Environmental integrity of international carbon market mechanisms under the Paris Agreement

References

• Aldrich, E. L., & Koerner, C. L. (2012). Unveiling assigned amount unit (AAU) trades: Current market impacts and prospects for the future. Atmosphere, 3(1), 229–245. doi: 10.3390/atmos3010229
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aldy, J. E., & Pizer, W. A. (2016). Comparing emissions mitigation efforts across countries. Climate Policy, 17(4), 501–515. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2015.1119098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailis, R., Drigo, R., Ghilardi, A., & Masera, O. (2015). The carbon footprint of traditional woodfuels. Nature Climate Change, 5(3), 266–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beuermann, C., Bingler, J., Santikarn, M., Tänzler, D., & Thema, J. (2017). Considering the effects of linking emissions trading schemes: A manual on bilateral linking of ETS. Umweltbundesamt. Retrieved from https://www.dehst.de/SharedDocs/downloads/EN/emissions-trading/Linking_manual.pdf?_blob=publicationFile&v=3
   Google Scholar
• Bodansky, D., Hoedl, S. A., Metcalf, G. E., & Stavins, R. N. (2015). Facilitating linkage of climate policies through the Paris outcome. Climate Policy, 3062(November), 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Broekhoff, D., Füssler, J., Klein, N., Schneider, L., & Spalding-Fecher, R. (2017). Establishing scaled-up crediting program baselines under the Paris Agreement: Issues and options. Washington DC. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/28785
   Google Scholar
• Calvin, K., Rose, S., Wise, M., McJeon, H., Clarke, L., & Edmonds, J. (2015). Global climate, energy, and economic implications of international energy offsets programs. Climatic Change, 133(4), 583–596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cames, M., Harthan, R., Füssler, J., Lazarus, M., Lee, C., Erickson, P., & Spalding-Fecher, R. (2017). How additional is the clean development mechanism? Analysis of the application of current tools and proposed alternatives. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/ets/docs/clean_dev_mechanism_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cames, M., Healy, S., Tänzler, D., Li, L., Melnikova, J., Warnecke, C., & Kurdziel, M. (2016). International market mechanisms after Paris. German Emissions Trading Authority (DEHSt) at the German Environment Agency. Retrieved from https://newclimateinstitute.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/international_market_mech_after_paris_discussion_paper.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Carbone, J. C., Helm, C., & Rutherford, T. F. (2009). The case for international emission trade in the absence of cooperative climate policy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 58(3), 266–280. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2009.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CAT. (2017). Tracking (I)NDCs: Assessment of mitigation contributions to the Paris Agreement. Retrieved from http://climateactiontracker.org/countries.html
   Google Scholar
• Chung, R. K. (2007). A CER discounting scheme could save climate change regime after 2012. Climate Policy, 7(2007), 171–176. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2007.9685647
   Google Scholar
• de Sépibus, J., Sterk, W., & Tuerk, A. (2013). Top-down, bottom-up or in-between: How can a UNFCCC framework for market-based approaches ensure environmental integrity and market coherence? (No. 2012/31 – July 2012).
   Google Scholar
• de Sépibus, J., & Tuerk, A. (2011). New market-based mechanisms post-2012: Institutional options and governance challenges when establishing a sectoral crediting mechanism. Retrieved from http://www.nccr-climate.unibe.ch/research_articles/working_papers/papers/paper201106.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Erickson, P., & Lazarus, M. (2013). Implications of international GHG offsets on global climate change mitigation. Climate Policy, 13(4), 433–450. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2013.777632
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erickson, P., Lazarus, M., & Spalding-Fecher, R. (2014). Net climate change mitigation of the clean development mechanism. Energy Policy, 72, 146–154. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, C. (2005). Project-based mechanisms for emissions reductions: Balancing trade-offs with baselines. Energy Policy, 33(14), 1807–1823. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2004.02.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuessler, J., Herren, M., Kollmuss, A., Lazarus, M., & Schneider, L. (2014). Crediting emission reductions in new market based mechanisms – Part II: Additionality assessment & baseline setting under pledges. Retrieved from http://www.infras.ch/e/projekte/displayprojectitem.php?id=5183
   Google Scholar
• Geres, R., & Michaelowa, A. (2002). A qualitative method to consider leakage effects from CDM and JI projects. Energy Policy, 30(6), 461–463. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00113-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillenwater, M. (2011). What is additionality? Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://ghginstitute.org/research/
   Google Scholar
• Graichen, J., Cames, M., & Schneider, L. (2016). Categorization of INDCs in the light of Art. 6 of the Paris Agreement. Berlin. Retrieved from https://www.dehst.de/SharedDocs/downloads/EN/project-mechanisms/Categorization_of_INDCs_Paris_agreement_discussion_paper.html
   Google Scholar
• Green, J. F. (2016). Don’t link carbon markets. Nature, 543, 484–486. doi: 10.1038/543484a
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, J. F., Sterner, T., & Wagner, G. (2014). A balance of bottom-up and top-down in linking climate policies. Nature Climate Change, 4(12), 1064–1067. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2429
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greiner, S., Howard, A., Chagas, T., & Hunzai, T. (2017). CDM transition to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Retrieved from http://www.climatefocus.com/publications/cdm-transition-article-6-paris-agreement-options-report
   Google Scholar
• Greiner, S., & Michaelowa, A. (2003). Defining investment additionality for CDM projects – practical approaches. Energy Policy, 31(10), 1007–1015. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00142-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haites, E. (2018). Carbon taxes and greenhouse gas emissions trading systems: What have we learned? Climate Policy, 18(8), 955–966. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2018.1492897
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haya, B., & Parekh, P. (2011). Hydropower in the CDM: Examining additionality and criteria for sustainability (Energy and Resources Group Working Paper ERG-11-001). Berkeley Energy and Resources Group Working Paper. Berkeley. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2120862
   Google Scholar
• Hayashi, D., & Michaelowa, A. (2013). Standardization of baseline and additionality determination under the CDM. Climate Policy, 13(2), 191–209. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2013.745114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, G., & Morse, R. (2013). Addressing carbon offsetters’ paradox: Lessons from Chinese wind CDM. Energy Policy, 63, 1051–1055. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257068805_Addressing_carbon_Offsetters_Paradox_Lessons_from_Chinese_wind_CDM
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helm, C. (2003). International emissions trading with endogenous allowance choices. Journal of Public Economics, 87(12), 2737–2747. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(02)00138-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermwille, L., Arens, C., & Burian, M. (2013). Recommendations on the advancement of the CDM Standardized Baselines Framework. Retrieved from https://www.dehst.de/SharedDocs/downloads/EN/project-mechanisms/CDM_Discussion_Paper_Standardised_Baselines.pdf?_blob=publicationFile&v=1
   Google Scholar
• Hermwille, L., & Obergassel, W. (2018). Additionality après Paris. Stronghold for Environmental Integrity?, Wuppertal. https://epub.wupperinst.org/frontdoor/index/index/searchtype/all/start/1/rows/10/has_fulltextfq/true/docId/7124
   Google Scholar
• Höhne, N., Fekete, H., den Elzen, M. G. J., Hof, A. F., & Takeshi, K. (2018). Assessing the ambition of post-2020 climate targets: a comprehensive framework. Climate Policy, 18(4), 425–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1294046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holtsmark, B., & Sommervoll, D. E. (2012). International emissions trading: Good or bad? Economics Letters, 117(1), 362–364. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2012.05.034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hood, C., Briner, G., & Rocha, M. (2014). GHG or not GHG: Accounting for diverse mitigation contributions in the post-2020 climate framework. Climate Change Expert Group (Vol. 2014). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/env/cc/GHG or not GHG_CCXGsentout_May2014_REV.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Howard, A. (2017). Voluntary cooperation (Article 6). In D. Klein, M. P. Carazo, M. Doelle, J. Bulmer, & A. Higham (Eds.), The Paris Agreement on climate change: Analysis and commentary. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-paris-agreement-on-climate-change-9780198789338?cc=de&lang=en&#
   Google Scholar
• Howard, A. (2018). Incentivizing mitigation: Using international carbon markets to raise ambition. Retrieved from: https://www.carbonmechanisms.de/fileadmin/media/dokumente/Publikationen/Studie/Studie_2018_KoruClimate_Incentivizing.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Howard, A., Chagas, T., Hoogzaad, J., & Hoch, S. (2017). Features and implications of NDCs for carbon markets. Retrieved from http://www.climatefocus.com/publications/features-and-implications-ndcs-carbon-markets-final-report
   Google Scholar
• ICAO. (2016). Assembly Resolution A39-22. Retrieved from https://www.icao.int/Meetings/a39/Documents/WP/wp_193_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Working Group III contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, … J. C. Minx, Eds.). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/
   Google Scholar
• Kallbekken, S. (2007). Why the CDM will reduce carbon leakage. Climate Policy, 7(3), 197–211. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2007.9685649
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kartha, S., Lazarus, M., & Bosi, M. (2004). Baseline recommendations for greenhouse gas mitigation projects in the electric power sector. Energy Policy, 32(4), 545–566. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00155-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kartha, S., Lazarus, M., & LeFranc, M. (2005). Market penetration metrics: Tools for additionality assessment? Climate Policy, 5(2), 147–165. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2005.9685547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keohane, N., Petsonk, A., & Hanafi, A. (2017). Toward a club of carbon markets. Climatic Change, 144(1), 81–95. doi: 10.1007/s10584-015-1506-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollmuss, A., & Lazarus, M. (2011). Discounting offsets: Issues and options. Carbon Management, 2(5), 539–549. doi: 10.4155/cmt.11.49
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollmuss, A., Schneider, L., & Zhezherin, V. (2015). Has joint implementation reduced GHG emissions? Lessons learned for the design of carbon market mechanisms (Working Paper No. 2015-07). Stockholm. Retrieved from http://www.sei-international.org/publications?pid=2803
   Google Scholar
• Kreibich, N. (2018). Raising ambition through cooperation. Using Article 6 to bolster climate change mitigation, Wuppertal. https://epub.wupperinst.org/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/7122/file/7122_Raising_Ambition.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kreibich, N., & Hermwille, L. (2016). Robust transfers of mitigation outcomes: Understanding environmental integrity challenges (JIKO Policy Paper No. 02/2016). Wuppertal. Retrieved from http://www.carbon-mechanisms.de/fileadmin/media/dokumente/publikationen/PP_2016_02_Robust_Transfers_bf.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kreibich, N., & Obergassel, W. (2016). Carbon markets after Paris. How to account for the transfer of mitigation results? (JIKO Policy paper No. 01/2016). Wuppertal.
   Google Scholar
• La Hoz Theuer, S., Schneider, L., & Broekhoff, D. (2018). International transfers under Article 6 in the context of diverse ambition of NDCs. Environmental integrity risks and options to address them. Climate Policy. Retrieved from https://www.sei.org/publications/international-transfersarticle-6-ndcs/
   Google Scholar
• La Hoz Theuer, S., Schneider, L., Broekhoff, D., & Kollmuss, A. (2017). International transfers under Article 6 in the context of diverse ambition of NDCs. Environmental integrity risks and options to address them (Working Paper No. 2017–10). Stockholm. Retrieved from https://www.sei-international.org/publications?pid=3248
   Google Scholar
• Lazarus, M., Kartha, S., Ruth, M., Bernow, S., & Dunmire, C. (1999). Evaluation of benchmarking as an approach for establishing clean development mechanism baselines. Boston. Retrieved from https://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/evaluation_benchmarking_cleandev_mechanism.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lazarus, M., Kollmuss, A., & Schneider, L. (2014). Single-year mitigation targets: Uncharted territory for emissions trading and unit transfers (Working Paper No. 2014-01). Stockholm. Retrieved from https://www.sei-international.org/publications?pid=2487
   Google Scholar
• Lee, C. M., Lazarus, M., Smith, G. R., Todd, K., & Weitz, M. (2013). A ton is not always a ton: A road-test of landfill, manure, and afforestation/reforestation offset protocols in the U.S. carbon market. Environmental Science and Policy, 33, 53–62. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin, K., Rich, D., Finnegan, J., Barata, P. M., Dagnet, Y., & Kulovesi, K. (2015). Accounting framework for the post-2020 period. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. Retrieved from doi:10.6027/TN2014-566 TemaNord
   Google Scholar
• Liu, Y. (2015). CDM and national policy: Synergy or conflict? Evidence from the wind power sector in China. Climate Policy, 15(6), 767–783. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2014.968764
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macinante, J. (2015). Key elements of the net mitigation value assessment process. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/23812/Networked0carb0e0assessment0process.pdf?sequence=1
   Google Scholar
• Marcu, A. (2015). Mitigation value, networked carbon markets and the Paris climate change agreement. Retrieved from http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/pubdocs/publicdoc/2015/9/840951442526241099/Mitigation-Value-Networked-Carbon-Markets-and-the-Paris-Climate-Change-Agreement.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Marcu, A. (2017). Governance of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and lessons learned from the Kyoto Protocol. Retrieved from https://www.cigionline.org/publications/governance-article-6-paris-agreement-and-lessons-learned-kyoto-protocol
   Google Scholar
• Mehling, M. A., Metcalf, G. E., & Stavins, R. N. (2018). Linking climate policies to advance global mitigation. Science, 359(6379), 997–998. doi: 10.1126/science.aar5988
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meinshausen, M., & Alexander, R. (2017). NDC & INDC factsheets.
   Google Scholar
• Michaelowa, A. (1998). Joint implementation – the baseline issue: Economic and political aspects. Global Environmental Change, 8(1), 81–92. doi: 10.1016/S0959-3780(97)00022-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaelowa, A., & Butzengeiger, S. (2017). Ensuring additionality under Art. 6 of the Paris Agreement rethinking additionality. Retrieved from http://www.perspectives.cc/fileadmin/Reports/Art._6_Additionality_Perspectives_PRINT.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Michaelowa, A., Greiner, S., Hoch, S., LE Saché, F., Brescia, D., Galt, H., … Diagne, E.-H. M. (2016). The Paris Agreement: The future relevance of UNFCCC-backed carbon markets for Africa. ClimDev-Africa Policy Brief. Retrieved from http://www.climatefocus.com/publications/paris-agreement-future-relevance-unfcc-backed-carbon-markets-africa
   Google Scholar
• Michaelowa, A., & Purohit, P. (2007). Additionality determination of Indian CDM projects. Retrieved from http://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/additionality-cdm-india-cs-version9-07.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mizuno, Y. (2017). Proposal for guidance on robust accounting under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). Retrieved from https://pub.iges.or.jp/proposal-guidance-robust-accounting
   Google Scholar
• Narassimhan, E., Gallagher, K. S., Koester, S., & Alejo, J. R. (2018). Carbon pricing in practice: A review of existing emissions trading systems. Climate Policy, 18(8), 967–991. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2018.1467827
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obergassel, W., & Asche, F. (2017). ). Shaping the Paris mechanisms Part III. An update on submissions on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Wuppertal. Retrieved from http://www.carbon-mechanisms.de/fileadmin/media/dokumente/Publikationen/Policy_Paper/PP_2017_05_Art_6_Submissions.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Prag, A., Aasrud, A., & Hood, C. (2011). Keeping track: Options to develop international greenhouse gas unit accounting after 2012. Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Prag, A., Hood, C., Aasrud, A., & Briner, G. (2011). Tracking and trading: Expanding on options for international greenhouse gas unit accounting. Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Prag, A., Hood, C., & Barata, P. M. (2013). Made to measure: Options for emissions accounting under the UNFCCC. Paris. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT%282013%291&docLanguage=En
   Google Scholar
• Ranson, M., & Stavins, R. N. (2016). Linkage of greenhouse gas emissions trading systems: Learning from experience. Climate Policy, 16(3), doi: 10.1080/14693062.2014.997658
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rich, D., Bhatia, P., Finnegan, J., Levin, K., & Mitra, A. (2014). Policy and action standard. Retrieved from http://www.wri.org/publication/policy-and-action-standard
   Google Scholar
• Rogelj, J., den Elzen, M., Fransen, T., Fekete, H., Winkler, H., Schaeffer, R., … Meinshausen, M. (2016). Perspective : Paris agreement climate proposals need boost to keep warming well below 2°C. Nature, 534(June), 631–639. doi: 10.1038/nature18307
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schneider, L. (2009a). A clean development mechanism with global atmospheric benefits for a post-2012 climate regime, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 9(2), 95–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, L. (2009b). Assessing the additionality of CDM projects: Practical experiences and lessons learned. Climate Policy, 9(January 2013), 242–254. doi: 10.3763/cpol.2008.0533
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, L. (2011). Perverse incentives under the CDM: An evaluation of HFC-23 destruction projects. Climate Policy, 11(January 2013), 851–864. doi: 10.3763/cpol.2010.0096
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, L., Füssler, J., Kohli, A., Graichen, J., Healy, S., Cames, M., … Cook, V. (2017). Robust accounting of international transfers under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Berlin. Retrieved from https://www.dehst.de/SharedDocs/downloads/DE/projektmechanismen/Robust_accounting_paris_agreement_discussion_paper_28092017.pdf?_blob=publicationFile&v=2
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, L., & Kollmuss, A. (2015). Perverse effects of carbon markets on HFC-23 and SF6 abatement projects in Russia. Nature Climate Change, 5(12), 1061–1063. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2772
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, L., Kollmuss, A., & Lazarus, M. (2015). Addressing the risk of double counting emission reductions under the UNFCCC. Climatic Change, 473–486. doi: 10.1007/s10584-015-1398-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, L., & La Hoz Theuer, S. (2017). Using the clean development mechanism for nationally determined contributions and international aviation. Stockholm. Retrieved from https://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/SEI-PR-2017-Using-the-Clean-Development-Mechanism.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, L., Lazarus, M., & Kollmuss, A. (2010). Industrial N2O projects under the CDM: Adipic acid – a case of carbon leakage, Somerville. https://www.sei.org/publications/industrial-n2o-projects-cdm-adipic-acid-case-carbon-leakage/
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, L., Lazarus, M., Lee, C., & van Asselt, H. (2017). Restricted linking of emissions trading systems: Options, benefits, and challenges. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 17(6), 883–898. doi: 10.1007/s10784-017-9370-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shishlov, I., & Bellassen, V. (2016). Review of the experience with monitoring uncertainty requirements in the clean development mechanism. Climate Policy, 16(6), 703–731. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2015.1046414
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonter, L. J., Barrett, D. J., Moran, C. J., & Soares-Filho, B. S. (2015). Carbon emissions due to deforestation for the production of charcoal used in Brazil’s steel industry. Nature Climate Change, 5(4), 359–363. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spalding-Fecher, R. (2013). National policies and the CDM rules: Options for the future. Swedish Energy Agency. Retrieved from https://www.energimyndigheten.se/contentassets/2600659ecfa54ec995b835a4c99d75fb/carbon-limits---national-policies-and-cdm.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Spalding-Fecher, R. (2017). Article 6.4 crediting outside of NDC commitments under the Paris Agreement: issues and options. Oslo. Retrieved from http://www.energimyndigheten.se/contentassets/2600659ecfa54ec995b835a4c99d75fb/spalding-fecher_crediting-outside-ndcs---final-report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Spalding-Fecher, R., & Michaelowa, A. (2013). Should the use of standardized baselines in the CDM be mandatory? Climate Policy, 13(1), 80–88. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2012.726129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spalding-Fecher, R., Narayan Achanta, A., Erickson, P., Haites, E., Lazarus, M., Pahuja, N., … Tewari, R. (2012). Assessing the impact of the clean development mechanism. Report commissioned by the high-level panel on the CDM policy dialogue. Retrieved from http://www.cdmpolicydialogue.org/research/1030_impact.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Spalding-Fecher, R., Sammut, F., Broekhoff, D., & Fuessler, J. (2017). Environmental integrity and additionality in the new context of the Paris Agreement crediting mechanisms. Carbon Limits.
   Google Scholar
• Stavins, R., & Stowe, R. (2017). Market mechanisms and the Paris Agreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project on Climate Agreements.
   Google Scholar
• Strand, J. (2011). Carbon offsets with endogenous environmental policy. Energy Economics, 33(2), 371–378. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2010.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stua, M. (2013). Evidence of the clean development mechanism impact on the Chinese electric power system’s low-carbon transition. Energy Policy, 62(December 2005), 1309–1319. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.039
   Google Scholar
• Trexler, M., Broekhoff, D., & Kosloff, L. (2006). A statistically-driven approach to offset-based GHG additionality determinations: What can we learn? Sustainable Development Law & Policy, VI(2), 30–40.
   Google Scholar
• Tuerk, A., Fazekas, D., Schreiber, H., Frieden, D., & Wolf, C. (2013). Green investment schemes: The AAU market between 2008 and 2012. Retrieved from http://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/cs-gis-discussion-paper-formatted-final-rev2a.pdf
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. (2012). Various approaches, including opportunities for using markets, to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote, mitigation actions, bearing in mind different circumstances of developed and developing countries (Technical Paper (FCCC/TP/2012/4)). Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/tp/04.pdf
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. (2015). Adoption of the Paris Agreement: Decision 1/CP.21. (UNFCCC, Ed.).
   Google Scholar
• Vöhringer, F., Kuosmanen, T., & Dellink, R. (2006). How to attribute market leakage to CDM projects. Climate Policy, 5(5), 503–516. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2006.9685574
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrolijk, C., & Phillips, G. (2013). Net mitigation through the CDM. Retrieved from http://www.energimyndigheten.se/Global/Internationellt/Net mitigation through the CDM.pdf%5CnVrolijk, Phillips 2013 - Net Mitigation through the CDM.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Warnecke, C. (2014). Can CDM monitoring requirements be reduced while maintaining environmental integrity? Climate Policy, 14(4), 443–466. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2014.875285
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warnecke, C., Day, T., Schneider, L., Cames, M., Healy, S., Harthan, R., … Höhne, N. (2017). Vulnerability of CDM projects for discontinuation of mitigation activities: Assessment of project vulnerability and options to support continued mitigation. Retrieved from https://www.dehst.de/SharedDocs/downloads/EN/project-mechanisms/vulnerability-of-CDM.pdf?_blob=publicationFile&v=3
   Google Scholar
• Warnecke, C., Höhne, N., Tewari, R., Day, T., & Kachi, A. (2018). Opportunities and safeguards for ambition raising through Article 6. The perspective of countries transferring mitigation outcomes. Retrieved from https://newclimate.org/2018/05/09/opportunities-and-safeguards-for-ambition-raising-through-article-6/
   Google Scholar
• Warnecke, C., Wartmann, S., Höhne, N., & Blok, K. (2014). Beyond pure offsetting: Assessing options to generate net-mitigation-effects in carbon market mechanisms. Energy Policy, 68, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woerdman, E. (2005). Hot air trading under the Kyoto Protocol: An environmental problem or not? European Environmental Law Review, 14(3), 71–77. Retrieved from http://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/17591854/HotAirTrading_EELR.PDF
   Google Scholar
• Yamin, F., & Depledge, J. (2004). The international climate change regime. A guide to rules, institutions and procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar