Refine
Year of Publication
- 2009 (12) (remove)
Document Type
- Peer-Reviewed Article (6)
- Report (3)
- Working Paper (2)
- Contribution to Periodical (1)
Language
- English (12) (remove)
Division
Also in the global South, transport already significantly contributes to climate change and has high growth rates. Further rapid motorisation of countries in Asia and Latin America could counteract any climate efforts and aggravate problems of noxious emissions, noise and congestion.
This Paper aims at connecting the need for transport actions in developing countries to the international negotiations on a post-2012 climate change agreement. It outlines the decisions to be taken in Copenhagen and the preparations to adequately implement these decisions from 2013. Arguing, that a sustainable transport approach needs to set up comprehensive policy packages, the paper assesses the substance of current climate negotiations against the fit to sustainable transport. It concludes that the transport sector's importance should be highlighted and a significant contribution to mitigation efforts required.
Combining the two perspectives lead to several concrete suggestions: Existing elements of the carbon market should be improved (e.g. discounting), but an upscale of the carbon market would not be an appropriate solution. Due to a lack of additionality, offsetting industrialised countries' targets would finally undermine the overall success of the climate agreement. Instead, a mitigation fund should be established under the UNFCCC and financed by industrialised countries. This fund should explicitly enable developing countries to implement national sustainable development transport and mobility policies as well as local projects. While industrialized countries would set up target achievement plans, developing countries should outline low carbon development strategies, including a section on transport policy.
Towards an effective and equitable climate change agreement : a Wuppertal proposal for Copenhagen
(2009)
This paper presents comprehensive proposals for the post-2012 climate regime: the scale of the challenge, emission targets for industrialised countries, increased actions by Southern countries, financing, technology, adaptation and deforestation. The proposals are based on ongoing research by the Wuppertal Institute.
Pit stop Poznan : an analysis of negotiations on the Bali action plan at the stopover to Copenhagen
(2009)
This paper analyzes the international climate negotiations that took place at the 14th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP) and the 4th Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) held in Poznan, December 1–12, 2008. It works out the main issues at stake in the negotiations, contrasts divergences in interests amongst negotiating Parties, and summarizes the main results achieved in Poznan. Furthermore, it contextualizes the Poznan negotiations within the broader political and economic context, which has shaped climate policy making throughout 2008. The paper ends with an outlook on the tasks ahead in 2009, until the next COP/CMP in December 2009 in Copenhagen.
The barriers to linking greenhouse gas cap-and-trade schemes are assessed, based on an analysis of existing and emerging trading schemes, including those in the USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the EU. The feasibility of different forms of linking and the time frames for their implementation are examined. In particular, the barriers to direct bilateral linking are considered. It was found that only a few direct bilateral links will be viable in the short term, due to the divergent policy priorities of different nations and regions, reflected in critical design features, such as costcontainment measures. However, in the short term, cap-and-trade markets will very likely be indirectly linked via unilateral links to the CDM or new crediting mechanisms, which may be adopted within a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. In order to ensure a harmonization of critical design elements in the mid to long term, early institutional cooperation may become necessary. Necessary policy steps and the appropriate institutional framework for such harmonization and, overtime, further integration of trading schemes are briefly delineated.
While the number of projects under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is expanding rapidly, there currently are relatively few transport projects in the global CDM portfolio. This article examines existing CDM transport projects and explores whether sectoral approaches to the CDM may provide a better framework for transport than the current project‐based CDM. We ask: Would a sectoral approach to the CDM promote the structural change and integrated policymaking needed to achieve sustainable transport policy, making it hence more desirable than the framework of the current project‐based CDM? We conclude that it is possible to design sectoral transport activities within clear project boundaries that fit into a framework of a programmatic or policy‐based CDM. Although we are able to ascertain that transport policy research yields several modelling tools to address the methodological requirements of the CDM, it becomes apparent that sectoral approaches will accentuate transport projects' problems regarding high complexity and related uncertainties. The CDM may need new rules to manage these risks. Nonetheless, sectoral approaches allow the scaling up of activities to a level that affects long‐term structural change.
The current emissions trading debates in the EU and the USA were examined and the prospects for creating a transatlantic carbon market were analysed. A future US Emissions Trading Scheme (US ETS) may be designed very differently from the EU ETS, raising questions of compatibility. Crucial differences relate to the stringency of targets, the recognition of offsets, and price control mechanisms. These differences flow directly from the different policy and economic perspectives on emissions trading and climate policy in the USA and the EU. The two sides should therefore seek a way forward that reconciles potentially different climate policies. For example, the USA and the EU should consider an effort to harmonize carbon prices, and US legislation could phase out cost-containment mechanisms after some time period. Finally, both US and EU policies should have mechanisms that allow periodic recalibration, which would allow each to adjust to new technology, react to developing-country climate policies, and learn from each other. In the longer term, this would allow both sides to strive for greater policy convergence, either through linked trading systems, harmonized prices, or a transition from harmonized prices to linkage.