Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog


OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Monitoring evaluation, reporting and verification of climate change mitigation projects.
Author Vine, E. ; Sathaye, J. ;
CORP Author Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (United States).;Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
Publisher 31 May 1998
Year Published 1998
Report Number LBNL-41520; AC03-76SF00098;
Stock Number DE98056102
Additional Subjects Climatic Change ; Global Aspects ; Greenhouse Gases ; Air Pollution Abatement ; International Cooperation ; Air Pollution Monitoring ; Environmental Impacts ; Recommendations ; Reporting Requirements ; Meetings ; EDB/540120
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
NTIS  DE98056102 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. NTIS 05/04/2000
Collation 24p
Because of concerns with the growing threat of global climate change from increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, the US and other countries are implementing, by themselves or in cooperation with one or more other nations, climate change mitigation projects. These projects will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or sequester carbon, and will also result in non-GHG benefits (i.e., environmental, economic, and social benefits). Monitoring, evaluating, reporting, and verifying (MERV) guidelines are needed for these projects to accurately determine their net GHG, and other, benefits. Implementation of MERV guidelines is also intended to: (1) increase the reliability of data for estimating GHG benefits; (2) provide real-time data so that mid-course corrections can be made; (3) introduce consistency and transparency across project types and reporters; and (4) enhance the credibility of the projects with stakeholders. In this paper, the authors review the issues involved in MERV activities. They identify several topics that future protocols and guidelines need to address, such as: (1) establishing a credible baseline; (2) accounting for impacts outside project boundaries through leakage; (3) net GHG reductions and other benefits; (4) precision of measurement; (5) MERV frequency; (6) persistence (sustainability) of savings, emissions reduction, and carbon sequestration; (7) reporting by multiple project participants; (8) verification of GHG reduction credits; (9) uncertainty and risk; (10) institutional capacity in conducting MERV; and (11) the cost of MERV.