Suchergebnisse

International audience ; The portfolio of approaches to respond to the challenges posed by anthropogenic climate change has broadened beyond mitigation and adaptation with the recent discussion of potential climate engineering options. How to define and categorize climate engineering options has been a recurring issue in both public and specialist discussions. We assert here that current definitions of mitigation, adaptation and climate engineering are ambiguous, overlap with each other and thus contribute to confusing the discourse on how to tackle anthropogenic climate change. We propose a new and more inclusive categorization into five different classes: anthropogenic emissions reductions (of short-lived climate agents and long-lived greenhouse gases, abbreviated AER, territorial or domestic removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (D-GGR), trans-territorial or trans-boundary removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (T-GGR), regional to planetary targeted climate and environmental modification (TCM), and climate change adaptation measures (including local targeted climate and environmental modification, abbreviated CCAM). Thus, we suggest that techniques for domestic greenhouse gas removal might better be thought of as forming a separate category alongside more traditional mitigation techniques that consist of emissions reductions. Local targeted climate modification can be seen as an adaptation measure as long as there are no detectable remote environmental effects. In both cases, the scale and intensity of action are essential attributes from the technological, climatic and political viewpoints. Whilst some of the boundaries in this revised classification depend on policy and judgement, it offers a foundation for debating on how to define and categorize climate engineering options and differentiate them from both mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change.

International audience ; The portfolio of approaches to respond to the challenges posed by anthropogenic climate change has broadened beyond mitigation and adaptation with the recent discussion of potential climate engineering options. How to define and categorize climate engineering options has been a recurring issue in both public and specialist discussions. We assert here that current definitions of mitigation, adaptation and climate engineering are ambiguous, overlap with each other and thus contribute to confusing the discourse on how to tackle anthropogenic climate change. We propose a new and more inclusive categorization into five different classes: anthropogenic emissions reductions (of short-lived climate agents and long-lived greenhouse gases, abbreviated AER, territorial or domestic removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (D-GGR), trans-territorial or trans-boundary removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (T-GGR), regional to planetary targeted climate and environmental modification (TCM), and climate change adaptation measures (including local targeted climate and environmental modification, abbreviated CCAM). Thus, we suggest that techniques for domestic greenhouse gas removal might better be thought of as forming a separate category alongside more traditional mitigation techniques that consist of emissions reductions. Local targeted climate modification can be seen as an adaptation measure as long as there are no detectable remote environmental effects. In both cases, the scale and intensity of action are essential attributes from the technological, climatic and political viewpoints. Whilst some of the boundaries in this revised classification depend on policy and judgement, it offers a foundation for debating on how to define and categorize climate engineering options and differentiate them from both mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change.

International audience ; The portfolio of approaches to respond to the challenges posed by anthropogenic climate change has broadened beyond mitigation and adaptation with the recent discussion of potential climate engineering options. How to define and categorize climate engineering options has been a recurring issue in both public and specialist discussions. We assert here that current definitions of mitigation, adaptation and climate engineering are ambiguous, overlap with each other and thus contribute to confusing the discourse on how to tackle anthropogenic climate change. We propose a new and more inclusive categorization into five different classes: anthropogenic emissions reductions (of short-lived climate agents and long-lived greenhouse gases, abbreviated AER, territorial or domestic removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (D-GGR), trans-territorial or trans-boundary removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (T-GGR), regional to planetary targeted climate and environmental modification (TCM), and climate change adaptation measures (including local targeted climate and environmental modification, abbreviated CCAM). Thus, we suggest that techniques for domestic greenhouse gas removal might better be thought of as forming a separate category alongside more traditional mitigation techniques that consist of emissions reductions. Local targeted climate modification can be seen as an adaptation measure as long as there are no detectable remote environmental effects. In both cases, the scale and intensity of action are essential attributes from the technological, climatic and political viewpoints. Whilst some of the boundaries in this revised classification depend on policy and judgement, it offers a foundation for debating on how to define and categorize climate engineering options and differentiate them from both mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change.

International audience ; The portfolio of approaches to respond to the challenges posed by anthropogenic climate change has broadened beyond mitigation and adaptation with the recent discussion of potential climate engineering options. How to define and categorize climate engineering options has been a recurring issue in both public and specialist discussions. We assert here that current definitions of mitigation, adaptation and climate engineering are ambiguous, overlap with each other and thus contribute to confusing the discourse on how to tackle anthropogenic climate change. We propose a new and more inclusive categorization into five different classes: anthropogenic emissions reductions (of short-lived climate agents and long-lived greenhouse gases, abbreviated AER, territorial or domestic removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (D-GGR), trans-territorial or trans-boundary removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (T-GGR), regional to planetary targeted climate and environmental modification (TCM), and climate change adaptation measures (including local targeted climate and environmental modification, abbreviated CCAM). Thus, we suggest that techniques for domestic greenhouse gas removal might better be thought of as forming a separate category alongside more traditional mitigation techniques that consist of emissions reductions. Local targeted climate modification can be seen as an adaptation measure as long as there are no detectable remote environmental effects. In both cases, the scale and intensity of action are essential attributes from the technological, climatic and political viewpoints. Whilst some of the boundaries in this revised classification depend on policy and judgement, it offers a foundation for debating on how to define and categorize climate engineering options and differentiate them from both mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change.

International audience ; The portfolio of approaches to respond to the challenges posed by anthropogenic climate change has broadened beyond mitigation and adaptation with the recent discussion of potential climate engineering options. How to define and categorize climate engineering options has been a recurring issue in both public and specialist discussions. We assert here that current definitions of mitigation, adaptation and climate engineering are ambiguous, overlap with each other and thus contribute to confusing the discourse on how to tackle anthropogenic climate change. We propose a new and more inclusive categorization into five different classes: anthropogenic emissions reductions (of short-lived climate agents and long-lived greenhouse gases, abbreviated AER, territorial or domestic removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (D-GGR), trans-territorial or trans-boundary removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (T-GGR), regional to planetary targeted climate and environmental modification (TCM), and climate change adaptation measures (including local targeted climate and environmental modification, abbreviated CCAM). Thus, we suggest that techniques for domestic greenhouse gas removal might better be thought of as forming a separate category alongside more traditional mitigation techniques that consist of emissions reductions. Local targeted climate modification can be seen as an adaptation measure as long as there are no detectable remote environmental effects. In both cases, the scale and intensity of action are essential attributes from the technological, climatic and political viewpoints. Whilst some of the boundaries in this revised classification depend on policy and judgement, it offers a foundation for debating on how to define and categorize climate engineering options and differentiate them from both mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change.

Climate change scholars generally urge that CO2 emissions need to be cut rapidly if we are to avoid dangerous risks of climate change. However, climate change mitigation policies are widely perceived to have regressive effects — that is, putting a higher financial burden as a proportion of household income on poor than on rich households. This is one of several major barriers to the adoption of effective mitigation policies. They would also have considerable social justice implications requiring significant welfare state responses. We assess the claim that climate change policies have regressive effects by comparing different types of mitigation policies. We will argue that many of these are indeed likely to have regressive distributional implications but that there are several policy options to counteract regressive effects.

Deforestation, forest degradation, and land-use change are a major source of carbon emissions. The Copenhagen Accord recognised the crucial role of reducing emissions from deforestation, emphasized the role of forests in climate change mitigation, and called for the immediate establishment of a REDD+ mechanism. Most likely, it will form an integral part of the future climate change regime. For many developed countries, REDD+ seems to be an attractive option to achieve part of their reduction targets through investments in developing countries. For some developing countries, this offers an additional source of financing to support sustainable forest management and to boost their development plans and poverty-reduction strategies. This paper analyses the challenges and major gaps that developing countries are facing when planning their national strategies for the implementation of REDD+ schemes. We conclude that REDD+ as a climate change mitigation instrument will only be able to proceed at a pace that allows the meaningful participation of all relevant stakeholders in consensus-building. When the REDD+ enters the markets, the rights of local communities to forest land and carbon will need to be clarified and secured. Successful implementation of REDD+ will, in most cases, require strengthening the stake of local communities for managing their forest carbon assets and allowing them to benefit fully from emerging carbon markets and other funding schemes. Governments will need to renew their institutions and adopt new approaches to handle these challenges by including the role of forests in climate change mitigation as an integral part of their development plans and policies.

Anthropogenic climate change and the mitigation strategies aimed to attenuate it are both issues of great importance for human rights, public health, and socioeconomic equity. To understand these concerns and to better inform policy and strategic action it is critical to explore: 1) the disparities in the costs and benefits of climate shifts; 2) the abilities of different populations to adapt to these shifts; and 3) the social and health equity dimensions of the climate change mitigation strategies imposed. The health and equity implications associated with anthropogenic climate change mitigation are multi-scaled and range from the household level (i.e., in the case of household-level energy efficiency and fuel switching projects); to the regional and community levels (i.e., in the case of communities that benefit and are impacted by California's Global Warming Solutions Act, or AB 32); to the national and international levels where resource transfers from more developed nations to less developed nations are key to reaching climate mitigation goals.Critical to the generation of sound and equitable climate mitigation policy is the manner in which climate change mitigation efforts are measured, monitored and evaluated. In other words, methods and metrics determine what is seen and what is rendered invisible. These measurements act as a partial determinant of the observed outcomes and subsequently, the policy decisions that are guided and bolstered by their results. It is therefore crucial to unpack the methodologies and metrics used to measure and evaluate climate change mitigation strategies in order to understand and predict impacts and benefits, and to assess the equity dimensions of different mitigation measures.Chapter 2 focuses on the environmental health and equity dimensions of both anthropogenic climate change and the California Global Warming Solutions act of 2006 (AB 32) in California. I argue here that anthropogenic climate change is an issue of great importance for human rights, public health, and socioeconomic equity because of its diverse consequences overall as well as its disproportionate impact on vulnerable and socially marginalized populations. It is clear that that anthropogenic climate change will affect industrial and agricultural sectors, as well as transportation, health, and energy infrastructure and these shifts hold significant health and economic consequences for diverse communities throughout California. Without proactive policies to address these equity concerns, climate change will likely reinforce and amplify current as well as future socioeconomic disparities leaving low-income, minority, and politically marginalized groups with fewer economic opportunities and more environmental and health burdens. Chapter 3 explores the rapidly expanding scientific literature that describes black carbon (BC) emissions and their climatic and human health effects. In addition to scientific uncertainties due to differences in atmospheric models and how to sort out regional effects, inconsistencies in definitions, metric and measurement methods, data collection and characterization, system boundaries, and time horizons, have led to confusion about the importance of BC as a climate-forcing and health-damaging agent relative to other climate-altering and health-damaging pollutants. The focus on metrics and measurement issues in Chapter 3 leads into Chapter 4 where I shift my gaze to the carbon-offset market and look at accountability components of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of cookstove carbon offset projects. While many studies focus on accountability mechanisms between social actors in the carbon-offset arena, there are no studies that have looked at M&E requirements as a source of accountability themselves. I contend that the Gold Standard Foundation (GSF), the primary certifying body of carbon credits on the voluntary market could develop metrics and M&E requirements to discipline evaluators and project developers into more responsible and accountable behavior. This in turn may produce M&E results with a higher standard of veracity to be reported to the certifying institutions and other stakeholders. I identify the existing accountability flaws in the GSF monitoring methodology and make recommendations to improve the M&E requirements. These improvements could further strengthen the authoritativeness of the GSF, make the accountability system more influential, and hopefully lead to more trusted carbon credits, more effective emission reductions, and greater sustainable development gains.

As an emerging economy, Indonesia's economy has been growing fast in recent years. The positive economic growth drives electricity consumption growth. However, the increase of electricity consumption contributes to the increase of greenhouse gasses (GHG) emissions. Energy sector is the second main contributors of the national GHG emission, hence, reducing GHG emission from power sector would contribute significantly to the national efforts of reducing GHG emission. This paper identifies opportunities for climate change mitigations in the Indonesia's power sector. The identification is based on literature review on power sector and climate change in Indonesia. It is observed that available renewable energy resources, government policies, climate finance, and low carbon technologies create opportunities for climate change mitigations in the Indonesia's power sector.

This paper provides an analysis of the effectiveness of climate policies by focusing on the link between policy options on the one hand, and structure of the agreements and of the international regimes on the other hand. In particular, the paper analyses whether there are the conditions for an agreement on climate change to be signed by all or almost all world countries; and whether some countries can play a strategic role, with respect to the goal of achieving the largest possible agreement, by proposing strategies, measures, institutions that help to expand the number of countries which commit to control their emissions. In this way, the paper also analyses which strategies can be proposed to reduce the costs of mitigation policies, where the cost reduction is achieved by increasing the number of signatories and by dividing more equitably the burden of emission control.

The focus of this paper is on the places where citizens and public authorities meet – possible involving other stakeholders as well – to discuss, formulate and implement climate change mitigation policies at the local level. Through looking at a number of concrete cases stemming from the CIDEA research project and spread over the continuum from local government initiated to citizen initiated, and from projects aimed at changing individual behaviour to projects involving bigger communities (housing association, villages, etc.), it will be argued that both from a governance perspective (CO2-reductions), as well as from a democratic perspective, citizen initiated projects involving communities of different kinds are clearly superior to for example government initiated campaigns aimed at the behaviour of individuals. This finding has clear policy-implications meaning that local climate change mitigation policies should be aimed at finding ways to support citizen initiated initiatives to a greater extent than is currently the case. ; The focus of this paper is on the places where citizens and public authorities meet – possible involving other stakeholders as well – to discuss, formulate and implement climate change mitigation policies at the local level. Through looking at a number of concrete cases stemming from the CIDEA research project and spread over the continuum from local government initiated to citizen initiated, and from projects aimed at changing individual behaviour to projects involving bigger communities (housing association, villages, etc.), it will be argued that both from a governance perspective (CO2-reductions), as well as from a democratic perspective, citizen initiated projects involving communities of different kinds are clearly superior to for example government initiated campaigns aimed at the behaviour of individuals. This finding has clear policy-implications meaning that local climate change mitigation policies should be aimed at finding ways to support citizen initiated initiatives to a greater extent than is currently the case. Keywords: climate change mitigation, co-creation, behaviour, communities, citizen driven innovation.

VTT Technology 239 ; 142 "Intended, Nationally Determined Contributions" (INDCs) have been submitted to the United Nations' climate treaty (UNFCCC) towards the forthcoming Paris negotiations. In the INDCs, parties state their intended contribution for mitigating climate change in the coming decade. However, the content of the INDCs varies considerably between parties, making it difficult to estimate and compare the level of ambition by the parties, or the emission level implied by the INDCs. A critical question is whether the INDCs are collectively ambitious enough to keep the 2°C target within reach. This research o provides country-level estimates on the emissions implied by 53 INDC's, o compares the countries' contributions between each other, o presents temperature projections based on the INDCs and two post-2030 emission pathways, and o analyses 12 highest-emitting parties' INDCs in depth. The emission levels around 2030 implied by 53 INDCs were compared to each other under the "common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities" principle. Most developed countries target significant emission reductions from the current level. For developing countries the level of ambition is very dispersed: while some target a stabilisation of emissions by 2030, some project more than 200% increase from 2010 level. Additionally, the mitigation effort is not quantifiable from many INDCs, e.g. because the Business-as-Usual scenario from which the reduction target is defined was not given in the INDC. Collectively, the INDCs would bring an emission reduction between 4 and 8 Gt CO2 eq from the reference scenario in 2030, with strong contribution from both developed and developing countries; and the global emissions would be between 50 and 54 Gt CO2 eq. An analysis of post-2030 emission pathways showed that this emission level is compatible with the 2°C target only if steep emission reductions are undertaken after 2030. Increasing the level of ambition of 2030 is a key priority to improve the changes of keeping global mean temperature increase below 2°C.

Active travel (walking or cycling for transport) is considered the most sustainable form of personal transport. Yet its net effects on mobility-related CO2 emissions are complex and underresearched. Here we collected travel activity data in seven European cities and derived life cycle CO2 emissions across modes and purposes. Daily mobility-related life cycle CO2 emissions were 3.2 kgCO(2) per person, with car travel contributing 70% and cycling 1%. Cyclists had 84% lower life cycle CO2 emissions than non-cyclists. Life cycle CO2 emissions decreased by 14% per additional cycling trip and decreased by 62% for each avoided car trip. An average person who `shifted travel modes' from car to bike decreased life cycle CO2 emissions by 3.2 kgCO(2)/day. Promoting active travel should be a cornerstone of strategies to meet net zero carbon targets, particularly in urban areas, while also improving public health and quality of urban life. ; This work was supported by the European project Physical Activity through Sustainable Transportation Approaches (PASTA). PASTA (http://www.pastaproject.eu/) was a four-year project funded by the European Union's Seventh Framework Program (EU FP7) under European Commission - Grant Agreement No. 602624. CB is also supported by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) under the Centre for Research on Energy Demand Solutions (CREDS, Grant agreement number EP/R035288/1). ED is also supported by a postdoctoral scholarship from FWO - Research Foundation Flanders. ML held a joint PASTA/VITO PhD scholarship. SS is supported by the Martin Filko Scholarship from the Ministry of Education in Slovakia. ; Brand, C (corresponding author), Univ Oxford, Transport Studies Unit, South Parks Rd, Oxford OX, christian.brand@ouce.ox.ac.uk

International audience ; Climate Action Planning is one of the top priorities of cities in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthening climate-resilience, as pointed out by the New Urban Agenda and the Paris Agreement. This study aims at assessing the development of climate change mitigation and adaptation planning in Italian cities. To this end, we analysed the availability of Local Climate Plans (LCPs) in 76 cities, which are included in the Eurostat Urban Audit (UA-2015) database. In a further step, we analysed the content of the urban climate change mitigation and adaptation plans available in a smaller sample of 32 Italian cities of 2007 Eurostat Urban Audit database (UA-3), looking at the single actions undertaken for addressing mitigation and adaptation to climate change. Results show the almost total absence of comprehensive and stand-alone urban climate change adaptation plans in Italy (except for two cities, Ancona and Bologna), whereas we found that in 61 out of 76 cities municipal civil protection plans are the instruments that deal with local emergencies associated to extreme weather events. On the other hand, 56 out of 76 urban climate change mitigation plans (i.e. Sustainable Energy Action Plans) are being developed in the framework of the Covenant of Mayors, which is a transnational network of local governments created by the European Union (EU) in 2012. The results obtained on the mitigation side point out that, in absence of a national law that imposes Italian cities to develop LCPs, transnational networks are an effective boost to voluntary commitment to reach EU climate and energy objectives.

International audience ; Climate Action Planning is one of the top priorities of cities in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthening climate-resilience, as pointed out by the New Urban Agenda and the Paris Agreement. This study aims at assessing the development of climate change mitigation and adaptation planning in Italian cities. To this end, we analysed the availability of Local Climate Plans (LCPs) in 76 cities, which are included in the Eurostat Urban Audit (UA-2015) database. In a further step, we analysed the content of the urban climate change mitigation and adaptation plans available in a smaller sample of 32 Italian cities of 2007 Eurostat Urban Audit database (UA-3), looking at the single actions undertaken for addressing mitigation and adaptation to climate change. Results show the almost total absence of comprehensive and stand-alone urban climate change adaptation plans in Italy (except for two cities, Ancona and Bologna), whereas we found that in 61 out of 76 cities municipal civil protection plans are the instruments that deal with local emergencies associated to extreme weather events. On the other hand, 56 out of 76 urban climate change mitigation plans (i.e. Sustainable Energy Action Plans) are being developed in the framework of the Covenant of Mayors, which is a transnational network of local governments created by the European Union (EU) in 2012. The results obtained on the mitigation side point out that, in absence of a national law that imposes Italian cities to develop LCPs, transnational networks are an effective boost to voluntary commitment to reach EU climate and energy objectives.