Suchergebnisse

Climate change is one of the biggest issues facing the world. In recent years, several attempts have been made to define international strategies to cope with this threat. As a result, the current climate regime consists in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. In the meantime, Parties under the UNFCCC are negotiating for the definition and the approval of a new Agreement to be implemented in 2020. While in the first phase of negotiations the main objective was to get also reluctant Annex I countries to ratify the Kyoto Protocol whereas developing countries' concerns remained marginal, last years have been characterized by an increasing role of developing countries both in climate negotiations and in emission levels. Accordingly, this has exacerbated the debate about the CBDR Principle, considering how crucial active involvement of the developing part of the world is in climate actions. In view of this, the research project aims to investigate how the role of developing countries in the fight against climate change has been changing over time. The research consists of three papers. The first one investigates the role of developing countries in the Kyoto Protocol first commitment period (2008-2012) and, in particular, it is focused on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the only instrument that directly involves them. Indeed, CDM projects are still far from being an effective development activity due to the uneven distribution of these projects in a few relatively well-off economies. One potential cause of this imbalance is analyzed in terms of the trade relationships between developed and developing countries. By applying a gravity model to a panel dataset, wellestablished export flows from developed economies towards developing countries are shown to explain why a large proportion of CDM projects are unevenly geographically distributed. This kind of lock-in effect regarding the CDM between developed and developing countries could be avoided by both enhancing the institutional framework in developing countries that host CDM projects and reinforcing compulsory rules for CDM destinations in the least-developed economies. The second paper analyzes the role of these countries in post 2012 negotiations, with particular emphasis on the role that their heterogeneity plays in the formation of coalitions and in the negotiating process. As it has become evident during the last COPs, developing countries have different expectations and concerns about climate change negotiations, reflecting huge differences with respect to their economic, political and human conditions. The emergence in climate negotiations of more differentiated positions compared with the traditional segmentation between developed and developing countries can contribute to explain the deadlock characterizing climate negotiations. By applying a cluster analysis, this paper aims to investigate the role played by heterogeneity in specific characteristics of developing countries in explaining divergent costs and benefits associated with alternative climate negotiation outcomes. By clustering developing countries according to their economic, geographic, environmental, energy and social characteristics, the paper presents some considerations on climate political economy strategies in these countries with respect to existing bargaining coalitions. In particular, cluster results suggest that developing countries are characterized by heterogeneous concerns and conflicting interests that can contribute to explaining the deadlock in climate negotiations. Indeed, in some circumstances, countries may advocate, at the same time, interests that are potentially contrasting, leading to the possibility that very fragile, variegate and unstable alliances will be formed, complicating the negotiation process and leading to a standstill. Given the heterogeneity of countries and their relative differences in costs and benefits related to climate actions, it is necessary to set out compensating schemes, such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF), for the most vulnerable countries in order to reach a successful agreement. Advancing from that point, the third paper addresses the debate about the GCF, especially regarding the resource allocation mechanisms that are still under discussion. A climate-economic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model is developed with the purpose of taking into account a monetary evaluation of climate change damage costs incurred by all countries as well as a mechanism describing the operationalization of the GCF. The purpose is twofold: i) to investigate costs and benefits of ongoing climate negotiations, with particular emphasis on developing countries, and ii) to examine the role of the GCF as a compensating measure in fostering the realization of a more efficient climate agreement. The model used to carry out the research is the GDynE, an energy-environmental version of GDyn developed by Markandya et al. (2015)1, resulting from merging GDyn with GTAP-E, according to Golub (2013)2. The main novelty of the model adopted here is represented by new and explicit equations that allow for the introduction of the climate damage as well as a more wellstructured description of the GCF allocation mechanisms. Results show that, despite the high costs associated to the implementation of a climate policy, developing countries would face even higher costs if they did not act. Thus, the first conclusion we can draw is that, if a costs-benefits criterion were the leading factor driving mitigation decisions, developing countries would gain from actively participating in mitigation policies. However, defining the stringency of the global mitigation target (450 ppm vs 550 ppm) as well as the best structure of compensating mechanisms (GCF) is more complicated. Indeed, climate change policies affect many aspects of a country's economy, such as welfare and GDP. Shifting from a policy evaluation criterion to another can lead to several and often contrasting conclusions. As for the role of GCF, two alternative resource allocation methods have been investigated. Simulation results give some elements to strengthen the discussion about the GCF rules on a quantitative basis. In fact, the preference for an allocation method over the other from the developing world depends on the effects that the different allocation between adaptation and mitigation produces on the whole economy. Given the several aspects affected by resources allocation, also in this case the preference of a country for an allocation method over the other strongly depends on the evaluation criteria. However, results confirm that, as stated in the second paper, the preference of a country for an allocation method is strongly influenced by its characteristics and needs. Therefore, a country-specific GCF should be designed in order to facilitate the negotiation process and to reach a more effective climate agreement.

This study presents an innovative approach to hand-coding parties' policy preferences in the relatively new, cross-sectoral field of climate change mitigation policy. It applies this approach to party manifestos in six countries, comparing the preferences of parties in Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom over the past two decades. It probes the data for evidence of validity through content validation and convergent/discriminant validation and engages with the debate on position-taking in environmental policy by developing a positional measure that incorporates 'pro' and 'anti' climate policy preferences. The analysis provides evidence for the validity of the new measures, shows that they are distinct from comparable measures of environmental policy preferences and argues that they are more comprehensive than existing climate policy measures. The new measures strengthen the basis for answering questions that are central to climate politics and to party politics. The approach developed here has important implications for the study of new, complex or cross-cutting policy issues and issues that include both valence and positional aspects.

Climate Change mitigation is considered as a high priority internationally and is placed in the top of the agenda for most politicians and decision makers. The key challenge is that low-carbon sustainable technologies need to be adopted both by developed as well as developing countries, in an effort to avoid past unsustainable practices and being locked into old, less sustainable technologies. Technology Transfer (TT), as an important feature of both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol can play a key role. TT can allow countries to move quickly to environmentally sound and sustainable practices, institutions and technologies. Indeed, the transfer or innovation process must be fast enough, to reduce global vulnerability to climate change. The aim of this paper is to analyse the TT challenges within the new climate regime, in terms of the process of innovation into an existing energy system, the related barriers and the supporting diffusion mechanisms, with the emphasis laid on the emerging opportunities within the context of climate change. Successful practices will be also presented and discussed by both the developed and the developing countries in this respect. © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

The start of the new millennium will be remembered for deadly climate-related disasters - the great floods in Thailand in 2011, Super Storm Sandy in the United States in 2012, and Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines in 2013, to name a few. In 2014, 17.5 million people were displaced by climate-related disasters, ten times more than the 1.7 million displaced by geophysical hazards. What is causing the increase in natural disasters and what effect does it have on the economy? Climate Change and Natural Disasters sends three messages: human-made factors exert a growing influence on climate-related disasters; because of the link to anthropogenic factors, there is a pressing need for climate mitigation; and prevention, including climate adaptation, ought not to be viewed as a cost to economic growth but as an investment. Ultimately, attention to climate-related disasters, arguably the most tangible manifestation of global warming, may help mobilize broader climate action. It can also be instrumental in transitioning to a path of low-carbon, green growth, improving disaster resilience, improving natural resource use, and caring for the urban environment. Vinod Thomas proposes that economic growth will become sustainable only if governments, political actors, and local communities combine natural disaster prevention and controlling climate change into national growth strategies. When considering all types of capital, particularly human capital, climate action can drive economic growth, rather than hinder it

As the nation searches for climate mitigation and adaptation strategies, the pressure to develop water resources within wilderness areas and to exploit the timber, forage, wildlife, fish, and other virtually untapped components of wilderness will become more acute. This Article makes the case that managers and legislatures should not yield to this pressure and argues that, if anything, the need to preserve untrammeled wilderness characteristics is just as imperative today as it was in 1964 when the Wilderness Act was passed The Article examines the potency of the Wilderness Act and a trio of federal water law doctrines-federally reserved water rights, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the Clean Water Act-and finds that, while no single one of these doctrines can accomplish the task alone, if implemented in a more complementary fashion, together they can be effective in protecting the wild

1. Introduction -- 2. Recent advances in knowledge and understanding -- 3. Adaptation policy, planning and institutions -- 4. Adaptation practice -- 5. Mitigation policy -- 6. Mitigation practice -- 7. Assessing performance, and learning -- 8. Integrated responses to climate change -- 9. Conclusion.

Contains the following headlines: Background. National level policies and programs. Impact indicators and approach. Impact of government policies and programs. Way forward. Conclusions.

"The science is clear: by the mid-20th century human beings must stop burning coal, oil and natural gas. Reducing carbon emissions is not enough-they must be eliminated. Each individual "doing their part" is only a start. We heat our homes, light our rooms, power our cars, prepare our food, and produce and distribute consumer goods with the help of fossil fuels. A practical and visionary re-imagining of the future is needed. Calling for a technical and spiritual ground-shift, this book proposes carbon boycotts as collective action, with groups and communities changing what products they consume and seeking new ways to work, live and play to steer aggregate demand towards solar, wind, geothermal and renewable energy alternatives."--

Front Cover -- Contents -- Preface -- Editor -- Contributors -- Chapter 1: The Science of Carbon Footprint Assessment -- Chapter 2: Challenges and Merits of Choosing Alternative Functional Units -- Chapter 3: Methodology for Carbon Footprint Calculation in Crop and Livestock Production -- Chapter 4: End of Life Scenarios and the Carbon Footprint of Wood Cladding -- Chapter 5: Carbon Footprints and Greenhouse Gas Emission Savings of Alternative Synthetic Biofuels -- Chapter 6: Issues in Making Food Production GHG Efficient : Challenges before Carbon Footprinting -- Chapter 7: Modeling the Carbon Footprint of Wood-Based Products and Buildings -- Chapter 8: Applications of Carbon Footprint in Urban Planning and Geography -- Chapter 9: Quantifying Spatial-Temporal Variability of Carbon Stocks and Fluxes in Urban Soils : From Local Monitoring to Regional Modeling -- Chapter 10: Urban Carbon Footprint Evaluation of a Central Chinese City : The Case of Zhengzhou City -- Chapter 11: Carbon Footprint Estimation from a Building Sector in India -- Chapter 12: The Carbon Footprint of Dwelling Construction in Spain -- Chapter 13: Carbon Footprint : Calculations and Sensitivity Analysis for Cow Milk Produced in Flanders, a Belgian Region -- Chapter 14: Digitizing the Assessment of Embodied Energy and Carbon Footprint of Buildings Using Emerging Building Information Modeling -- Chapter 15: Product Carbon Footprint : Case Study of a Critical Electronic Part (Subassembly of a Product) -- Chapter 16: GHG Emissions from Municipal Wastewater Treatment in Latin America -- Chapter 17: Carbon Footprint of the Operation and Products of a Restaurant : A Study and Alternative Perspectives -- Chapter 18: Cultivation of Microalgae : Implications for the Carbon Footprint of Aquaculture and Agriculture Industries -- Chapter 19: Carbon Footprint of Agricultural Products.

A much-needed analysis of international climate change politics as a key issue of modernity and in the context of environmentalism. Leigh Glover presents a new way to understand the climate change problem and is concerned with problems of modernity and postmodernity in the context of contemporary environmental thought. Focusing on the international politics surrounding the UN agreement of climate change, the Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, Glover examines the issue using the key aspects of climate change science, global environmental politics, and global environmental management.

AbstractAgricultural production systems both contribute to and are threatened by climate change. Farmers could reduce agriculture's contributions and vulnerability to climate change by adopting mitigation and adaption practices. A growing number of studies have begun to examine developed countries farmers' beliefs related to climate change and how they affect farmers' support for adopting these practices. To build on this work, this analysis uses qualitative data from 53 Iowa corn farmers to offer a nuanced depiction of the farmers' perception of non‐anthropogenic climate change. Goffman's concept of framing, with contributions from more recent social movement scholarship, is used to reveal how farmers are constructing climate change as largely a result of inevitable 'natural cycles', the effect this has on their support for mitigation and adaptation and to explore why this particular framing resonates with them.

Household air pollution from traditional cook stoves presents a greater health hazard than any other environmental factor. Despite government efforts to support clean-burning cooking fuels, over 700 million people in South Asia could still rely on traditional stoves in 2030. This number could rise if climate change mitigation efforts increase energy costs. Here we quantify the costs of support policies to make clean cooking affordable to all South Asians under four increasingly stringent climate policy scenarios. Our most sringent mitigation scenario increases clean fuel costs 38% in 2030 relative to the baseline, keeping 21% more South Asians on traditional stoves or increasing the minimum support policy cost to achieve universal clean cooking by up to 44%. The extent of this increase depends on how poliymakers allocate subsidies between clean fuels and stoves. These additional costs are within the range of financial transfers to South Asia estimated in efforts-sharing scenarios of international climate agreements. Three billion people globally burn solid fuels such as firewood, charcoal, coal, dung, and crop resides in open fires and traditional stoves for cooking and heating. Household air pollution from the incomplete combustion of these fuels globally leads to 4.3 million premature deaths each year, with 1.7 million of those in South Asia. This exceeds the burden of disease from any other energy-related or environmental risk factor. Solid-fuel use also perpetuates income and gender inequality by forcing users, mostly poor women and children, to spend long hours collecting fuels and to suffer from its adverse health effects. To address this problem, the United Nations Secretary-General's Sustainable Energy for All (SE4All) initiative and the new Sustainable Development Goals aim to achieve universal access to modern energy services by 2030. Numerous intervention efforts have focused on distributing more efficient and cleaner burning biomass stoves, but several of these programmes have had little or no demonstrable impact on health outcomes. In India, the nation with the largest population of solid-fuel users globally, government interventions have sought to make petroleum-based fuels, such as kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), more affordable through subsidy at an estimated cost of over US$6 billion per year. Although LPG use has grown rapidly, particularly in rural areas, over 72% of Indians continued to rely primarily on solid fuels in 2012. In the future, expanding clean cooking may become more challenging if climate policies increase the cost of fuels. Previous research has found that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions in Asia and Africa would increase the cost of kerosene and LPG. However, these studies do not explore compensatory policies that could counteract these effects, and assess only a limited set of climate mitigation scenarios. Only two studies explore normative scenarios that achieve access and climate goals simultanously, both of which do not explore the cost-effectiveness or distributional impacts on population subgroups of these policies. Meanwhile, studies that have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of energy access policies have not considered the impact of climate policy. Te latest assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that we have only low confidence in our understanding of the possible impacts of climate policy on access to modern energy services, and medium confidence in the policies needed to counteract them. In this study, we contribute new insights to the interaction of climate policy and clean cooking acces policies by quantifying the feasibility and costs of achieving universal access by 2030 for a range of climate policy stringencies, and under a wide range of fuel and stove price support policies. Our analysis suggests that the potential trade-offs between the two goals might be arger than suggested by previous studies. However, we find that efficient policy design could partially compensate for the additional access policy costs associated with climate mitigation. Furthermore, these costs fall below the level of potential financial transfers to South Asia that may result from international climate agreements.

Household air pollution from traditional cook stoves presents a greater health hazard than any other environmental factor. Despite government efforts to support clean-burning cooking fuels, over 700 million people in South Asia could still rely on traditional stoves in 2030. This number could rise if climate change mitigation efforts increase energy costs. Here we quantify the costs of support policies to make clean cooking affordable to all South Asians under four increasingly stringent climate policy scenarios. Our most sringent mitigation scenario increases clean fuel costs 38% in 2030 relative to the baseline, keeping 21% more South Asians on traditional stoves or increasing the minimum support policy cost to achieve universal clean cooking by up to 44%. The extent of this increase depends on how poliymakers allocate subsidies between clean fuels and stoves. These additional costs are within the range of financial transfers to South Asia estimated in efforts-sharing scenarios of international climate agreements. Three billion people globally burn solid fuels such as firewood, charcoal, coal, dung, and crop resides in open fires and traditional stoves for cooking and heating. Household air pollution from the incomplete combustion of these fuels globally leads to 4.3 million premature deaths each year, with 1.7 million of those in South Asia. This exceeds the burden of disease from any other energy-related or environmental risk factor. Solid-fuel use also perpetuates income and gender inequality by forcing users, mostly poor women and children, to spend long hours collecting fuels and to suffer from its adverse health effects. To address this problem, the United Nations Secretary-General's Sustainable Energy for All (SE4All) initiative and the new Sustainable Development Goals aim to achieve universal access to modern energy services by 2030. Numerous intervention efforts have focused on distributing more efficient and cleaner burning biomass stoves, but several of these programmes have had little or no demonstrable impact on health outcomes. In India, the nation with the largest population of solid-fuel users globally, government interventions have sought to make petroleum-based fuels, such as kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), more affordable through subsidy at an estimated cost of over US$6 billion per year. Although LPG use has grown rapidly, particularly in rural areas, over 72% of Indians continued to rely primarily on solid fuels in 2012. In the future, expanding clean cooking may become more challenging if climate policies increase the cost of fuels. Previous research has found that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions in Asia and Africa would increase the cost of kerosene and LPG. However, these studies do not explore compensatory policies that could counteract these effects, and assess only a limited set of climate mitigation scenarios. Only two studies explore normative scenarios that achieve access and climate goals simultanously, both of which do not explore the cost-effectiveness or distributional impacts on population subgroups of these policies. Meanwhile, studies that have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of energy access policies have not considered the impact of climate policy. Te latest assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that we have only low confidence in our understanding of the possible impacts of climate policy on access to modern energy services, and medium confidence in the policies needed to counteract them. In this study, we contribute new insights to the interaction of climate policy and clean cooking acces policies by quantifying the feasibility and costs of achieving universal access by 2030 for a range of climate policy stringencies, and under a wide range of fuel and stove price support policies. Our analysis suggests that the potential trade-offs between the two goals might be arger than suggested by previous studies. However, we find that efficient policy design could partially compensate for the additional access policy costs associated with climate mitigation. Furthermore, these costs fall below the level of potential financial transfers to South Asia that may result from international climate agreements.