Filtered water coolers

CDM directs here. For other uses see CDM (disambiguation).

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is an arrangement under the Kyoto Protocol allowing industrialised countries with a greenhouse gas reduction commitment (called Annex 1 countries) to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries as an alternative to more expensive emission reductions in their own countries. The most important factor of a carbon project is that it establishes that it would not have occurred without the additional incentive provided by emission reductions credits.

The CDM allows net global greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced at a much lower global cost by financing emissions reduction projects in developing countries where costs are lower than in industrialized countries. However, critics argue that by allowing “business as usual” projects some emission reductions under the CDM are false or exaggerated, and in early 2007 the CDM was accused of paying €4.6 billion for projects that would have cost only €100 million if funded by development agencies (see discussion below).

The CDM is supervised by the CDM Executive Board (CDM EB) and is under the guidance of the Conference of the Parties (COP/MOP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

History and Purpose

The CDM was an important feature of the negotiations leading up to the Kyoto Protocol. Some governments desired flexibility in the way that emission reductions could be achieved and proposed international emissions trading as a way of achieving cost-effective emission reductions. At the time it was considered a controversial element and was opposed by environmental NGOs and, initially, by developing countries who felt that industrialised countries should put their own house in order first and feared the environmental integrity of the mechanism would be too hard to guarantee (see Environmental Concerns below). Eventually, and largely on US insistence, the CDM and two other flexible mechanisms were written into the Kyoto Protocol.

The purpose of the CDM was defined under Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol. Apart from helping Annex 1 countries comply with their emission reduction commitments, it must assist developing countries in achieving sustainable development, while also contributing to stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

To prevent industrialised countries from making unlimited use of CDM, Article 6.1 d) has a provision that use of CDM be ‘supplemental’ to domestic actions to reduce emissions. This wording has led to a wide range of interpretations - the Netherlands for example aims to achieve half of their required emission reductions (from a BAU baseline) by CDM and JI.

The CDM gained momentum in 2005 after the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. Before the Protocol entered into force, investors considered this a key risk factor. The initial years of operation yielded fewer CDM credits than supporters had hoped for, as Parties did not provide sufficient funding to the EB. This left it understaffed.

CDM project process

Outline of the project process

An industrialised country that wishes to get credits from a CDM project must obtain the consent of the developing country hosting the project that it will contribute to sustainable development. Then, using methodologies approved by the CDM Executive Board (EB), the applicant (the industrialised country) must make the case that the carbon project would not have happened anyway (establishing additionality), and must establish a baseline estimating the future emissions in absence of the registered project. The case is then validated by a third party agency, called a Designated Operational Entity (DOE), to ensure the project results in real, measurable, and long-term emission reductions. The EB then decides whether or not to register (approve) the project. If a project is registered and implemented, the EB issues credits, called Certified Emission Reductions (CERs, equivalent to one metric tonne of CO₂ reduction), to project participants based on the monitored difference between the baseline and the actual emissions, verified by the DOE.

Establishing additionality

To avoid giving credits to projects that would have happened anyway (”freeriders”), rules have been specified to ensure additionality of the project, that is, to ensure the project reduces emissions more than would have occurred in the absence of the project. There are currently two rival interpretations of the additionality criterion:

1. What is often labelled ‘environmental additionality’ has that a project is additional if the emissions from the project are lower than the baseline. It generally looks at what would have happened without the project.
2. In the other interpretation, sometimes termed ‘project additionality’, the project must not have happened without the CDM.

A number of terms for different kinds of additionality have been discussed, leading to some confusion, particularly over the terms ‘financial additionality’ and ‘investment additionality’ which are sometimes used as synonyms. ‘Investment additionality’, however, was a concept discussed and ultimately rejected during negotiation of the Marrakech Accords. Investment Additionality carried the idea that any project that surpasses a certain risk-adjusted profitability threshold would automatically be deemed non-additional article on additionality by Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM), [1]. ‘Financial additionality’ is often defined as an economically non-viable project becoming viable as a direct result of CDM revenues.

Many investors argue that the environmental additionality interpretation would make the CDM simpler. Environmental NGOs have argued that this interpretation would open the CDM to free-riders, permitting developing countries to emit more CO₂ while failing to produce emission reductions in the CDM host countries.

It is never possible to establish with certainty what would have happened without the CDM or in absence of a particular project, which is one common objection to the CDM. Nevertheless, official guidelines have been designed to facilitate uniform assessment Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality (Version 03), UNFCCC CDM EB, EB 29, [2] set by the CDM Executive Board for assessing additionality.

Establishing a baseline

The amount of emission reduction, obviously, depends on the emissions that would have occurred without the project. The construction of such a hypothetical scenario is known as the baseline of the project. The baseline may be estimated through reference to emissions from similar activities and technologies in the same country or other countries, or to actual emissions prior to project implementation. The partners involved in the project could have an interest in establishing a baseline with high emissions, which would yield a risk of awarding spurious credits. Independent third party verification is meant to ameliorate this potential problem.

Financial issues

With costs of emission reduction typically much lower in developing countries than in industrialised countries, industrialised countries can comply with their emission reduction targets at much lower cost by receiving credits for emissions reduced in developing countries as long as administration costs are low. However, many CDM projects have led to excessive profits (see next section).

IPCC has projected GDP losses for OECD Europe with full use of CDM and Joint Implementation to between 0.13 and 0.81 % of GDP versus 0.31 to 1.50 %
Climate Change 2001 - Synthesis report. Figure SPM-8, IPCC, 2001, [3] with only domestic action.

While there would always be some cheap domestic emission reductions available in Europe, the cost of switching from coal to gas could be in the order of €40-50 per tonne CO₂ equivalent. CERs from CDM projects were in 2006 traded on a forward basis for between €5 and € 20 per tonne CO₂ equivalent. The price depends on the distribution of risk between seller and buyer. The seller could get a very good price if it agrees to bear the risk that the project’s baseline and monitoring methodology is rejected; that the host country rejects the project; that the CDM Executive Board rejects the project; that the project for some reason produces fewer credits than planned; or that the buyer doesn’t get CERs at the agreed time if the international transaction log is not in place by then. These risks the seller can usually only take if it is a very reliable counterparty rated by international rating agencies.

Concerns

The risk of spurious credits

As CDM is an alternative to domestic emission reductions, the perfectly working CDM would produce no more and no less greenhouse gas emission reductions than without use of the CDM. However, it was recognized from the beginning that if projects that would have happened anyway are registered as CDM projects, then the net effect is an increase of global emissions as the spurious credits will be used to allow higher domestic emissions without reducing emissions in the developing country hosting the CDM project. Similarly, spurious credits may be awarded through overstated baselines, causing the same problem.

NGOs have criticized the inclusion of large hydropower projects, which they consider unsustainable, as CDM projects . Other concerns are the lack of renewable energy CDM projects and the inclusion of sinks see http://www.sinkswatch.org for examples as CDM projects.

Negotiators have not yet been able to agree on whether, or how, carbon capture and storage projects should be allowed under the CDM. They are also discussing how to reduce as much HFC emissions as possible under the CDM without creating a perverse incentive to build more HCFC-22 production facilities just to get the revenues from selling CDM credits. If this were to happen, developing countries’ obligations to stabilise (2016) and phase out (2040) HCFC-22 would be in jeopardy.

In response to concerns of unsustainable projects or spurious credits, the World Wide Fund for Nature and other NGOs devised a ‘Gold Standard’ see http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/ methodology to certify projects that uses much stricter criteria than required, such as allowing only renewable energy projects.

The NGO CDM Watch argues that a majority of the CDM projects so far (2005) would have happened anyway, referring among other reasons to project activities completed before final approval as CDM projects, and arguing that these would be viable without the CDM financing, and therefore non-additional.

For example, a South African brick kiln was faced with a business decision; replace its depleted energy supply with coal from a new mine, or build a difficult but cleaner natural gas pipeline to another country. They chose to build the pipeline with SASOL. SASOL claimed the difference in GHG emissions as a CDM credit, comparing emissions from the pipeline to the contemplated coal mine.
During its approval process, the validators noted that changing the supply from coal to gas met the CDM’s ‘additionality’ criteria and was the least cost-effective optionUNFCCC CDM Project 0177 Lawley Fuel Switch Project.
However, there were unofficial reports that the fuel change was going to take place anyway, although this was later denied by the company’s press officeCarbon trade watch.

Excessive payments for emission reductions

In early 2007 an issue that had by then already been known for a while”Measuring the Clean Development Mechanism’s Performance and Potential”, by Michael Wara, Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University. Working Paper #56, July 2006 [4]. erupted in major media “Billions lost in Kyoto carbon trade loophole” Financial times online, February 7 2007. By Fiona Harvey in London [5] “Kyoto Protocol ‘loophole’ has cost $6 billion” NewScientist.com news service, 09 February 2007
[6]. A study published in Nature “Is the global carbon market working?” by Michael Wara, Nature (vol 445, p 595) 8 February 2007. found that the main type of CDM projects paid as much as 50 times more for the emission reductions than the costs alone would warrant, with the excessive profits ending up with the factories and the carbon traders.

The particular kind of CDM projects in question regard refrigerant-producing factories in non-Annex-1 countries (particularly China) that generate the powerful greenhouse gas HFC 23 as a by-product. By destroying the HFCs, the factories can earn CER credits. Destroying the HFCs requires a simple and relatively cheap piece of equipment called a scrubber; the author argues it would cost only €100 million to pay producers to capture and destroy HFC 23 compared with €4.6 billion in CDM credits. While this is still cheaper than the typical cost of reducing emissions in industrialised countries, it is seen as a major loophole in the carbon trading system and undermines the tenet of emission trading being as a cost-effective tool for reducing emissions. Also, “HFC 23 emitters can earn almost twice as much from the CDM credits as they can from selling refrigerant gases – by any measure a major distortion of the market,” writes the author.

In response, Halldor Thorgeirsson, director of sustainable development mechanisms at the UNFCCC claims: “The idea of easy money is out of proportion.” And he says the loophole is now closed and that new HFC 23 facilities will no longer be eligible for CDM credits.

CDM projects to date

As of 21 August 2007, 762 projects had been registered by the CDM Executive Board as CDM projects source: UNFCCC website, statistics section: [7]. These projects reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 162 million ton CO₂ equivalent per year. All 2,100 projects in the pipeline (most of which not yet registered) would until the end of 2012 produce over 2.2 billion tons CO₂ equivalent reductions. For comparison: The current emissions of the EU-15 are about 4.2 billion ton CO₂ equivalent per year Information from EEA, the European Environment agency, [8]. Of the registered projects in the current pipeline, the majority of CERs have been from HFC destruction projects (see figure), a loophole in the CDM (see discussion above).

References

See also

• Flexible Mechanisms
• UNFCCC
• Mobile Emission Reduction Credit (MERC)

External links

• UNFCCC CDM rules Official rules and procedures governing the CDM.
• CER White Paper White paper on CER valuation
• IPCC IPCC third assessment report chapter 6.3.2.2 The Clean Development Mechanism .
• books.google.com Kyoto Protocol: A Guide and Assessment. Edited by Michael Grubb, Duncan Brack. ISBN 1-85383-581-1.
• jiq.wiwo.nl Foundation Joint Implementation Network has the JIQ newsletter with frequent commentary on the CDM.
• UNEP Risø Centre CD4CDM Publications, database.
• SinksWatch SinksWatch, an NGO concerned with environmental issues of sinks in general and the CDM in particular.

Jelly tots were launched in 1967 and quickly became established as a popular children’s line. Jelly Tots are soft, chewy fruity sweets with a sugar-coating that contain fruit juices and no artificial colours or flavours. They come in five flavours: lemon, lime, orange, blackcurrant and strawberry. They are packaged in 25gm bags or 168gm tubes, and are sold in the United Kingdom (and were until recently also sold in Canada), and produced by Rowntrees® a Nestlé™ company.

Ingredients as on a 168gm tube of Jelly Tots

Sugar, Glucose syrup, Modified starch, Fruit juices 25% (Strawberry, Orange, Blackcurrant, Lime, Lemon), Acidity regulator (Trisodium citrate), Malic acid, Citric acid, Flavouring, Lactic acid, Colours (Anthocyanins, Copper complexes of chlorophyllins, Beta-carotene).

suitable for Vegetarians.

Nutrition Information (per 100 g)

Energy - 1464 kJ (344 kcal);

Protein - 0.1 g;

Carbohydrate - 86.3 g;

of which sugars - 59.2 g;

Fat - Nil;

of which saturates - Nil;

Fibre - Nil;

Sodium - 0.1 g;

Salt equivalent - 0.1g.

(October 25, 1936 - ), born in the Tokyo Metropolitan area, Japan, but raised in Numata, Gunma, is a seiyū and actress affiliated with (and the chairman of) Office Nozawa. Her real name is , and her pet name is Mako.

As a seiyū, she is most known for the roles of Hiroshi (Dokonjō Gaeru), Tetsuro Hoshino (Galaxy Express 999), Kitarou (GeGeGe no Kitarou), and Son Goku (Dragon Ball).

Career

Nozawa made her movie debut as a child actor at the age of 3.

Throughout her career as a voice actress, she has performed many male roles (most notably as nearly all the male members of Goku’s family in Dragon Ball Z), leading Japanese fans to give her the nickname “The Eternal Boy”, though she has recently forsaken male roles for elderly woman roles.

On April 1 2006, she resigned from 81 Produce to establish Office Nozawa.

Voice roles

Leading roles in bold

Television animation

• Urusei Yatsura (Kintarō)
• Oz no Mahōtsukai (Princess Ozma)
• Obake no Q-tarō (TBS edition) (Shin’ichi Ōhara (first series))
• Kirarin Revolution (Grandmother)
• Kindaichi Case Files (Tomoyo Konta)
• Galaxy Express 999 (Tetsurō Hoshino)
• Ge Ge Ge no Kitaro (1st and 2nd series) (Kitarō)
• Kimba the White Lion (Gibo)
• Casshan (Māru)
• World Masterpiece Theater series
  • Araiguma Rascal (Rascal)
  • Tom Sawyer no Boken (Tom Sawyer)
  • Ai Shōjo Pollyanna Monogatari (Polly Harrington)
• Tiger Mask (Takeshi)
• The Mysterious Cities of Gold (Esteban)
• Combattler V (Ropet, Oreana, Kinta Ichinoki)
• Tsubasa Chronicle (Kaigyo)
• Digital Monster X-Evolution (Dukemon)
• Digimon Savers (Dukemon)
• Digimon Tamers (Guilmon, Narrator)
• Dual! Parallel Trouble Adventure (Urara Nanjōin)
• Hamtaro (Hamtaro’s Granny, Roko-chan’s [”Laura”’s] Grandma)
• Dragon Ball (Son Goku)
• Dragon Ball Z (Son Goku, Son Gohan, Burdock, Son Goten, Vegetto, Gotenks)
• Dragon Ball GT (Son Goku, Son Gohan, Son Goten, Son Goku Jr.)
• Naruto (Old woman)
• Golion/Voltron (Hiroshi Suzuishi/Pidge, Honerva/Haggar)
• Futari wa Pretty Cure series (Sanae Yukishiro)
• Pokémon Advanced Generation (Masamune)
• Sally, the Witch (Tonkichi Hanamura)
• Maya the Bee (Willy)
• Case Closed (Furuyo Senma)
• La Seine no Hoshi (Danton)
• Dororon Enma-kun (Enma-kun)
• Love Get Chu (Takemiya-sensei)
• Love Hina (Hina Urashima)
• Rockman EXE Beast+ (Electel Mama)
• Mirmo! (Kinta)
• One Piece (Doctor Kureha)

Theater animation

• Galaxy Express 999 (Tetsurō Hoshino)
• Flying Phantom Ship (Hayato)
• Digimon Tamers: Battle of Adventurers (Guilmon)
• Digimon Tamers: Runaway Locomon (Guilmon)
• Dragon Ball movies (Son Goku)
• Dragon Ball Z movies (Son Goku, Son Gohan, Son Goten, Gotenks)
  • The Tree of Might (Son Goku, Son Gohan, Tullece)
  • Cooler’s Revenge (Son Goku, Son Gohan, Burdock)
  • Fusion Reborn (Son Goku, Son Gohan, Son Goten, Gogeta)
  • The History of Trunks (Future Gohan)
• Nobita’s Adventure: Drifts in the Universe (Rogu)
• Tokyo Pig (Wenworth)
• Futari wa Pretty Cure Max Heart (Round, Sanae Yukishiro)
• Futari wa Pretty Cure Max Heart 2: Yukizora no Tomodachi (Muta, Sanae Yukishiro)

Computer and video games

• Battle Stadium D.O.N (Son Goku and Son Gohan).
• Kingdom Hearts II (Merryweather)
• Super Robot Wars series (Oreana, Ropet)
• Digimon Tamers Battle Evolution (Guilmon)
• Dragon Ball Z series (Son Goku, Burdock, Son Gohan, Son Goten, Tullece, Vegetto, Gogeta, Gotenks)
• Egg Monster Hero 4 (Four-Dimensional Empress)
• PoPoRoGue (Gilda)

Dubbing roles

• The Goonies (TV edition) (Clark)
• The Poseidon Adventure (Robin Shelby)
• Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (Short-Round)
• Switch (Maggie Philbin)

Live action

• Robot 110-Ban (Gan-chan’s voice)
• Super Voice World: Yume to Jiyū to Happening (DVD)
• Ultraman Story (young Ultraman Tarou’s voice)

Puppet shows

• Nobi Nobi Non-chan (Tame-kun, Ana-chan’s mother, Kitsune’s granny)
• Zawa Zawa Mori no Ganko-chan (Kero-chan)

Radio

• Seishun Adventure: Fūshin Engi (NHK-FM) (Nataku)

CD

• CD Theater: Dragon Quest (Merusera)
• Doraemon Ondō (King Records cover)

Other

• Law of Ueki commercial for Shonen Sunday (Kousuke Ueki)
• Naruhodo! The World (narration)
• NHK Kyōiku: Kagaku Daisukishi you Jaku (narration)
• Wakasa Seikatsu commercial (narration)
• The Wide Friday Ranking (narration)

External links

• Anime News Network

SkyGX is the name given to an astronomical atlas currently being produced by The SkyGX Project.

The SkyGX Project is the working group title for the ongoing efforts of a small cadre of dedicated individuals to create and ultimately publish the greatest general all-sky atlas ever: SkyGX. Originally conceived by amateur astronomer Christopher Watson, and currently three years in the making, the SkyGX chartset will illustrate the known visible sky more deeply, more accurately, and more faithfully than any atlas before it. Through acquisition and integration of the most recent astronomical datasets into state-of-the-art computer-plotted digital charts designed with the observer in mind, and diligent review by uncompromising professionals and non-professionals who possess the expertise necessary to “get it right the first time”, it is hoped that SkyGX will be the uranographic paradigm for all things celestial for decades to come.

External link

• The SkyGX Project

Orbitz was the product name of a noncarbonated fruit-flavored beverage, made by the company Clearly Canadian Beverage Corporation (makers of Clearly Canadian), that had small edible balls floating in it. It was introduced around 1996 and quickly disappeared due to bad sales.

The small balls floated due to their nearly equal density to the surrounding liquid, and remained suspended with assistance from an ingredient known as gellan gum. The gellan gum provided a support matrix–something like a microscopic spider web–and had a visual clarity approaching that of water, which increased with the addition of sugar.[1]

Orbitz came in five flavors:

• Raspberry Citrus (introductory flavor)
• Blueberry Melon Strawberry (introductory flavor)
• Pineapple Banana Cherry Coconut (introductory flavor)
• Vanilla Orange (introductory flavor)
• Black Currant Berry (introduced later)

The website for Orbitz existed for a while, but was taken over by the Internet travel agency of the same name (see Orbitz).

Orbitz was disliked during its short stay on the market; the beverage proved to be significantly less popular than the company anticipated. There were few above average reviews of the liquid itself.

Unopened bottles of the beverage have become somewhat of a collector’s item in recent years.

See also

• Bubble tea

Cabanossi (pronounced is a type of dry sausage, similar to a very mild salami. It is made from pork and beef, lightly seasoned and then smoked. It traditionally comes in the form of a long, thin sausage, 30 to 40 centimetres long, and 1.5 centimetres in diameter. Variations include chicken and duck cabanossi.

Cabanossi is very popular in Australia and New Zealand, being one of the most commonly found types of dry sausage there. In Europe it has a lower profile, competing with a wider selection of other types of sausage.

It is commonly cut into bite sized chunks and eaten cold as an appetiser or snack, often with cubes of cheese and crackers. Sliced cabanossi is also a popular pizza topping.

“Free Four” is a Pink Floyd song written by Roger Waters, with Waters also taking on lead vocals, from the album Obscured by Clouds. The song begins with a rock and roll countdown; but in this case Pink Floyd decided to play with words and record, “One, Two, FREE FOUR!”. The song deals with themes that would become standard for Roger in albums following this, notably his father’s death and the “evils” of the record industry. Although the song is mellow during the lyrical portions, the guitar solo surprisingly launches into a heavier tone, with a progression that is reminiscent of the instrumental “One of These Days”, capturing the classic Pink Floyd guitar sound. “Free Four” was released as a single in 1972 and managed to break into FM radio’s top 50 list.

The song is referenced at the end of Not Now John off the album The Final Cut, which is too, about Eric Fletcher Waters. At the end of the song Waters yells One, Two, FREE FOUR!

Personnel

• Roger Waters - Bass, Vocals and Hand clapping
• David Gilmour - Guitar
• Richard Wright - Synthesiser
• Nick Mason - Drums and Percussion

Commercial refile: In military communications systems, the processing of a message from (a) a given military network, such as a tape relay network, a point-to-point telegraph network, a radio-telegraph network, or the DSN to (b) a commercial communications network.

Commercial refiling of a message will usually require a reformatting of the message, particularly the heading.

Vanilla sugar (Vanillezucker) is a commonly used ingredient of German, Finnish, Austrian and other European desserts.

Vanilla sugar is made of normal granulated sugar, with vanilla beans or mixed with vanilla extract.

It can be costly and difficult to obtain outside Europe but can be simply made at home. Sometimes it can be replaced with vanilla extract, where one teaspoon equals one package. However, when it is needed as a topping, vanilla extract is unsuitable.

Vanilla sugar can be prepared at home by combining white sugar with vanilla bean pieces, and letting it rest for a few weeks.

Cheaper vanillin sugar is also available, made only from sugar and vanillin.

External links

• How to make vanilla sugar

Sugar Island may refer to

• Sugar Island (Michigan), in the St. Marys River between Michigan and Ontario
• Sugar Island (Ohio), one of the Bass Islands in Lake Erie
• Sugar Island (Ontario), in the Thousand Islands region of the St. Lawrence River.
• Sugar Island (Maine) largest island of Moosehead Lake.