One of the biggest problems with offsetting is ensuring 'additionality' -- proving that the offsets that you are buying in order to counterbalance your carbon emissions would not have happened without yours and other similar contributions. ❋ Unknown (2008)
Offsets are based on the idea of "additionality" - that the credit is being issued for a cut in emissions which would not otherwise have taken place. ❋ Unknown (2009)
A key question from environmentalists, led by the U. S.-based group International Rivers, is whether projects meet the CDM test of "additionality" - that they contribute to making real reductions of greenhouses gases rather than be business-as-usual projects capitalizing belatedly on the CDM bonanza. ❋ Unknown (2009)
A key question from environmentalists, led by the U. S.-based group International Rivers, is whether projects meet the CDM test of "additionality" -- that they contribute to making real reductions of greenhouses gases rather than be business-as-usual projects capitalizing belatedly on the CDM bonanza. ❋ Unknown (2009)
More importantly, the U.S. wants to ensure the projects, such as wind-farms in China or energy efficiency programs in India, wouldn't have been built without outside aid (so-called additionality in 'climate' speak). ❋ Unknown (2009)
Furthermore, some of the offsets were for projects that would have gone through anyway-illustrating the need for those so-called additionality standards. ❋ Unknown (2009)
"fast start" money for the next three years which the conference is likely to approve, and a further commitment to "additionality" - a guarantee that any promised climate cash will not come out of existing aid budgets. ❋ Unknown (2009)
Neither the Copenhagen summit nor the Bonn talks succeeded in establishing what exactly "additionality" means. ❋ Unknown (2010)
Falsify information: Carbon-offset developers need to prove "additionality," or that their projects avoided carbon emissions. ❋ Unknown (2010)
A number of problems crop up, though, particularly "additionality," which boils down to whether that project -- saving some land, building a wind farm, capturing methane from a pig farm, and so on -- would have happened anyway. ❋ Unknown (2008)
At the root of the bagasse debate is the tricky principle of "additionality," or whether rewarding a company with credits encourages it to do something it wouldn't otherwise. ❋ Unknown (2008)
Projects must prove "additionality", that is, that they would not be viable without CDM registration, or that there were barriers to establishing the newer, more efficient technology in a particular country. ❋ Unknown (2010)
It also ruled the company had approved some projects despite having concerns over whether they adequately met "additionality" standards designed to ensure projects require CDM funding to make them commercially viable. ❋ [email protected] (Business Green: Cath (2010)
