Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Joint Implementation (JI) and emissions trading are the three flexible instruments incorporated in the Kyoto Protocol. This paper presents a critical assessment of the sustainability of energy-related technology innovation and transfer in the context of CDM and JI. The rebound effect is discussed by comparing intended and unintended project and process outcomes. Attention is given to the role of nations and key actors like multinationals in achieving sustainability goals of the protocol.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AzarC. & DowlatabadiH. (1999) A review of technical change in assessment of climate policy, Annu. Rev. Energy Environment, Vol. 24, 513–544.
2.
BeggK. & ParkinsonS. (2001) JI and CDM; Lessons from Pilot Project Assessment.Energy & Enviro, Vol. 12, 475–486.
3.
BiermanF. (2000) The case for a world environment organization, Environment, Vol. 42, No. 9, 22–31.
4.
BinswangerM. (2001) Technological progress and sustainable development: What about the rebound effect?Ecol. Econom. Vol. 36, 119–132.
5.
DalyH.E. (1996) Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development, MIT Press, Boston, Mass.
6.
ElliottD. (2000) Renewable energy and sustainable futures. Futures, Vol. 32, 261–274.
7.
GrubbM.VrolijkC. & BrackD. (1999) The Kyoto Protocol, A guide and assessment. The Royal Institute of International Affairs, Earthscan, London.
8.
GrüblerA. (1998) Technology and global change. Cambridge University Press.
9.
HildebrandM.E. & GrindleG.S. (1994) Building Sustainable Capacity: Challenges for the Public Sector. Final Report. UNDP Project INT/92/676. Harvard Institute Int. Dev., Cambridge, Mass.
10.
IPCC, (2001) IPCC Third Assessment Report. (HoughtonJ. & YihuiD. eds.), Cambridge University Press.
11.
IpsenD.RöschR. & ScheffranJ. (2001) Cooperation in global climate policy: Potentialities and limitations, Energy Policy, Vol. 29, 315–326.
12.
JacksonT.BeggK. & ParkinsonS. (2001) Flexibility in climate policy; making the Kyoto mechanisms work. Earthscan, London.
13.
KopoloG. (2001) Do “surrogate emissions” constitute in-built leakage of the Kyoto Protocol flexible mechanisms?Energy & Enviro, Vol. 12, 453–462.
14.
SagarA.D. (2000) Capacity development for the environment: A view for the south, a view for the north. Annu. Rev. Energy Envir.Vol. 25, 277–439.
15.
UiterkampSchoot A.J.M. (2000) Energy consumption: Efficiency and conservation, in “Towards sustainable consumption, a European perspective” (HeapB. & KentJ. eds). The Royal Society, London.
16.
SokonaY. & NanastaD. (2000) The clean development mechanism: An African delusion?Change, Vol. 54, 8–11.
17.
SongJ. (1997) Science and Technology in China: The engine of rapid economic development. Technology in Society, Vol. 19, 281–294.
18.
WatsonR.T. (2000) IPCC Special Report on Land-use, Land-use Change and Forestry.
19.
WCED, (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
WiltingH.C.BiesiotW. & MollH.C. (1998) Trends in Dutch energy intensities for the period 1969–1988. Energy, Vol. 23, 815–822.
22.
WorrellE.Van BerkelR.FengqiZ.MenkeC.SchaefferR. & WilliamsR.O. (2001) Technology transfer of energy efficient technologies in industry: A review of trends and policy issues. Energy Policy. Vol. 29, 29–43.
