Refine
Year of Publication
Document Type
- Peer-Reviewed Article (254) (remove)
Division
- Energie-, Verkehrs- und Klimapolitik (254) (remove)
Japan
(2008)
What is the significance of the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali? The formal outcomes, especially the "Bali Action Plan", are described and commented on, along with the challenges for negotiating a post-2012 agreement in Copenhagen during 2008 and 2009. The article concludes that the outcome of the Bali meeting is insufficient when compared to the nature of the challenge posed by climate change. However, it can nevertheless be considered a success in terms of "Realpolitik" in paving the way for the negotiations ahead, because some real changes have been discerned in the political landscape. The challenges for the road towards Copenhagen are manifold: the sheer volume and complexity of the issues and the far-reaching nature of decisions such as differentiation between non-Annex I countries pose significant challenges in themselves, while the dependency on the electoral process in the USA introduces a high element of risk into the whole process. The emergence of social justice as an issue turns climate policy into an endeavour to improve the world at large - thereby adding to the complexity. And, finally, the biggest challenge is the recognition that the climate problem requires a global solution, that Annex I and non-Annex I countries are mutually dependent on each other and that only cooperation regarding technology in combination with significant financial support will provide the chance to successfully tackle climate change.
In this study, the relevance of psychological variables as predictors of the ecological impact of mobility behavior was investigated in relation to infrastructural and sociodemographic variables. The database consisted of a survey of 1991 inhabitants of three large German cities. In standardized interviews attitudinal factors based on the theory of planned behavior, further mobility-related attitude dimensions, sociodemographic and infrastructural characteristics as well as mobility behavior were measured. Based on the behavior measurement the ecological impact of mobility behavior was individually assessed for all participants of the study. In a regression analysis with ecological impact as dependent variable, sociodemographic and psychological variables were the strongest predictors, whereas infrastructural variables were of minor relevance. This result puts findings of other environmental studies into question which indicate that psychological variables only influence intent-oriented behavior, whereas impact-oriented behavior is mainly determined by sociodemographic and household variables. The design of effective intervention programs to reduce the ecological impact of mobility behavior requires knowledge about the determinants of mobility-related ecological impact, which are primarily the use of private motorized modes and the traveled distances. Separate regression analyses for these two variables provided detailed information about starting points to reduce the ecological impact of mobility behavior.
The Russian natural gas industry is the world's largest producer and transporter of natural gas. This paper aims to characterize the methane emissions from Russian natural gas transmission operations, to explain projects to reduce these emissions, and to characterize the role of emissions reduction within the context of current GHG policy. It draws on the most recent independent measurements at all parts of the Russian long distance transport system made by the Wuppertal Institute in 2003 and combines these results with the findings from the US Natural Gas STAR Program on GHG mitigation options and economics.
With this background the paper concludes that the methane emissions from the Russian natural gas long distance network are approximately 0.6% of the natural gas delivered. Mitigating these emissions can create new revenue streams for the operator in the form of reduced costs, increased gas throughput and sales, and earned carbon credits. Specific emissions sources that have cost-effective mitigation solutions are also opportunities for outside investment for the Joint Implementation Kyoto Protocol flexibility mechanism or other carbon markets.
The United Nations climate change conference in Nairobi came at the end of a year where public awareness of climate change had reached unprecedented heights. Nonetheless, the conference proceeded with its usual diplomatic ritual, apparently unaffected by time pressure. While it did see some progress on important issues for developing countries such as the Adaptation Fund, the Nairobi Work Programme on Impacts, Vulnerability, and Adaptation to Climate Change, and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), on questions regarding the future of the regime it proved to be at best a confidence-building session that served to hear further views. More serious work on the future of the regime must therefore be expected of the next Conferences of the Parties.
This article by Wolfgang Sterk, Hermann E. Ott, Rie Watanabe and Bettina Wittneben summarises the results of the conference.
Grave concerns with the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) have increasingly surfaced in the international climate policy arena. The sectoral approaches described in this paper may be a way to address some of the shortcomings of this Kyoto mechanism. The paper outlines the criticisms that have been raised against the CDM as well as the conflicting interpretations of a sectoral approach and examines in how far it might resolve the mechanism’s perceived shortcomings. Furthermore, it outlines issues that need to be resolved when implementing a sectoral approach: distributing costs and benefits, defining the sector and its baseline, ensuring additionality and tackling procedural issues. A sectoral approach can enable countries to guide their structural development but it also opens up a gap between public and private investment that needs to be addressed before conflicts arise. Sectoral CDM activities may be able to lower transaction costs for projects that otherwise cannot compete in the CDM market and might even pave the way to sectoral greenhouse gas limitation targets in developing countries by establishing the necessary infrastructure for data collection. However, a sectoral CDM cannot be mistaken for a panacea. Some of the mechanism's problems remain, which highlights the need to establish additional instruments to support Southern countries in furthering sustainable development and embarking on a low-emission trajectory.
In the long term, any definition of adequacy consistent with UNFCCC Article 2 will require increased mitigation efforts from almost all countries. Therefore, an expansion of emission limitation commitments will form a central element of any future architecture of the climate regime. This expansion has two elements: deepening of quantitative commitments for Annex B countries and the adoption of commitments for those countries outside of the current limitation regime. This article seeks to provide a more analytical basis for further differentiation among non-Annex I countries. To be both fair and reflective of national circumstances, it is based on the criteria of responsibility, capability and potential to mitigate. Altogether, non-Annex I countries were differentiated in four groups, each including countries with similar national circumstances: newly industrialized countries (NICs), rapidly industrializing countries (RIDCs), ‘other developing countries’, and least developed countries (LDCs). Based on the same criteria that were used for differentiating among non-Annex I countries, a set of decision rules was developed to assign mitigation and financial transfer commitments to each group of countries (including Annex I countries). Applying these decision rules results in (strict) reduction commitments for Annex I countries, but also implies quantifiable mitigation obligations for NICs and RIDCs, assisted by financial transfers from the North. Other developing countries are obliged to take qualitative commitments, but quantifiable mitigation commitments for these countries and the LDC group would be not justifiable. As national circumstances in countries evolve over time, the composition of the groups will change according to agreed triggers.