“Carbon–Money Exchange” to contain global warming and deforestation

“Carbon–Money Exchange” to contain global warming and deforestation

ARTICLE IN PRESS Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1233–1238 Viewpoint ‘‘Carbon–Money Exchange’’ to contain global warming and deforestation Kozo Nagase* 1-3...

196KB Sizes 3 Downloads 64 Views

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1233–1238

Viewpoint

‘‘Carbon–Money Exchange’’ to contain global warming and deforestation Kozo Nagase* 1-34-1-101 Kitakase, Saiwai-ku, Kawasaki 2120057, Japan

Abstract This paper builds a basic theory of ‘‘Carbon–Money Exchange’’ in which carbon as currency in nature’s household (ecosystems) and money as currency in humankind’s household (economy) are exchanged just like in a foreign exchange. The simple chemical equation below makes it possible CO2 -C þ O2 ¼ C þ O2 -CO2 : The left-hand side represents the work of plants to remove atmospheric CO2. The right-hand side represents the work of humans as fossil fuel consumers to produce it. The exchange of the two currencies is possible by copying the fossil fuel market. The paper concludes that this new exchange can automatically contain global warming and deforestation, replacing onerous emissions trading. Moreover, it could revolutionize the conventional economy, creating counter-capitalism, or ‘‘carbonism’’. r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Economy; Ecosystems; Forest

1. Introduction First of all, we should assume a virtual country named ‘‘Ecosystems’’, which has a virtual currency of carbon, to follow the assumption below more easily. A solution to containing global warming is to assume that there are two currency systems antipodal to each other. One is the monetary system in economies, the other the carbon cycle system in ecosystems. Carbon in ecosystems can be considered equivalent to money in economies. Carbon as greenhouse gas is given exchangeability with money. Fossil-fuel-originated atmospheric carbon in the form of CO2 (hereafter, FC) can be a negative currency to counterbalance real money as positive currency. Since the Industrial Revolution, carbon in fossil fuels (hereafter, FF) has been supplied into the atmosphere, like ‘‘dug-up banknotes’’ (Keynes, 1936)1 after the ‘‘great depression’’ of the glacial epoch. By analogy *Tel.: +81-44-580-1235. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Nagase). 1 ‘‘If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on welltried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up againy,’’. 0301-4215/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2003.12.001

with the economy, this ‘‘carbon supply’’ from the reserve of the ‘‘Natural Central Bank’’ (NCB) has brought ‘‘excess liquidity’’ (concentration of atmospheric CO2) into ecosystems’ currency system. The excess liquidity has stimulated the ecosystems’ economy, as fertilizer, raising the growth rate of biomass (Koch and Mooney, 1996). It has also brought ‘‘temperature inflation’’, global warming, which has also stimulated the growth rate of biomass, as inflation does for economic growth rate. The problem is that the temperature inflation is free from open market operations or bank rate operations. Substituting for the NCB, which has no mental capacity, this paper builds a ‘‘Carbon–Money Exchange’’ (CMX) that is based on a simple chemical equation CO2 -C þ O2 ¼ C þ O2 -CO2 : The left-hand side is what FC absorbers (forests, the sea) do; the right-hand side what FF users (humans) do. The equation shows that the absolute value of each is equal. Therefore, FC absorbed by nature turns into a negative currency endorsed by the positive currency of money. FC is negatively priced by FF market prices—the

ARTICLE IN PRESS 1234

K. Nagase / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1233–1238

positive value of the carbon in FF turns into negative value of FC through the CMX. In person-to-person transactions, negotiations lead to pricing. In human-to-nature transactions, the equation substitutes for negotiations. FF users pay the price of FC emissions (hereafter, FCE) in addition to the original FF market price. FC absorbers are paid money equivalent to the FC they absorb.

The ratio of FCA to FCE fluctuates with the storage, i.e., the CMX version of supply–demand adjustment. The CMT is equal to that of the FCA (3.83 Gt). Now we introduce the equation below: CMT ¼ FCE  ðFCA þ DCAÞ=ðFCE þ DCEÞ ¼ FCA: However, the equation is not always true. If FCE o FCA, FCA > FCE ¼ CMT: So, we have two cases:

2. Building the CMX Terrestrial plants at present absorb 2.3 gigatonnes (Gt) per year of carbon from the atmosphere on a net basis (IPCC, 2001). For simplification, only tropical, temperate, and boreal forests are listed in the CMX. Listed forests account for 77% of all the carbon stocks in vegetation. Assuming that capability of absorption is proportional to the carbon stocks in vegetation, listed forests absorb 1.77 Gt, the rest of the vegetation 0.53 Gt (the residual), and the sea 2.3 Gt, giving a total of 4.6 Gt (IPCC, 2001). For simplification, other absorbers and emitters are excluded here. The CMX neglects a total of 783 Gt of atmospheric carbon in the form of CO2 as of 2000 (IPCC, 2001). Realistically, vegetation or the sea is thought to absorb carbon, responding to this 783 Gt. However, at the CMX, transactions are made only between FC absorption (hereafter, FCA) and FCE. Forest owners are real. However, the sea has no real owner and the 2.3 Gt absorbed is excluded in the actual transaction volume at the CMX (hereafter, CMT). FF users emit 8.02 Gt/yr (explained later) of FCE. Another major carbon emitter is land-use change (mostly by deforestation), which discharges 1.6 Gt/yr. We call this deforestation-originated atmospheric carbon (hereafter: DC). At the CMX, we distinguish FC from DC. FC turns into non-FC once the FC has been dealt with at the CMX. The total 4.6 Gt of carbon absorbed by terrestrial plants and the sea includes both FC and DC. Therefore, the 4.6 Gt is divided between FC and DC at a ratio of 8.02 Gt (FCE): 1.6 Gt (DC emission, hereafter; DCE), i.e., 3.83 Gt FCA and 0.77 Gt DC absorption (hereafter, DCA). The difference between 8.02 Gt FCE and 3.83 Gt FCA, 4.15 Gt, is stored in the atmosphere as ‘‘outstanding debt’’. At the CMX, FCE does not correspond with FCA owing to the storage. To adjust the gap between supply and demand, transactions are made at a ratio of 8.02/ 3.83. The price of 1 t of FCE is equivalent to the market price of FF necessary to create 1t of FCE. So, prices of FCA and FCE per unit are as follows: PFCA ¼ 8:02=3:83 Gt  PFCE ¼ 2:08PFCE :

Case 1: FCE ^ FCA, CMT = FCA (= FCE). Case 2: FCE o FCA, CMT = FCE. In Case 1, the storage (the difference between FCE and CMT) is positive or zero. In Case 2, the storage is negative, i.e., FC is absorbed not through the CMX, but directly into terrestrial plants and the sea. Even though the CMT excludes DC, DC affects the CMX indirectly because an increase of DC shrinks the CMT. For simplification, FF prices and yields are fixed across the board here. Crude oil is US$25/barrel (bbl), the annual yield is 27,260 million barrels (Mbbl) (= 3.595 Gt, or $681,500 m (million dollars); coal is $30/t, 4.339 Gt, or $130,170 m; and natural gas is $150/t, 1.756 Gt, or $263,400 m—a total of $1,075,070 m as of 2000 (BP 2002). Carbon accounts for roughly 85% of the total weight of crude oil, 84% of coal, and 75% of natural gas. Therefore, 3.06 Gt of FCE comes from oil, 3.64 Gt from coal, and 1.32 Gt from natural gas—a total of 8.02 Gt.2 The energy of FF is divided into carbon origins and hydrogen origins. The share of hydrogen must be deducted from the FCE price. Carbon accounts for 66% of the total energy in oil, 81% in coal, and 46% in natural gas. So, the annual FCE price for oil is $681;500 m  0:66 ¼ $449;790 m: In the same way, the annual FCE price is $105,438 m for coal and $121,164 m for natural gas. The total, $676,392 m, is the price for 8.02 Gt FCE. PFCE =t ¼ $676;392 m=8:02 Gt ¼ $84=t; PFCA =t ¼ 8:02=3:83 Gt  $84=t ¼ $176=t; Oil : PFCE =t ¼ $449;790 m=3:06 Gt ¼ $147=t; Coal : PFCE =t ¼ $105;438 m=3:64 Gt ¼ $29=t; 2

This paper deals only with these three fossil fuels and excludes other fossil fuels like oil shale or methane hydrate for simplification. This figure isn’t necessarily the same as the latest data made public by any sources because it includes the FF that still remain unburned in the form of plastics, etc.

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Nagase / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1233–1238

Natural gas : PFCE =t ¼ $121;164 m=1:32Gt ¼ $92=t; FCE prices per unit are Oil=bbl ¼ $449;790 m=27;260 Mbbl ¼ $17;

1235

CCD yields interest. The monetized 122.5 Gt CCD on the status quo values is $676;392 m  122:5 Gt=3:83 Gt ¼ $21; 633;948 m: 2.2. Carbon interest rate

Coal=t ¼ $105;438 m=4:339 Gt ¼ $24; Natural gas=t ¼ $121;164 m=1:756 Gt ¼ $69: These prices are added to each FF price. The 3.83 Gt of FCA is broken down into 1.47 Gt (1.77 Gt  3.83 /4.6) by forest, 1.92 Gt (2.3 Gt  3.83/4.6) by the sea, and 0.44 Gt (0.53 Gt  3.83/4.6) residual. The total annual CMX profits (CXP) that forest owners take is

In the money economy, interest rates depend on the law of demand and supply. The carbon interest rate also depends on the law of FCE and FCA: Carbon interest rate ¼ ðFCE  FCAÞ=CCD: In other words, carbon interest rate is the growth rate of CCD. Under the present conditions:

$676;392 m  1:47=3:83 Gt ¼ $259;607 m:

Rate ¼ ð8:02  3:83Þ Gt=122:5 Gt ¼ 3:42%;

The total forest area in the world is 3869.455  106 ha3 (FAO, 2001).

Interest ¼ $21; 633;948 m  3:42% ¼ $739;881 m:

Profit=ha ¼ $259;607 m=3869:455  106 ha ¼ $67: The total annual CMT payment that FF users make is $676;392 m  1:92=3:83 ð1=2Þ ¼ $338;196 m:

2.1. Cumulative carbon debt The carbon reserve in all the forests of the world is 1146 Gt, accounting for 46% of the 2477 Gt total terrestrial carbon pools down to a depth of 1 m (IPCC, 2001). Forests as the ‘‘Natural Carbon Bank’’ are in the position of creditors of FC. Thus, FF users make an interest payment to forest owners, as debtors must do to bankers. The interest is paid in proportion to their carbon reserve. FF users owe debts, and pay interest at the CMX rate in proportion to FCE. We call the historically accumulated debt of FC the cumulative carbon debt (CCD). The present CCD depends on defining when CCD was zero. The total amount of carbon emitted from 1850 to 1998 was about 406 Gt, 270 Gt as FC plus 136 Gt as DC. Atmospheric carbon has increased by 176 Gt during that time (IPCC, 2001). That means a 117 Gt FC increase (176 Gt  270/ 406). FCE before then is negligible. The estimate of atmospheric carbon in the form of CO2 as of 1990 was 750 Gt (IPCC, 1990). The average annual increase since then was estimated as 3.3 Gt including DCE (1.6 Gt) (IPCC, 2001). This allows us to extrapolate to 776.4 Gt as of 1998 and 783 Gt as of 2000. Thus, the CCD as of 2000 is 117 Gt þ 6:6 Gt  8:02 Gt=ð8:02 Gt þ 1:6 GtÞ ¼ 122:5 Gt:

When FCE = FCA, the rate is 0%. When FCE o FCA, the rate is negative. The negative interest rate shows a decrease of CCD, or negative storage. However, there is a shortcoming. Even though CCD continues to increase, the interest remains unchanged owing to the inversely proportional drop of the rate. To make up for the shortcoming, a concept of ‘‘face CCD’’ must be introduced. CCD as the denominator should be fixed at a face value of 122.5 Gt (provisional, as of 2000) at the very start. That can be likened to a real interest rate subtracted by inflation from a nominal interest rate. The face CCD is value subtracted by the storage from the real CCD. 2.3. Total carbon payment and total carbon income At the rate of 3.42%, the annual carbon interest payment that FF users make is $739;881 m  1:92=3:83ð1=2Þ ¼ $369;941 m; FCE=t ¼ $369;941 m=1:92 Gt ¼ $193: Carbon interest payment per barrel of oil: $9, Total carbon payment (TCP): $338;196 mCMT þ$369;941 minterest ¼ $708;137 m: The total oil price doubles to $51/bbl, with the addition of $17 plus $9 to the net price of $25/bbl. The credit of CCD forest owners’ share accounts for 46% of total land. Therefore, the interest that forest owners take is $369;941 m  0:46 ¼ $170;173 m; Interest=ha ¼ $170;173 m=3869:455  106 ha ¼ $44: The total carbon income (TCI) that forest owners take is $259;607 mCMT þ$170;173 minterest ¼ $429;780 m;

3

The value by FAO does not correspond with that by IPCC because of ambiguity of definition of forest.

TCI=ha: $429;780 m=3869:455  106 ha ¼ $111:

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Nagase / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1233–1238

1236

The whole terrestrial carbon stocks are 466 Gt in vegetation and 2011 Gt in soil pools down to a depth of 1 m, or a total of 2477 Gt in 15,120  106 ha. All three forest types have 359 Gt in vegetation and 787 Gt in soil in 4170  106 ha. Carbon stocks differ by forest type. Tropical forests have 212 Gt in vegetation and 216 Gt in soil in 1760  106 ha; temperate forests 59 and 100 Gt in 1040  106 ha; and boreal forests 88 and 471 Gt in 1370  106 ha (IPCC, 2001). The three types have 274.8 t (86.1 t in vegetation, 188.7 t in soil) per ha. Tropical forests have 243.2 t (120.5 t, 122.7 t), temperate 152.9 t (56.7 t, 96.2 t), and boreal 408.0 t (64.2, 343.8 t). Estimation of the CXP and carbon interest of each country is based on the following two assumptions: *

*

The volume of FCA in the CMT of each country is proportional to the carbon stocks in forests (vegetation). We call this estimated density of carbon stocks the ‘‘carbon exchange coefficient’’ (CEC). The carbon interest of each country is proportional to the carbon stocks in forests (vegetation and soil). We call it the ‘‘carbon interest coefficient’’ (CIC).

Thus, we introduce CEC and CIC for each forest type. Tropical forests: CEC ¼ 120:5=86:1 ¼ 1:40; CIC ¼ 1:40  212=428 þ 122:7=188:7  216=428 ¼ 0:693 þ 0:328 ¼ 1:02: Temperate forest: CEC ¼ 56:7=86:1 ¼ 0:66;

Furthermore, the density of forest carbon stocks in vegetation in each country is estimated by the weight of wood biomass4 on a t/ha basis. The world average is 109 t/ha (FAO, 2001). This value is used for calculating CEC and CIC by country (as in the China example below) to make up for the uncertainty in the data of each country. The FCE of each country, as a percentage of that of the whole world, depends on IEA Statistics (2001). The condition is based on the status quo values. The ratios of the use of the three FFs in each country are assumed to be the same for simplicity. Forest area and the ratio of forest type in each country come from FAO (2001)5 (Table 1). For example, China (as China covers all the forest types): Forest area: 163.480  106 ha (tropical 4%, subtropical 58%, temperate 30%, boreal 8%); 4.22% of world total. Density of forest ¼ 61 t=ha: CEC ¼ ð0:04  1:40 þ 0:58  1:03 þ 0:30  0:66 þ 0:08  0:75Þ  61 t=ha=109 t=ha ¼ 0:51: CIC ¼ 0:04ð61=109  0:693 þ 0:328Þ þ 0:58ð61=109  0:469 þ 0:325Þ þ 0:30ð61=109  0:245 þ 0:321Þ þ 0:08ð61=109  0:118 þ 1:535Þ ¼ 0:63: FCE share: 13.04%. CXP ¼ $259;607 m  0:0422  0:51 ¼ $5587 m; Interest ¼ $170;173 m  0:0422  0:63 ¼ $4524 m; TCI ¼ $5587 m þ $4524 m ¼ $10;111 m;

CIC ¼ 0:66  59=159 þ 96:2=188:7  100=159 ¼ 0:245 þ 0:321 ¼ 0:57:

TCP ¼ $708;137 m  0:1304 ¼ $92;341 m; Carbon balance ¼ $10;111 m  $92;341 m ¼ $82;230 m:

Boreal forest: CEC ¼ 64:2=86:1 ¼ 0:75; CIC ¼ 0:75  88=559 þ 343:8=188:7  471=559 ¼ 0:118 þ 1:535 ¼ 1:65: Adding to the above, ‘‘subtropical forest’’ appeared in the FAO table and is also introduced to get the values as close to reality as possible. The values ‘‘subtropical forest’’ are simple averages of tropical and temperate forests for convenience sake. Subtropical forest:

3. Discussion and conclusion The CEC, CIC, and status quo values are provisional, because many data remain uncertain. In particular, the CEC value is unrealistic. We can find counterevidence that forests in a young stage absorb a lot more than the ratio of their carbon stocks in vegetation. However, we never know accurately how much carbon in the form of organic matter forests are hoarding elsewhere owing to the effects of rivers, winds, and animals (including

CEC ¼ ð1:40 þ 0:66Þ=2 ¼ 1:03; CIC ¼ ð0:693 þ 0:245Þ=2 þ ð0:328 þ 0:321Þ=2 ¼ 0:469 þ 0:325 ¼ 0:79:

4 FAO defines ‘‘wood biomass’’ as above-ground mass of the woody part of trees (alive or dead), shrubs, and bushes. 5 Table 2 ‘‘FOREST RESOURCES, 2000’’ and Table 14 in Appendix 3. Global tables.

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Nagase / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1233–1238

1237

Table 1 Carbon balances in 20 sampled countries Country

Forest (%)

t/ha

CEC

CXP ($m)

CIC

Int ($m)

TCI ($m)

FCE (%)

TCP ($m)

Australia Brazil Canada China D. R. Congo Ethiopia France Germany India Indonesia Iran Italy Japan Russia South Africa Sri Lanka Sweden UK USA Venezuela World total

3.99 14.06 6.32 4.22 3.49 0.12 0.40 0.28 1.66 2.71 0.19 0.26 0.62 22.00 0.23 0.05 0.70 0.07 5.84 1.28 100.00

57 209 83 61 225 79 92 134 73 136 149 74 88 56 81 59 63 76 108 233 109

0.63 2.67 0.54 0.51 2.89 1.01 0.56 0.81 0.93 1.75 1.40 0.66 0.69 0.38 0.95 0.76 0.42 0.47 0.81 2.99 1.00

6526 97,457 8860 5587 26,184 315 582 589 4008 12,312 691 445 1111 21,703 567 99 763 85 12,280 9936 259,607

0.63 1.65 1.34 0.63 1.76 0.83 0.53 0.62 0.78 1.19 0.96 0.62 0.62 1.43 0.79 0.70 1.28 0.65 0.81 1.81 1.00

4278 39,478 14,412 4524 10,453 169 361 295 2203 5488 310 274 654 53,536 309 60 1525 77 8050 3943 170,173

10,804 136,935 23,272 10,111 36,637 484 943 884 6211 17,800 1001 719 1765 75,239 876 159 2288 162 20,330 13,879 429,780

1.43 1.28 2.21 13.04 0.01 0.01 1.67 3.62 3.84 1.08 1.19 1.85 4.94 6.41 1.28 0.04 0.23 2.28 24.02 0.54 100.00

10,126 9064 15,650 92,341 64 92 11,826 25,635 27,192 7648 8427 13,101 34,982 45,392 9064 283 1629 16,146 170,095 3824 708,137

CB per capita ($m)

CB/GDP (%)

678 127,871 7622 82,230 36,573 392 10,883 24,751 20,981 10,152 7426 12,382 33,217 29,847 8188 124 659 15,984 149,765 10,055 278,357

35 752 248 65 712 6 185 301 21 48 116 215 262 205 191 6 74 268 532 417 –

(%) 0.2 21.5 1.1 7.6 812.7 6.1 0.8 1.3 4.6 6.6 7.5 1.2 0.7 11.9 6.5 0.8 0.3 1.1 1.5 8.2 –

World total forest area: 3869.455 million ha as of 2000 (FAO, 2001). CEC and CIC of each forest type: tropical forests 1.40 (CEO). 40  212/ 428+0.65  216/428=0.693+0.328=1.02 (CIC), temperate 0.66 (GEC), 0.66  59/159+0.51  100/159=0.245+0.321=0.57 (CIC), boreal 0.75 (CEC), 0.75  88/559+1.82  471/559=0.118+1.535=1.65 (CIC) (IPCC, 2001, Table 2). Percentage of forest type in each country. FAO 2001 (Table 2, 14). The values of subtropical forests are simple averages of tropical and temperate forests. CEC=(1.40+0.66)/2=1.03 CIC=(0.693+0.245)/2+(0.328+0.321)/2=0.469+0.325=0.79. FCE percentages, IEA Statistics 2001, sectoral approach as of 1999, excluding marine and aviation bunkers. GDP and population for per capita: World Bank Group (2000). CB (carbon balance)=TCITCP. Int=interest. All values are rounded off.

human activities). Therefore, we have to make such a provisional assumption. Additionally, this assumption would contribute to avoiding fraud. If carbon income from reforestation is much more lucrative than from undisturbed forests, forest owners might deforest intentionally just before the conclusion of a CMX Treaty. The market values of the big three FFs would be overestimated because they are based on international markets. For example, domestic coal prices in China are much lower than on international markets. Therefore, the TCP in China shown in Table 1 must be far higher than the real value. The CMX will cause undisturbed forests and unused wetlands to become industrialized just like real estate or warehousing industries. However, most deserts will be unaffected by the CMX. Therefore, arid countries, such as in the Middle East and North Africa, should be subsidized from some of the ‘‘residual’’6 because they are unfairly handicapped in this global competition.

6

‘‘The residual’’ has a good portion. Realistically, most of the residual should be paid to unlisted vegetation owners. It’s a political matter.

Afforested and reforested lands have a promising future. On the other hand, lands deforested by fire lose almost everything except some CCD interest for the carbon reserve in soils. There is a concern that if farmland is forested, the pressure to deforest land elsewhere might increase as a consequence (Heister, 1996). However, with the CMX, forested or arable land prices will appreciate as forests turn themselves into capital. That means that forests become survivable in land use competitions. We can also be positive that deforestation due to slash-and-burn farming will be deterred only if carbon income is distributed fairly among forest owners or indigenous people in forests. Governments will be forced to take measures against deforestation or forest fires to prevent a carbon version of ‘‘capital loss’’. Thus, undisturbed forests will remain, and greater land will be forested as commercialized afforestation gains ever-increasing momentum. Ironically, leaving nature untouched could qualify as industrialization without ‘‘industry’’. That means that the biosphere establishes itself as independent of capitalism, armed with ‘‘carbonism’’. Thus, carbonism, or counter-capitalism, will contribute radically to saving fossil fuels which have supported capitalism.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 1238

K. Nagase / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1233–1238

4. Abbreviations and ‘‘status quo’’ values

References

Carbon interest, $369,941 m/yr Carbon interest rate, 3.42% CCD (cumulative carbon debt), 122.5 Gt= $21,633,948 m CMT (actual transaction volume at the CMX), $338,196 m/yr CXP=CMX profit DC=atmospheric carbon originating from deforestation DCA (DC absorption), 0.77 Gt/yr DCE (carbon emissions from deforestation), 1.6 Gt/yr FC=fossil-fuel-originated atmospheric carbon in the form of CO2 FCA (FC absorption), total 3.83 Gt/yr, forest 1.48 Gt/yr, sea 1.92 Gt/yr, residual 0.44 Gt/yr FCE (FC emissions), 8.02 Gt/yr TCI (total carbon income that forest owners take), $429,780 m/yr TCP (total carbon payment that FF users make) $708,137 m/yr.

BP, 2002. British Petroleum Statistical Review of World Energy 2001. British Petroleum, London. FAO, 2001. State of the World’s Forests. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/Y0900E/ Y0900E00.HTM. Heister, J., 1996. Towards a methodology for quantifying greenhouse gas offsets from Joint Implementation Projects and Activities Implemented Jointly. Draft working paper, Global Climate Change Unit, Global Environment Division, World Bank, Washington, DC. IEA Statistics, 2001. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 1971– 1999. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development/ International Energy Agency, Paris. IPCC, 1990. First Assessment Report 1990. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva. IPCC, 2001. Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, http://www.ipcc.ch/ pub/srlulucf-e.pdf. Keynes, J.M., 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Macmillan, London, p. 129. Koch, G.W., Mooney, H.A. (Eds.), 1996. Carbon Dioxide and Terrestrial Ecosystems. Academic, San Diego, California, USA. The World Bank Group, 2000. Data & Statistics. The World Bank Group, Washington, DC.