-2012) the financial and economic crises created the same situation: allowances were handed out on the assumption that European economies would continue to grow – the recession however left the companies with a surplus of permits. The same situation will be reproduced in phase 3 (2013-2020) by allowing to bank the permits left unused in the previous phase. The inclusion of the EU new member states had a similar effect of creating a surplus of allowances. After 1990, their industries collapsed leading to emission levels far below the levels of 1990, creating a huge supply of “hot air” emissions units. The system can only work, if permits are scarce and therefore expensive – under these circumstances there were no incentives to cut back on emissions. Another problem is that to date the majority of permits are handed out for free, calculated according to historic levels of pollution, rewarding the heaviest polluters.
The power sector has experienced a more strict allocation of allowances than the manufacturing industries. According to the underlying idea energy suppliers can pass on their costs to the consumers whereas other industries may become less competitive compared to other international actors. The result is however, that both realize huge profits. The power sector has to buy extra allowances and passes on its costs, and not only the real ones, but the theoretical ones as well leading to significant ‘windfall profits’. Other industries are granted a surplus of free permits, thus need not make any emissions reductions but can sell these back to the power sector, realizing significant profits as well. These are all incentives for a lock-in of high-carbon infrastructure and do not stimulate the much needed structural changes in production and energy supply in any way!

Another form of carbon trading is Offsetting: financing emissions-saving projects outside the capped area instead of cutting emissions at the source, in most cases meaning a transfer of emissions from the North to the South. Offsetting too is believed to make the emissions reductions where they are cheapest, furthermore, it is seen as a way to set developing countries on a low-carbon, sustainable path of development. The largest such scheme in place today is the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the UN – a scheme with almost 1800 registered projects until September 2009 and over 2600 projects waiting for approval – mostly reforestation projects, building of wind turbines or power plants. Based on current prices, the credits produced by approved schemes could generate over 55 billion USD until 2012.
The most important thing to note is that offsetting does not reduce emissions in any way - at best it only moves emissions from one place to the other. In most cases however it leads to an actual increase in emissions.
How is that possible? One reason is that offsets are an imaginary commodity “created by deducting what you hope happens from what you guess would have happened”.3 An assumption is made about what the future would have brought without the project, the project is assumed to have changed the future and credits are granted respectively. But the future is unpredictable as societies are unbelievably complex. Another reason why CDM is actually increasing emissions is that many projects do not meet the criterion of additionality. In order to qualify as CDM projects, investments have to prove that they represent additional emissions reductions in the host country, measures that would have been taken anyway cannot be counted as CDM. However, there are estimates that around 40 % of the CDM projects are not additional, leading to an actual increase in emissions!
It is often argued, that offsetting is a way to help the South to step on a cleaner, sustainable path of development. Unfortunately, this is not true either. Today, the vast majority of CDM-projects are explicitly dirty ones. In 2009, three-quarters of the offset credits were issued by large firms making some minor adjustments to eliminate hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and nitrious oxide (N2O) – by-products in the production of coolants with extremely high global warming potential. By burning these gases, carbon credits can be earned in a simple and cheap way – a source of profit that is becoming more important to these firms than the actual production of coolants. In fact, this means subsidizing a highly polluting industry. Even fossil fuel projects are supported through the CDM. It only has to be proven, that the investment is cleaner than existing forms of power productions in the region. Since new technologies tend to be more efficient than old ones, this is not a hard one to achieve. However, “good” projects, such as biomass or hydropower projects have their own negative side effects which are not taken into account. Biomass projects for example usually do not consider the huge emissions caused by cutting down forests.
Market solutions invest in where it is cheapest and where profit comes fastest - but cheapest to whom and cheapest when, and at what price? On the one hand, the spatial distribution of CDM projects is extremely unequal: CDM favours large projects in areas with good infrastructure – over 90 % of CDM projects are directed towards India, China, South Korea and Brazil, mostly avoiding rural areas. On the other hand it is in the nature of the market that it is not able to channel investments to long-term development paths. On the other hand, the markets do not consider the needs of local communities and local environmental impacts. Offsetting inevitably leads to severe local conflicts targeting those with little political power. Taking all this into account, we can say that offsetting represents a new form of colonialism.

REDD – Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
There have been proposals to reward the protection of forests in developing countries, thus making them part of the carbon market. The assumption is that putting a price tag on forests left intact would stop deforestation.
However, besides the absurdity of treating highly complex ecosystems as mere carbon sinks there are a lot of dangers. The current UN definition of the word ‘forest’ does not differentiate between forests and monoculture tree plantations – in reality, there is a huge difference. Forests mean life for billions of people, providing food, shelter and medicine – tree plantations do not. Not to speak of the fact that tree plantations store only about 20% of the carbon of intact forests.
REDD would put indigenous peoples’ rights in great danger, as the increasing of the financial value of forests will most probably trigger land grabs and eviction of these communities – those, who have done the most to protect the forests.

An important question that we need to look at is: can the problems with carbon trading be solved? It is often argued that carbon trading could be turned into an effective mechanism if the cap set on emittors was low enough, if all forms of offsets were removed from the system, if speculative trading activity was prohibited, if all carbon permits were auctioned, if a global regulation of emission trading could be agreed upon and if it was supplemented by incentives to drive real innovation instead of locking in high-carbon infrastructure. In theory, some of these changes are possible: a low cap could be agreed upon, offsetting could be removed, speculative trading could be outlawed - incentivising real innovation instead of opting out by the purchase of credits however would require removing the trade component altogether or supplementing it with significant government intervention. In practice, the prospects are not so good. The carbon market is an artificial market constructed by governments, depending entirely on political will and action and highly vulnerable to pressure from powerful interest groups. Not only its existence, but also its severe weaknesses are an effect of corporate lobbying. The cap is too high and carbon prices too low and too volatile to stimulate reductions. And there is the question of time. Time is simply too short to reform and extend the carbon trading system globally for it to deliver the necessary cuts in emissions in order to avoid catastrophic climate change – we cannot rely on trading as the core mechanism to do so!

2. Geoengineering

It is undisputable, that cumulative, local interventions in the ecosystems can bring about planetary-level effects – climate change is the proof. However, instead of drastically cutting fossil fuel use and consumption - the root cause - a new ‘silver bullet’ has appeared in public debate, a less painful solution, allowing to maintain the status quo while avoiding the consequences: geoengineering is the magic word.
Geoengeneering is the intentional, large-scale intervention in the earth’s oceans, soils and atmosphere with the aim of combating climate change – extremely dangerous real world experimentation to counteract unwanted effects of our production system without eliminating the root causes. Among the proposed technologies are blasting sulfate particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight, dumping iron particles in the oceans to nurture CO2-absorbing plankton, blowing silver iodide into clouds to produce rain and genetically modifying crops so their foliage can reflect sunlight better.
We should be alarmed: do we know enough about ecosystems to risk intentional geoengineering? What about dangerous side-effects? How can we recall a planetary-scale technology once released? And what about the unequal impacts around the world?
There are three major types of geoengineering technologies: solar radiation management (SRM), carbon dioxide removal and sequestration, and weather modification. SRM technologies aim at countering global warming by increasing the radiation of sunlight back into space – without influencing the concentration of greenhouse gases. There are proposals to alter conditions at the surface of the earth by e.g. covering deserts with reflective plastic material, other technologies aim at modifying the atmosphere by adding reflective pollution, some technologies even try to block some of the incoming sunlight by shades is the space. SRM can be extremely dangerous, changing weather patterns, damaging the ozone layer, diminishing biodiversity and risking sudden climatic jumps if the efforts are stopped.
Carbon dioxide removal and sequestration attempt to remove CO2 from the atmosphere after it has been released. Some technologies use mechanical devices to do so, others aim at modifying the chemical balance of e.g. oceans to stimulate increased uptake of CO2, while some technologies manipulate species and ecosystems to create ‘carbon sinks’. Unpredictable side-effects are more than likely and the duration and safety of sequestration in land or sea are mostly unknown.
Like all the other geoengineering technologies, weather modification doesn’t address the causes of climate change but only its outcomes, by e.g. inserting chemicals into clouds to precipitate rainfall. Here too there are a lot of problems: even natural weather is hard to predict, modifying weather artificially in an efficient way seems impossible. Since weather is complex and transboundary, modifications may cause unwelcome and unpredictable side-effects.
Techno-fixes are untested, extremely dangerous, do not address root causes but only the effects of increasing GHG-concentration and are extremely costly, taking away funding from real solutions on the ground. Geoengineering is a product of industrialized countries where most of scientific research is done or influenced by enterprises seeking to make profits. The major investors in geoengineering projects will most likely be the same energy, chemical, forestry and agribusiness companies responsible for climate change in the first place.


The challenge is immense and the time limited – it seems reasonable to skip indirect, high-risk and untested methods of manipulating the economy to stop global warming and to go back to simple, direct and proven solutions. These solutions should focus on delivering the structural transformation of the economies and its global linkages in order to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. History supports this argument: there has been no precedent of switching energy sources on a large scale by the use of a price mechanism (like carbon trading), instead all major shifts came by with the combination of public investment and direct deployment of new technologies. France has decarbonised its economy rapidly over the last 30 years through government-built and -operated nuclear power stations. In Sweden there has been a government-driven expansion of publicly-funded hydroelectric and nuclear power. The same goes for Japan, Iceland and Denmark, where there has been significant government support for nuclear and solar, geothermal and hydroelectric, and wind power respectively. Besides public investment, direct measures include taxation, regulation, shifting subsidies away from fossil fuels, legal action against climate offenders and the promoting of existing small-scale solutions. It is important to note, that all these actions have to be combined, there is no single alternative to solve a problem of this magnitude.

As taxation is an indirect measure as well relying on cost changes to redirect investment, it has many of the same problems as carbon trading. Furthermore, at the current stage of development of low-carbon technologies extremely high taxes on carbon would be needed to make these technologies more competitive. Without additional public development and deployment of low-carbon technologies this can not work. As an additional measure however it could provide a significant revenue for climate financing. It has to be considered though if it makes sense to create a new entity called ‘carbon’ in order to tax it and if it is not more reasonable to transform and expand existing taxation and increase the levels of taxation paid by fossil-dependent corporations and address loopholes such as the aviation industry’s avoidance of fuel duties. Taxes on currency and fuel speculation could be a solution as well.

Successful examples 1.
In 2001, the Climate Change Levy (CCL) was introduced in the UK – an example of the successful application of a carbon tax to incentivise energy efficiency and emissions reductions. The CCL is a tax on energy delivered to non-domestic users including industry, agriculture and public administration. According to the UK National Audit Office, around 3.5 million tonnes of carbon were saved in the year 2010 due to the tax.
Sweden has a tax in place with the specific objective of emissions reductions since 1991, currently at the relatively high level of 128 euros per tonne of CO2 – according to the Swedish Ministry of Finance, emissions in Sweden would be approximately 20% higher without it.

Despite the very similar mechanism of altering behaviour by means of a price mechanism, taxation has some major advantages over trading. First, as there are no speculative transactions, taxation provides a far more predictable price impact thus encouraging long term investments in environmentally friendly solutions. Second, it is a much simpler instrument, easier to design and implement leaving less room for manipulation.
The main dangers of taxation are their potential to generate political resistance and to impact poor households disproportionately. There are solutions to these problems however. Political resistance can be addressed by an escalator, gradually increasing the tax over time. The regressive impact on household incomes can be mitigated through differentiated taxation (increasing levels of taxation with rising incomes) or by compensating low-income groups.
Taxation instruments should primarily come from national governments or be implemented on a regional level (EU) since the possibility of setting up a global taxing regime in time to avoid a climate disaster is more than slim.

There are many ways of controlling harmful activities and changing behaviour through government intervention. Regulation can encompass a whole range of instruments from setting higher standards for heavy-polluting industries, new fuel efficiency standards, the introduction of feed-in tariffs for renewables and even restricting or banning the most energy-inefficient products and production methods. It has to be pointed out, that carbon markets themselves achieve all of their environmental goals through government regulation in the form of cap-setting and none through the trading element!

Successful examples 2.
The European Union’s Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) came into force in January 2008, setting a non-tradable cap on emissions on sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen and dust particles from large plants, including coal-fired power stations. The directive gives the plants the option to opt in and meet the limits, or opt out and reduce their outputs and close entirely by 2015.
The main EU legislation to control air pollution, the IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) directive incorporates the principle of Best Available Techniques (BAT) – this way emissions limits set by the directive are determined according to the best technologies achievable at a reasonable cost. The BAT principle allows for standards to be set by the most progressive firms, rewarding the best.

3.Shifting subsidies
Shifting subsidies away from fossil fuels can help keeping them in the ground. Today, around 300 billion USD per year, 0.7% of the world’s GDP is spent on energy subsidies with the biggest share used to artificially reduce the price of fossil fuels like oil, coal and gas or electricity generated from these. A significant part of energy subsidies are spent on funding infrastructure projects to ensure the continued flow of fossil fuels like the Nabucco pipeline. These huge amounts of money could be spent on building energy-efficient alternatives instead.

4.Legal action against climate offenders
Taking legal action can bring climate offenders to their knees and get an important case widespread public attention and support. In 2005, over 63 Inuit people launched on behalf of all Inuit one of the world’s first legal actions on climate change, claiming that greenhouse gas emissions from the USA violated their human rights. The case was rejected by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights but gained world-wide attention. In 2009, Royal Dutch/Shell was charged of complicity in the 1995 execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni environmental activists. An out-of-court settlement was reached with the company paying 15.5 million USD in damages. A case against Texaco Chevron is currently underway in Ecuador claiming the company failed to clean up millions of dollars’ worth of toxic waste.

5.Public investment
Large-scale investment in a low-carbon energy infrastructure to break societies’ dependence of fossil fuels is crucial, yet it will not be brought about by the carbon markets. As we have seen, market solutions direct investment to areas where changes are fast and cheap and therefore will not lead to the structural changes needed in the energy and manufacturing industries.
Large-scale public investment is needed in research, development and deployment of cleaner technologies, to raise energy efficiency and to drive decarbonisation in the transport sector. Although a wide range of low-carbon technologies are available, few are cost competitive and ready for mass deployment. As carbon trading isn’t delivering adequate research, development and deployment, public funding has a crucial role. It is also of vital importance that patenting laws are reformed and intellectual property rights reduced so that new technologies can be shared and spread as fast as possible. Caution is needed however to avoid spending money on projects that have damaging effects of their own, such as agrofuel projects generating land conflicts, driving up food prices and increasing emissions through deforestation, or one of the many geoengineering projects introduced above.
A second important area of public investment is raising domestic energy efficiency with the positive side-effect of fighting fuel poverty at the same time. Energy efficiency can be raised by standards for the building trade combined with financing to improve public housing and providing financial incentives for similar developments in the private housing.
A third area of priority is the decarbonisation of the transport sector. Alternatives to motoring have to be improved: the quality, availability and affordability of public transport have to be increased and safe walking and cycling conditions have to be provided – all require major investments.
Finally it has to be noted that procurement policy can be a useful tool to deploy public spending in the interest of decarbonisation.

Other important questions: Addressing global inequalities and unsustainable consumption
The climate problem cannot be addressed without taking into consideration questions of global inequity. It is the irony of faith that climate disasters are concentrated in poor countries. Between 2000 and 2004 98% of people affected by climate disasters were from the developing world.4 The developed countries are responsible for the majority of emissions historically, therefore they have to pay reparations to developing countries, they have to pay their ‘climate debt’ – this is not a question of charity!
Global inequity can be eased through direct financial transfers. According to the 2007/2008 United Nations Development Report around 86 billion USD yearly by 2015 (0.2 % of developed country GDP) is needed by developing countries to adapt to climate change. Additionally hundreds of billions of dollars are needed yearly to support the developing world in reducing their emissions and making a just transition towards low-carbon economies. Developed countries are not very keen on taking on their responsibility, offering inadequate amounts of financing and double counting Official Development Assistance (ODA) and offsetting to fulfil their emissions reductions obligations to meet commitments on providing financing to the developing world. Developed countries have to fulfil their commitments to finance adaptation and mitigation in the developing world – commitments enshrined in the UNFCCC! This financing must be additional to existing ODA obligations and must not generate new debt for developing countries. Mitigation and adaptation programs have to be designed and implemented in a way that respects human rights, with economic efficiency only taken into account as a secondary criterion following social and environmental requirements. It is also vital that enforcement mechanisms are set up.
The vast majority of new low-carbon technologies is produced by firms located in the developed world and is unaffordable for developing countries. Facing the current climate crisis large-scale technology transfer in environmental goods and services is needed to the developing world. This in turn necessitates a significant reduction in the protection of intellectual property rights – global trade rules and multi- and bilateral trade agreements have to be changed to make the transfers possible.
The current trade and investment agreements are a driving force behind fossil fuel-intensive production, industrial agriculture and the continuing expansion of international transport responsible for a significant share of GHG emissions. Global trade and investment rules need to be refocused drastically to make climate mitigation and adaptation possible.
Unpayable and unjust debts have to be cancelled completely. A large part of the debt paid by the developing world was given on unfair terms, to failed projects or dictators. The debt soaks up revenue there, where it is most needed, making it impossible to meet the most basic needs of the population.
The current development paradigm of export-led growth has created climate change. It is now time to rethink the notion of development. The expansion of industrial agriculture is now responsible for at least 30 % of global GHG emissions, or even more if we take into account the global transportation and processing of food. Still, billions of people stay hungry. It is therefore clear that the global food system has to be changed drastically, taking an example of small-scale peasant agriculture.
Of course, the problem cannot be solved without addressing current unsustainable and inequitable consumption patterns. Citizens of the developed world use far more resources than their share. The carbon footprint of the United States is five times that of China and over fifteen times that of India. With 15% of world population, rich countries account for almost half of the CO2 emissions.5 Altering our way of lives has to be therefore the basis of every change!


IPCC Fourth Assessment Report – Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report:

UN Human Development Report 2007/2008 – Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world, 2007:

Carbon Trading: How it works and why it fails, Tamara Gilbertson and Oscar Reyes, Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, Uppsala

Contours of Climate Justice: Ideas for shaping new climate and energy politics. Critical Currents No.6, October 2009.

Ronnie Hall, REDD Myths, Friends of the Earth International, December 2008:

A Dangerous Distraction – Why offsetting is failing the climate and the people: the evidence, Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2009:

Carbon Trading: A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatisation and Power. Larry Lohmann (editor), 2006:

A Dangerous Obsession – The evidence against carbon trading and for real solutions to avoid a climate crunch, Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2009:

Retooling the Planet? Climate chaos in the geoengineering age – A report prepared by the ETC Group for the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, 2009:

Prins et al., How to get climate policy back on course, 2009:

Dan Welch: A Buyer’s Guide to Offsets. Ethical Consumer No. 16, May/June 2007.

climate_webre.pdf133.39 KB
COP 15