Suchergebnisse

The population of environmentally displaced people has increased recently, thus this article aims to address the challenges climate change may impose on Nation-States concerning human rights in relation to forced migration. The relationship between climate change and forced migration will be studied in order to present the problems arising from the allocation of international responsibility among States and the international protection (or the lack thereof) of "Climate Refugees" and stateless persons caused by the disappearance of Nation- States under climate change; solutions will be proposed under the existing International Human Rights Law.

We discuss a model of gradual coalition formation with positive externalities in which a leading country endogenously decides whether to negotiate multilaterally or sequentially over climate change. We show that the leader may choose a sequential path, and that the choice is determined by the convexity of the TU-game and the free-rider payoffs of the followers. Except in a few clearly defined cases, the outcome of the negotiation process is always the grand coalition, although the process may need some time. This holds for the standard IEA game with heterogeneous players even if the grand coalition is not stable in a multilateral context. We also analyze the role of a facilitating agency. The agency has an incentive to speed up intra-stage negotiations and to extend the period between negotiation stages in a sequential process. ; Peer reviewed

Theories of justice that have been discussed in Political Philosophy during XX century have not paid attention to environmental problems and to climate change. However, some of their arguments can be used to do a moral evaluation of the policies against climate change. Many of those policies have an anthropocentric andutilitarian perspective. By contrary, in this paper, a biocentric contention will beargued that defends the intrinsic value of any type of life. From these arguments, the policies adopted against climate change are not adequate and it is necessary a newproductive and economic model. ; Las teorías de la justicia que se han venido discutiendo en la filosofía política del siglo XX han prestado poca atención a las cuestiones medio ambientales y al cambio climático. No obstante, algunos de sus elementos pueden servir para hacer una evaluación, desde la moral, a las políticas que se pueden seguir contra el cambio climático. Muchas de esas políticas parten de un enfoque antropocéntrico y utilitarista. En este artículo, por el contrario, se defiende un enfoque biocéntrico que defiende el valor intrínseco de cualquier tipo de vida. Desde esos postulados, las medidas que sea doptan son insuficientes y es necesario un cambio de modelo económico y productivo.

Es claro que el crecimiento de la población, la extracción de materiales, la producción alimentaria y el incremento de energía para todas las actividades humanas nos conducen a un estado de colisión con las capacidades de la biosfera y los ecosistemas en el proceso de asegurar la provisión de bienes y servicios indispensables para la vida (1). La producción de energía convencional y contaminante es hoy una de las más graves en este escenario, tanto que la comunidad internacional y las potencias ya han empezado a dar muestras de preocupación por la seguridad energética y, con ello por la amenaza del cambio climático.En el actual cambio climático por primera vez se viene demostrando que la humanidad ha cambiado decisivamente un ciclo liberando CO2 a la atmósfera a través de la quema de combustibles fósiles y cambios en el uso del suelo por más de 500 000 años. El origen del cambio climático se remonta a dos grandes transformaciones en el uso de la energía. En primer lugar, la energía hidráulica fue reemplazada por el carbón, una fuente de energía condensada por la naturaleza a lo largo de millones de años. Fue el aprovechamiento del carbón para nuevas tecnologías lo que propulsó la revolución industrial y desató aumentos sin precedentes en la productividad. La segunda gran transformación ocurrió 150 años más tarde. El petróleo había sido una fuente de energía humana durante milenios. En China, por ejemplo, se registran pozos petroleros ya en el siglo IV. No obstante, la utilización del petróleo para los motores de combustión interna a comienzos del siglo XX marcó el inicio de una revolución en el transporte. La quema de carbón y petróleo, junto con el gas natural, ha transformado a las sociedades humanas al proveerle la energía impulsora de grandes aumentos en la riqueza y la productividad, pero también ha impulsado el cambio climático (2).La economía humana ha crecido vertiginosamente, se multiplicó más de 60 veces desde la revolución industrial a la fecha, y entre 2010 y 2050 se multiplicará por cuatro. ¿Cómo proveer la suficiente cantidad de energía para tal crecimiento económico sin continuar acrecentando las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero y por tanto el cambio climático?Las respuestas tecnológicas y las propuestas globales están a la vista, pero no hay suficiente voluntad política de los grandes tomadores de decisiones para aportar en su solución. Una propuesta importante es abandonar los combustibles fósiles (carbón, petróleo) como fuente principal de producción energética, y migrar lo más rápido posible hacia fuentes de energías renovables como la hidráulica, eólica, mareomotriz, geotérmica y sobre todo la energía solar (1). De esta forma, la reducción de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero se prevé que estaría adecuadamente encaminada. Complementariamente, hay necesidad de incrementar la eficiencia de las plantas generadoras, el aumento del uso de tecnologías de energía renovable, reforzado con un uso más eficiente de la energía en el transporte, los edificios y los distintos sectores industriales (3).Al fin y al cabo, debemos tener en cuenta que prácticamente toda la energía que tenemos disponible en el planeta proviene del Sol. Los combustibles fósiles son tales porque alguna vez fueron seres vivos que, en grandes cantidades, quedaron sepultados y por procesos geológicos de millones de años se transformaron en petróleo y carbón. Es decir, son productos de la fotosíntesis del pasado. Asimismo, las energías eólica e hidráulica son producto de energía solar más gravedad. Salvo la geotérmica y la atómica, todas las fuentes de energía en la Tierra tienen que ver con el Sol de alguna manera (1).El Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD) promueve diversas estrategias de bajo consumo de carbono, que van desde el apoyo en la transformación del mercado de electrodomésticos eficientes en materia de energía hasta la ayuda a los países para que eliminen las barreras de acceso al uso de energías renovables. También promueve una transición a largo plazo hacia formas de transporte con bajas emisiones de carbono y sostenibles.El potencial acumulado de calentamiento del planeta que se ha evitado como resultado de la labor del PNUD en materia de sustancias que agotan el ozono en todo el mundo, asciende a 24,5 millones de toneladas métricas de CO2 (4). La clave, entonces, es influir sobre la conducta de las instituciones y las personas y alentar las inversiones en empresas y actividades inocuas para el medio ambiente.La Unión Europea, asumiendo el liderazgo mundial en la lucha contra el cambio climático y a la vez en su afán de protegerse de energía ante eventuales crisis internacionales, ha emprendido como reto una gran reforma energética común, considerada histórica, con énfasis en la protección del medioambiente a través de la energía renovable. Sus líderes, en marzo de 2007, se comprometieron a alcanzar la estrategia energética, conocida como 20-20-20, hasta el año 2020. Esta estrategia implica el cumplimiento de tres grandes objetivos: 1) reducir 20% el consumo energético mediante una mayor eficiencia energética; 2) incrementar el uso de energías renovables hasta alcanzar 20% el consumo energético total, y 3) reducir en 20% las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero en relación con las emisiones de 1990.De acuerdo con las tendencias de consumo energético, todo parece indicar que el cambio climático es y será inevitable, y la Tierra continuará calentándose. Solo basta imaginar que de llegar el incremento del consumo energético al 83,7% hasta el año 2025, tal como está previsto desde 1990, el planeta recibirá el 76,4% más de CO2 en este lapso (5).Mientras más tardemos en asumir las decisiones y en modificar nuestros patrones dominantes de generación y uso de energía, más altos serán los costos por adaptación a un futuro que, previsiblemente, se nos anuncia lleno de impactos adversos. ; It is clear that the population growth, the extraction of materials, food production and increased energy needed for all human activities lead us to a state of collision with the capabilities of the biosphere and ecosystems in the process of ensuring the provision of goods and services essential for life (1). Production of conventional and clean energy is now one of the most serious issues in this scenario; both the international community and the world powers have begun to show signs of concern about energy security and the threat of climate change.The current climate change has demonstrated for the first time that humanity has decisively changed the atmosphere by releasing CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use over 500 000 years . The origin of climate change can be traced back to two great transformations in energy use. First, water power was replaced by coal, a source of energy condensed by nature over millions of years. The use of coal for new technologies propelled the industrial revolution and triggered unprecedented increases in productivity. The second great transformation happened 150 years later. Oil had been a source of human energy for millennia. In China, for example, oil wells are recorded as early as the fourth century. However, the use of oil for internal combustion engines in the early twentieth century marked the beginning of a revolution in transport. The burning of coal and oil, along with natural gas, is a transformation providing the driving energy for great increases in wealth and productivity. The downside is that it is a prime contributor to climate change (2).The human economy has grown rapidly, multiplied 60 times since the industrial revolution to date, and between 2010 and 2050 will be multiplied again by four. How to provide enough energy for such growth to continue without adding to emissions of greenhouse gases and therefore exacerbating climate change?Technological responses and global proposals are obvious, but there is not enough political impetus of the great decision makers to contribute to its solution. One important proposal is to leave behind the fossil fuels (coal, oil) as the main source of energy production, and migrate as quickly as possible to renewable energy sources such as hydro, wind, tidal, geothermal and especially solar energy (1). By doing this, the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases is expected to be properly directed. In addition, there is need to increase the efficiency of power plants, increase use of renewable energy technologies, reinforce with a more efficient use of energy in transportation, building and the different industrial sectors (3).At the end of the day, we must bear in mind that virtually all the energy we have available on the planet is from the sun. Fossil fuels are such because they were once living beings that, in large quantities, were buried by geological processes millions of years ago and were transformed gradually into oil and coal. Also, wind and hydro energy are solar energy and gravity products. Except for geothermal and nuclear energy, most sources of energy on Earth have to do with the sun in some way (1).The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) promotes various strategies for low-carbon, ranging from supporting the market transformation of efficient appliances energy to helping the countries to remove barriers to the access of renewable energy. It also promotes a long-term transition towards forms of sustainable and low-carbon transportation.The cumulative global warming potential has been avoided as a result of UNDP work on substances that deplete the ozone worldwide, amounting to 24,5 million metric tons of CO2 (4). The key, then, is to influence the behavior of institutions and people and encourage investment in businesses and activities which are innocuous on the environment.The European Union, taking global leadership in combating climate change and yet making an effort to provide energy to any international crisis, has undertaken the challenge of a common energy reform, historically considered, with emphasis on environmental protection through renewable energy. Its leaders, in March 2007, undertook to achieve an energy strategy, known as 20-20-20, 2020. This strategy involves the fulfillment of three major objectives: 1) to reduce energy consumption by 20 % through increased energy efficiency; 2) to increase the use of renewable energy up to 20 % of total energy consumption, and 3) to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in relation to 1990 emissions by 20 %.According to energy consumption trends, it appears that climate change is and will be inevitable, and the Earth will continue to warm. Just imagine that, to increase the energy consumption to 83,7 % until 2025, as planned since 1990, the planet will receive 76,4 % more CO2 during this period (5).The more we delay in making decisions and changing our dominant patterns of energy generation and use, the higher the costs of adaptation to a future that is expected to announce adverse impacts.

Climate change is the biggest problem that humanity has faced in recent decades, one of the main causes are the greenhouse gases (GHG). To mitigate it, it has been proposed and international agreement in Paris 2016, known as COP21 by several countries. On it, the Colombian government got engaged a 20% reduction on its GHG to achieve it they will focus on the energy sector and deforestation to zero in the Colombian Amazon. This article analyzes the implications and challenges of energy policies for GHG mitigation in Colombia related to opportunities in energy demand, electric power generation sources, smart grid systems, reduction on energy loss in transport, demand schemes and management of methane in carbon deposits. The main conclusion reached in this analysis is that in energy matters COP21 objectives will not be met, the strategies that the government has chosen are not well focused based on the emission source in the country, ve of the six strategies have not yet been legislated and much less implemented. Being in the second semester of 2020, the objectives will not be met this year or in the short term, the government opted for strategies that could not have been achieved

*Bayartsengel Damdinjav, Chuck Davis, Steven Jones, Zach Long, Claudia Risner, Sydney Sheppard, Christina Slentz Climate change is the global challenge of the twenty-first century, a threat that carries dire environmental, social, security, and economic implications for every region of the world. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the primary driver of climate change is the increase in greenhouse gas emissions attributed to human activities. Although climate change must be met with a comprehensive global response in order to effectively address the effects of harmful greenhouse gases (GHG), these efforts depend on the actions taking place within nations. The United States, the greatest per-capita emitter of GHG, and China, that produces the largest amount of GHG overall, bear a good deal of responsibility for the problem. The United States, in particular, with its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol and its inability to craft a viable climate change agenda, has failed to offer the leadership needed to secure meaningful reductions in GHG. This essay seeks to establish perspective by profiling the political, social, and economic circumstances within six nations (three advanced industrial countries and three newly modernizing countries) and the European Union (EU) in order to better understand the dynamics involved in achieving a global solution to climate change.Case Studies1.- European UnionThe European Union has led the push for climate change regulationsto curb emissions 30% by 2030 and 80%-95% by 2050. To reach that goal, it has invested significant funds targetting 20% of the EU budget from 2014-2020 towards climate related measures. The EU believes that climate change policies will not only preserve the planet for generations to come but will also create greater long-term health and economic benefits. This position can be attributed to the lack of politicization of climate change in the EU allowing politicians to advocate forward thinking policies without the constant fear of political or electoral retribution. Furthermore, the close proximity of EU member states and their relatively small size creates an "all in this together" mentality allowing them to harness their resources to compete with larger world powers.2.- United KingdomWidely acknowledged as one of the foremost countries addressing climate change, the United Kingdom moved definitively to establish a science-based framework for approaching this global phenomenon even prior to the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. This de-politicizing effort is revealed in the staunch support of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher, whose instrumental leadership set this critical tone and aided in the formation of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990, and Tony Blair, who seized his 2005 G-8 presidential term as an opportunity to promote the reduction of GHG through mitigation technologies, sustainable energy, and adaptation strategies. The UK has fostered domestic integration of climate and energy policies to reduce ill effects at home as well as international cooperation in the form of a post-Kyoto strategy and the ongoing European Union's Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), designed to blend climate change collaborative goals of equity distribution and cost effectiveness.3.- CanadaCanada's efforts to address climate change can be best described as leaping forward, stepping back and, finally, standing in place. An original early proponent for mitigation since 1975, under the Chrétien administration in the 1990s, the country committed to relatively aggressive reductions - - a 30% decrease over projected 2010 emissions - - as part of the Kyoto Protocol. However, a clear implementation plan proved elusive until 2005, at which time "Project Green" successfully established meaningful initiatives. Although temporarily rolled back the following year under the more business-friendly Harper administration, a brief surge in climate change public awareness subsequently forced the return of some mitigation initiatives. Currently, climate change policy stagnation is largely explained by prioritizing economic growth over environmental concernsparticularly in the wake of the 2008 Credit Crisis.It is further complicated by Canada's neighbor to the south - - the administration of President Barack Obama who supports addressing GHG emissions and a clean energy future.4.- AustraliaAustralia's international position on climate change reflects its domestic policy agenda. For the first 10-years of the Kyoto Protocol, 1997-2007, Australia was a climate change laggard based on both its refusal to ratify the agreement and its largely symbolic GHG reduction policies. In 2007, Australia ratified the Protocol and implemented stringent abatement policies but is now reversing course. What caused the shifts Down Under? Two domestic factors, electoral interests and political leadership, are most influential. Compared to economic growth, voters' prioritization of environmental issues rose until 2007 and then declined. The political leadership within the Coalition government (1996-2007, reelected in 2013) favors business and the fossil fuel industry, and is skeptical of climate change. This stands in contrast to the Labor Party (2007-2013) that favors GHG emissions reductions. So, although Australia has committed internationally to a 5% reduction of 2000 level emissions by 2020, it still lacks a consistent domestic policy to achieve this goal. Russia Russia experienced massive industrial decline in the immediate aftermath of the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991. Despite the fact that there has been a significant reduction of GHG emissions, Russia still ranks third on the list of the largest greenhouse gas emitters in the world. Problems caused by climate change in recent decades include public health risks, increased recurrence, intensity and duration of droughts in some regions, extreme precipitation patterns, floods, and over-moisturized soil and permafrost degradation in the northern regions. However, the climate change issue does not constitute a priority for Russian authorities. Several internal factors, such as a well-rooted skepticism within the Russian scientific community towards anthropogenic global warming, low environmental awareness among Russian citizens, and the priority given to the country's economic restoration, suggests that Russian climate policy is to a great extent being driven by the pursuit of benefits in areas other than that of environmental policy.ChinaOne of the best ways to summarize China's approach to climate change is via a domestic politics model. Decisionmakers involved in China's climate change policy belong to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and there is little or no foreign influence over them. Among these decision makers, the most influential have managed to frame the issue as one of sovereignty and economic development. These hardliners see climate change as an issue that threatens China's sovereignty and its right to develop economically. As such, it has taken a stance of not joining any multilateral agreement until the U.S. does so. Thus, China's right to develop economically is assured. Domestically, China has made progress developing solar and wind technology for domestic use and for foreign markets. However, it continues to use fossil fuels, especially coal,to ensure that it develops along the lines deemed acceptable to the CCP.IndiaIndia's position on climate change is guided by two priorities - - namely, sustainable development and the elimination of poverty. With a growing economy that demands more energy for growth, there are hundreds of millions of people without access to electricity in India. Energy use and consequently greenhouse gas emissions will grow substantially in the coming decades. As a modernizing country, India is not bound to any GHG emission reduction goals under the Kyoto Protocol. However, it has established a National Action Plan on Climate Change and implemented a combination of mitigation and adaptation policies to reduce the country's contributions to climate change. These policies include energy conservation, promotion of renewable energy, abatement of air pollution among others. While India's development will require growth in energy use, the country must work to reduce the energy intensity of its production processes.Comparative AnalysisOn the basis of political, economic and social factors, a comparative analysis of the case studies reveals three key groupings: supporters of international climate change policy that involves implementing significant carbon mitigation reduction requirements; fickle hesitators who, if cooperative, face major reduction requirements; and unburdened supporters who face little-to-no mitigation requirements. The EU and the UK, as a climate change leader, fall into the first category, politically defined as highly democratic and economically and regionally integrated. The EU and the UK have softened views on sovereignty, have historically utilized the market for political/social ends, and normatively seek international cooperation as a means of reducing risk.For Canada and Australia,reduced support for international action on climate change is largely based on modern era socio-political attitudes and a perceived threat to their economic viability. Stemming from strong political views on state sovereignty, they are historically less likely to cooperate on international initiatives and, unlike the economically integrated EU and UK, are not willing to constrain markets in the name of political or social ends. These nations traditionally prefer individualistic as opposed to collective responses to major issues and consequently see cooperative action as risky.The newly modernizing countries of China, India and Russia exhibit different degrees of democracy and are not economically integrated nor fully industrialized. While highly centralized political authority is helpful in making international level commitments, enforcement capacity is hindered domestically. Willingness to cooperate is generally conditional upon gaining financial assistance and technical support needed for development. For China and Russia, the first priority is maintaining state authority and social well-being for the sake of stability. Environmental policy is put forward only when these priorities are not threatened. For India, the focus centers on lifting its population out of poverty that takes precedence over international climate change cooperation.ConclusionOverall, countries willing to cooperate internationally and make sacrifices to mitigate the causes of climate change perceive a lower economic and political threat for doing so than countries that refuse. In fact, the supporters of international climate change policy are more likely to view global warming as an all-encompassing economic, political, and social threat rather than as a discrete environmental threat. Having said this, they also see potential opportunities in assuming the role of early adaptors to climate change.Countries reluctant to support international cooperation face domestic political barriers that the comparative analysis above indicates is due primarily to economic perceptions and viability. Some countries that have rejected a commitment to international cooperation have, in fact, implemented national or sub-state abatement policies. At the same time, others ignore the threat entirely.In short, differences in behavior toward climate change indicates that not all countries perceive the threat the same. The task for climate change leaders, therefore, is to maintain their resolve to educate global populations such that perceptions of economic risk become less significant than perceptions of climate change risk. At the same time, they must offer best practices of reducing compliance costs and sharing knowledgeto build a clean energy agenda in order to ensure a sustainable global solution to climate change. *Students in the Graduate Program in International StudiesOld Dominion University, USAUnder the Direction of Professor Glen Sussman

Caribbean economies, lifestyles, activities, practices and operational cycles are intricately linked to climate, making them vulnerable to its variations and/or changes. As examples, climate extremes impact agriculture, fisheries, health, tourism, water availability, recreation, and energy usage, among other things. There is however limited incorporation of climate information in the long term developmental plans and policies of the region. This is in part due to a knowledge deficit about climate change, it's likely manifestation in the region and the possible impact on Caribbean societies. In this paper, a review of the growing bank of knowledge about Caribbean climate science; variability and change is undertaken. Insight is offered into the basic science of climate change, past trends and future projections for Caribbean climate, and the possible implications for the region. In the end a case is made for a greater response to the threats posed by climate change on the basis of the sufficiency of our current knowledge of Caribbean climate science. A general profile of what the response may look like is also offered. ; Las economías de los países caribeños, los estilos de vida, las actividades, y las prácticas y ciclos operativos están íntimamente ligados al clima, por lo que estas sociedades son vulnerables a los cambios y/o las variaciones del mismo. Los extremos climáticos afectan la agricultura, pesca, salud, turismo, disponibilidad de agua, recreación, uso de energía, para sólo mencionar algunos ejemplos. Sin embargo, no se incorpora mucha información acerca del clima en los planes de desarrollo a largo plazo ni en el desarrollo de políticas públicas de la región. Esto se debe en parte a un desconocimiento acerca del cambio climático, su manifestación probable en la región y su posible impacto en las sociedades caribeñas. Este artículo presenta una revisión del creciente banco de conocimiento sobre la ciencia climática caribeña; sus cambios y variabilidad. Se ofrece una breve descripción de los fundamentos de la ciencia que estudia el cambio climático, las tendenciaspasadas y las proyecciones futuras para el clima en el Caribe, así como los posibles impactos para la región. Al final se aboga por que haya una mayor respuesta a las amenazas que representan los cambios climáticos entendiendo que la ciencia climática caribeña cuenta con suficiente información actualizada. Además, se presenta un perfil general de cómo podría ser tal respuesta. ; Les économies des pays caribéens, les modes de vie, les activités, les pratiques et les cycles opérationnels sont intimement liés au climat, à cause de la vulnérabilité de ces sociétés face aux changements climatiques et/ou aux variations de ces deniers. Les extrêmes climatiques affectent l'agriculture, la pêche, la santé, le tourisme, l'approvisionnement en eau, la consommation d'énergie, pour ne citer que quelques exemples. Cependant, peu d'importance est accordé au climat dans les plans de développement à long terme, ni dans le développement des politiques publiques de la région. Ceci est dû en partie à un manque de connaissance sur le changement climatique, sa probable manifestation dans la région et son possible impact dans les sociétés caribéennes. Cet article présente une vue d'ensemble de la croissante banque de connaissances sur la science du climat caribéen ; ses changements et ses variabilités. On propose une brève description des éléments fondamentaux de la science qui étudie le changement climatique, les tendances passées et les projections futures pour le climat dans la Caraïbe, ainsi que les menaces que représentent les changements climatiques, tout en considérant que tenant compte la science climatique caribéenne dispose suffisamment de données récentes. En outre, on présente un aperçu général de la façon dont le problème climatique pourrait être abordé.

The link between hunger and climate change is already known and is not new in the literature, especially if we take into account only the national level and trade related. The intense land use to produce just one cultivation, the burning and deforestation methods applied to clear the soil and to make the crops rotations, which damage the mineral resources and displace animals from their habitats, jointly with the intense use of pesticides and transgenic technology in the agriculture, such as in soy and corn cultures, are related to the increase of hunger in the world because hunger is not only about production, but also consumption (income of people and quality of food choices) and distribution (food waste and poor people access to food), and the way the soil is managed is crucial for the production of nutritious quality food. However, an underexplored approach has great potential to provide important elements in the search for a sustainable and lasting solution to those issues. This approach is the concept of food sovereignty. The concept of food sovereignty includes production and consumption in local level, but aiming the collective well-being, through using sustainable techniques to produce food (natural fertilizers, adequate planting and collection cycles for each type of food, no use of artificial pesticides and adequate soil management without deforesting, polluting or burning areas), prioritizing family farming and the supply of more nutritious and quality food. This concept addresses some possible solutions to two of the most bother issues in the present time in a multi-level analysis to counter economic and political marginalization. Food sovereignty practices would lead us to end, or at least reduce, the hunger situations and the problems related to climate changes as long as we improve our food systems to efficient, but also more human ones. El vínculo entre el hambre y el cambio climático ya es conocido y no es nuevo en la literatura, especialmente si lo tenemos en cuenta solo a nivel nacional y el comercio relacionado. El uso intensivo de la tierra para producir un solo cultivo, los métodos de quema y deforestación aplicados para limpiar el suelo y hacer rotaciones de cultivos, que dañan los recursos minerales y desplazan animales de sus habitats, sumado al intenso uso de pesticidas y tecnología transgénica en la agricultura, como en los cultivos de soja y maíz, están relacionados con el aumento del hambre en el mundo, porque el hambre no es solo producción, sino también consumo (ingresos de las personas y calidad de la variedad de alimentos) y distribución (alimentos desperdiciados y acceso de la gente pobre a los alimentos), y la forma en que se maneja el suelo es crucial para la producción de alimentos nutritivos de calidad. Sin embargo, un enfoque poco explorado tiene un gran potencial para proporcionar elementos importantes en la búsqueda de una solución sostenible y duradera para esos problemas. Este enfoque está en el concepto de soberanía alimentaria. El concepto de soberanía alimentaria incluye la producción y el consumo a nivel local, pero teniendo como objetivo el bienestar colectivo, mediante el uso de técnicas sostenibles de producción de alimentos (fertilizantes naturales, ciclos adecuados de siembra y recolección para cada tipo de alimento, no usar pesticidas artificiales y un adecuado uso del suelo sin deforestación, contaminación o quema de áreas), priorizando la agricultura familiar y el suministro de comida más nutritiva y de mayor calidad. Este concepto aborda algunas posibles soluciones a dos de los problemas más problemáticos en el presente en un análisis a varios niveles para contrarrestar la marginación económica y política. Las prácticas de soberanía alimentaria nos conduciría a ponerle fin, o al menos reducir, las situaciones de hambre y los problemas relacionados con el cambio climático siempre y cuando mejoremos nuestros sistemas alimentarios para que sean más eficientes, pero también más humanos ; The link between hunger and climate change is already known and is not new in the literature, especially if we take into account only the national level and trade related. The intense land use to produce just one cultivation, the burning and deforestation methods applied to clear the soil and to make the crops rotations, which damage the mineral resources and displace animals from their habitats, jointly with the intense use of pesticides and transgenic technology in the agriculture, such as in soy and corn cultures, are related to the increase of hunger in the world because hunger is not only about production, but also consumption (income of people and quality of food choices) and distribution (food waste and poor people access to food), and the way the soil is managed is crucial for the production of nutritious quality food. However, an underexplored approach has great potential to provide important elements in the search for a sustainable and lasting solution to those issues. This approach is the concept of food sovereignty. The concept of food sovereignty includes production and consumption in local level, but aiming the collective well-being, through using sustainable techniques to produce food (natural fertilizers, adequate planting and collection cycles for each type of food, no use of artificial pesticides and adequate soil management without deforesting, polluting or burning areas), prioritizing family farming and the supply of more nutritious and quality food. This concept addresses some possible solutions to two of the most bother issues in the present time in a multi-level analysis to counter economic and political marginalization. Food sovereignty practices would lead us to end, or at least reduce, the hunger situations and the problems related to climate changes as long as we improve our food systems to efficient, but also more human ones.

Climate change has become a major concern for theinternational community. Among its consequences, its impact onmigration is the object of increasing attention from both policymakersand researchers. Yet, knowledge in this fi eld remains limitedand fragmented. This paper therefore provides an overview of theclimate change – migration nexus: on the basis of available empiricalfi ndings, it investigates the key issues at stake, including the social andpolitical context in which the topic emerged; states' policy responsesand the views of different institutional actors; critical perspectiveson the actual relationship between the environment and (forced)migration; the concepts and notions most adequate to address thisrelationship; gender and human rights implications; as well asinternational law and policy orientations. Two major interconnectedarguments arise. The fi rst regards the weight of environmental andclimatic factors in migration and their relationship to other pushor pull factors, whether of social, political or economic nature. Thesecond is about the political framework in which such migrationfl ows should take place and the manner in which to treat the peoplewho move in connection with environmental factors. The two issuesare deeply intertwined, as the extent to which the environmentdetermines migration is intimately connected to the status to beassociated with the people concerned. ; El cambio climático se ha convertido en una preocupación fundamental para la comunidad internacional. Entre otras consecuencias, su influencia en la migración es objeto de una creciente atención tanto de los encargados de formular políticas como de los investigadores. Sin embargo, el conocimiento en este campo es aún limitado y fragmentario. Por ello en el siguiente estudio sepresenta un panorama general del nexo entre cambio climático y migración. Sobre la base de las conclusiones empíricas disponibles, en él se estudian los aspectos clave de la cuestión, comprendido el contexto político y social en que surgió el tema; las respuestas de políticas de los Estados y los pareceres de los diferentes actores institucionales;las perspectivas críticas sobre la relación efectiva entre el medio ambiente y la migración (forzada); los conceptos y nociones más adecuados para tratar esta relación; las implicaciones encuanto a los derechos humanos y al género; así como el derecho internacional y las orientaciones de las políticas. Surgen aquí dos debates relacionados entre sí: el primero atañe al peso de los factores ambientales y climáticos en la migración y su relación con otrosfactores que pueden estimular la migración o desalentarla, ya sean de naturaleza social, política o económica. El segundo se refiere al marco normativo en el que debería darse tal fl ujo de migración y elmodo en que se debe tratar a las personas que se trasladan debidoa factores ambientales. Ambos asuntos están íntimamente entrelazados;en efecto, la medida en que el medio ambiente determinala migración está estrechamente vinculada a la manera en que se considera a la población afectada.

Media attention on climate change (cc) in developing countries is crucial for understanding the discourses that exist in vulnerable zones. Past research has focused on printed media coverage of cc in western developed countries, but there is little knowledge on online media in developing countries. Using framing theory framework, this study analyses the way in which spanish-speaking online media frames news about cc. We carried out a quantitative content analysis of 889 news items from 97 online media outlets that published news about cc during cop16 (Cancun-2010) and cop17 (Durban-2011). Findings show that the principal sources are politicians and almost half of the news items came from news wire services. The analysis also indicated an association between the quoted source and the news frame. It is discussed that there exists a 'nationalistic domestication' and that media coverage does not respond to local needs. Further qualitative and comparative analyses are suggested

The building sector, as a major energy consumer with high direct and indirect CO2 emissions, plays a vital role in the fight against climate change. In order to make buildings more comfortable, functional, efficient and safe, building services are used. Therefore, building services are the key to decrease their contribution to climate change. Due to the lack of organized literature on this topic, this paper presents the first comprehensive assessment of trends in the literature on building services related to climate change, which was completed by conducting a bibliometric analysis of the existing literature on the topic. The ultimate goal is to provide a source where researchers and other interested parties can find this information in an organized manner. Results show that the most abundant and recent studies related to building services are based on improving energy efficiency by optimizing systems such as ventilation or lighting, the latter with the installation of LED lights. In addition, recent studies have focused on social factors such as housing and urban growth. ; Funding: This research was partially funded by the Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades de España (RTI2018-093849-B-C31—MCIU/AEI/FEDER, UE) and by the Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades—Agencia Estatal de Investigación (AEI) (RED2018-102431-T). Data Availability Statement: Data are available upon request to the corresponding author. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Catalan Government for the quality accreditation given to their research group GREiA (2017 SGR 1537). GREiA is a certified agent TECNIO in the category of technology developers from the Government of Catalonia. This work is partially supported by ICREA under the ICREA Academia programme.

Why should the global community be concerned about climate change? What are the consequences of climate change? How has the clash between science and politics in the United States affected the policy debate about climate change around the world? Why has the United States failed to offer leadership on climate change? What can be done to craft a viable climate change agenda? These questions will guide the discussion below.Why should the global community be concerned about climate change?Climate change is one of the most important policy issues of the twenty-first century. It has potentially devastating consequences for the global environment. It is a transnational challenge that has social, political, and economic implications for the entire international community. During the first ten years of the twenty-first century, we have experienced the warmest years in modern climate history. This same decade has been characterized as one of the warmest on record. Although the scientific community has raised serious concerns about climate change, this global environmental phenomenon has not received the same kind of responsesuch as aPearl Harbor in 1941 or a 9/11 in New York City in 2001 that rallied U.S. citizens and the U.S. government to action.The political conflict over climate change within and between countries, especially in the United States, has demonstrated three important aspects about this issue. First, it shows how the clash between science and politics delays action. Second, it demonstrates how ideology and entrenched economic interests can trump the research findings of the scientific community. Third, it makes clear that rather than offering leadership, the U.S. has assumed the role of a laggard on the issue of climate change.What are the consequences of climate change? We are beyond the point of framing the issue of climate change as a "debate." There is no debate. As we have learned from the scientific community as reflected by the research of the Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change in its 4th (2007) and 5th (2013) reports, climate change is occurring and human activities are a major contributor to the problem, especially the burning of fossil fuels. Global reinsurance companies including Munich Re, Swiss Re, and Lloyds of London have raised serious concerns about the prospects of a warming planet and the impact on the global insurance industry. In the United States, for instance, the consequences of climate change is forcing domestic insurance companies including MetLife, State Farm, Allstate, and American International Group to reconsider their coverage of commercial and residential properties in coastal zones. To be candid and frank, global and nationally-based insurance companies are well aware of the impact of human-induced climate change. A sample of the consequences of climate change can be described as follows.First, carbon dioxide, one of the primary greenhouse gases associated with climate change, has been absorbed into the atmosphere, terrestrial areas, and the oceans. The oceans, in particular, face a serious threat in terms of marine life, the fishing industry, coral reefs, and increased acidification. Second, with the melting of the polar caps, a warming planet is already resulting in rising seas around the globe. For instance, the states on the East and Gulf coasts of the United States are being challenged to establish viable adaption strategies to address rising seas. At the same time, some coastal areas are dealing with the twin threats of rising seas and sinking lands (i.e., subsidence). Moreover, sea level rise is not consistent around the globe, but rather, it is characterized by its variation. In other words, we see differential impacts facing some coastal areas (e.g., Bangladesh) compared to other coastal regions. Third, a warming planet and especially warmer seas will create an environment of more ferocious hurricanes. For instance, scientists at the 2007 International Summit on Global Warming, Climate Change, and Hurricanes were less concerned about the frequency of hurricanes and were increasingly concerned about the destructiveness of Katrina-like tropical cyclones around the globe. Fourth, an increasingly important aspect of this global environmental phenomenon is the impact of climate change on public health. One aspect of this concern involves an increase in water-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever due to the warming of the planet.How has the clash between science and politics in the United States affected the policy debate about climate change?The political response of the U.S. to climate change has been influenced bythe conflict taking place between the scientific community and a variety of partisans within the country.On the one hand, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, from the Pew Center for Global Climate Change to the Environmental Protection Agency, from the World Meteorological Organization to the vast majority of climate scientists, we have learned that this global environmental phenomenon is clearly due to human actions. On the other hand, a variety of individuals and groups including members of the U.S. Congressto media celebritiesto organized interests (e.g., the fossil fuel industry) have been successful in opposing U.S. action on climate change. For instance, James Inhofe, Republican Senator representing the state of Oklahoma has been at the forefront of opposing federal and state actions in response to climate change. As a matter of fact, where Inhofe went so far as to say that climate change is the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public,"conservative radio show host, Rush Limbaugh, stated that the "anti-global warmers have to go out there and get their own science to counter the science that the pro-global warming crowd is using, and they're making it up." In short, the clash between science and politics in the U.S. over climate change clearly shows the power of entrenched domestic interests and their impact on policy making.During the 1990s, a variety of industries including fossil fuels, automotive, manufacturing among others created the Global Climate Coalition to oppose efforts to respond to climate change.This coalition eventually collapsed as various industries withdrew from it. Another example of opposition to action on climate change is the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that published articles in opposition to federal action on climate change. It is important to note that underlying the actions of deniers of human-induced climate change has been their position that government regulations imposed on business and industry would be harmful to U.S. jobs and trade competitiveness. The veracity of this concern, however, has yet to be realized. Moreover, this argument set forth by the deniers overlooks the growth in green jobs and the benefits of a clean energy agenda.Why has the United States failed to offer leadership on climate change? Until recently, the United States was the number one producer of the greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. Notwithstanding China's recent emergence as the largest producer of greenhouse gases, the U.S. remains a key player in greenhouse gas production and it remains a laggard in taking action to reduce greenhouse gases. We now turn our attention to the role of five key players in the U.S. political system.As far as modern U.S. presidents are concerned, where Ronald Reagan ignored the issue of climate change during the 1980s leading up to the Earth Summit in 1992, George H. W. Bush, facing pressure at home, opposed mandatory guidelines and timetables that emerged from the Earth Summit and used his influence to change the requirements to voluntary efforts on the part of industry. Having said this, the fact that Bush signed the climate change treaty lent legitimacy to the issue. Bill Clinton and his environmental Vice President Al Gore attempted to push a climate change agenda but ran into strong opposition from the U.S. Congress. Two months into his presidency, George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol arguing that it would hurt the U.S. economy and jobs.The U.S. Congress has been a major obstacle in responding to climate change.During the 1990s until the present time, Congressional Republicans held a majority during the administrations of Clinton and Bush, the son, and have controlled the House of Representatives during the Obama administration. Congressional Republicans, along with Democrats representing energy-intensive states, have opposed action on climate change.In a move that surprised many observers of American politics, the Supreme Court,the highest court in the U.S.,ruled in 2007 that the Environmental Protection Action, under the authority of the Clean Air Act, had a responsibility to regulate greenhouse gas emissions to protect public health and the environment. However, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has usedits resources to thwart action on the part of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.One aspect of American politics that has offered hope for a clean energy future has been the importance of federalism where a growing number of states have taken actions alone and in concert with other states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.Moreover, several coalitions of U.S. states have joined with Canadian provinces in these efforts. In short, numerous states in the U.S. are taking action in response to climate change because of the failure of the U.S. federal government to act.What can be done to craft a viable climate change agenda? Climate change is a transnational, environmental problem that poses serious challenges to the entire international community. The U.S. must join with the developed countries of the EU in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and work on viable adaption strategies. However, the U.S. will first have to deal with domestic forces at home (e.g., entrenched economic interests and ideological opponents) that exercise power in opposition to federal action on climate change. At the same time, incentives will have to be employed in order to encourage newly modernizing nations (e.g., China, India, Brazil among others) to join with the U.S. and members of the EU to work together to establish a clean energy future. Sobre el autorProfessor of Political ScienceOld Dominion UniversityNorfolk, Virginia USA

El Cambio Climático definido como el conjunto de cambios que está experimentando el clima mundial, se ha constituido en uno de los problemas ambientales de nuestra época, por los efectos que produce y el daño a los ecosistemas. Se realizó una investigación documental, para exponer el problema del cambio climático y sistematizar los aportes de diversas publicaciones en materia de políticas públicas para enfrentarlo. Los resultados encontrados son los siguientes: la respuesta política internacional al cambio climático se inició en 1992 con la adopción de la convención marco de Naciones Unidas. Las políticas diseñadas apuntan a mejorar la capacidad de adaptación a los impactos generados por el cambio climático, promover la reducción de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, promover la generación de investigación para toma de decisiones basada en evidencias, protección del ambiente, mejorar la eficiencia energética, divulgar el problema y concientizar a la población. Se concluye que existe un fortalecimiento en la legislación internacional pero a pesar de los esfuerzos realizados y los acuerdos firmados, persisten problemas, tanto en los países industrializados como en los países en vías de desarrollo, para llevar a cabo los compromisos y acuerdos suscritos. ; Climate change is defined as the set of changes that is experiencing global climate, and has become one of the environmental problems of our era (currently), due to the effects produced in the damage of the ecosystems. A Documental Investigation was performed, to expose the climate change problem and systemized the contributions of diverse publications on public policies to face it. The results found are: the international policy proposal the climate change began in 1992 with the adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention. The policies designed aim to improve the capacity of adjustments to the impact of climate changes, promote the generation of research for decision making based on evidence, environment protection, improve the energy efficiency, to divulge the problem and raise awareness on the population. It is concluded that there is a strengthening in the international legislation but despite the efforts and the agreement signed, problems persists in the industrialized and developing countries, to carry out commitments and agreements. ; 115-120 ; marjodos@gmail.com