Refine
Year of Publication
- 2011 (37) (remove)
Document Type
- Conference Object (10)
- Working Paper (10)
- Report (8)
- Peer-Reviewed Article (4)
- Part of a Book (3)
- Contribution to Periodical (2)
Language
- English (37) (remove)
Division
- Energie-, Verkehrs- und Klimapolitik (37) (remove)
What are the best policies and measures to stimulate energy efficiency in buildings? The debate around this is at least as diverse as the markets and concepts for energy efficiency in buildings, and often quite controversial. However, no magic formula seems to have been found so far. It is, therefore, time to address the question in a new way - by combining both theoretical evidence on what policy support markets need, and empirical evidence on which combinations or packages of policies have worked.
In the context of its new four-year project bigEE - "Bridging the Information Gap on Energy Efficiency in Buildings", the Wuppertal Institute is implementing this new approach. The bigEE project aims at developing an international internet-based knowledge platform for energy efficiency in buildings. Hence, it must provide evidence-based information. On the theoretical side, the analysis starts with value chains in the building sector and the barriers but also actor-inherent incentives that the different types of market participants face. This enables to identify, which policies and measures need to be combined to jointly overcome the barriers and strengthen the incentives. On the empirical side, model examples of good practice are collected and compared. The search for these is guided by the results of the theoretical analysis, international expert opinion, and existing databases and platforms. In order to identify what is "good practice", the project uses a newly developed multi-criteria assessment scheme. Finally, the impacts achieved with the model examples, lessons learned, and their transferability will be used to validate the model policy package identified in the theoretical analysis.
The public launch of the bigEE platform is planned for autumn of 2011; eceee Summer Study participants will get a first glance at its content through this paper. The paper presents the methods and tools used and showcases their application for the case of new buildings
Domestic emission trading systems in developing countries : state of play and future prospects
(2011)
Domestic emission trading systems in Non-Annex I countries : state of play and future prospects
(2011)
Since the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the establishment of a harmonised international carbon market has been seen as one of the main strategies in international climate policy. So far, however, the market is far from being globally harmonised or systematically linked. Instead, a mosaic of national and sub-national markets has been under development, differing in timing, location, relationship to the Protocol and their levels of legal commitment.
Nevertheless, creating a global carbon market is a key goal of EU climate policy. As plans for the establishment of emissions trading systems (ETS) emerge in various non-Annex I countries, prospects for linking them to existing systems seem to finally get in reach. We have analysed the prospects of emission trading in non-Annex I countries in a recent paper on behalf of the German environment ministry. In the following we first give a theoretical overview of what design factors need to be taken into account when establishing national emission trading systems. The following elaborates on the status of emissions trading discussion in various non-Annex I countries.
Global climate
(2011)
The article discusses the process and outcomes along the central "building blocks" of the negotiations. According to the Bali Action Plan, the negotiations are proceeding under two tracks. First, the "Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments by Annex I Countries under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP)", which was established at CMP 1 in Montreal in 2005, is negotiating future emission targets for industrialised countries (listed in Annex I of the UNFCCC). Second, while the "Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA)" also negotiates commitments for Annex I countries, in practice this was originally deemed to relate in particular to those that have not ratified the Protocol - that is, the USA. In addition, the AWG-LCA negotiates "nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs)" of developing countries, which are to be supported and enabled by industrialised countries through technology, financing and capacity building. Both the NAMAs and the support are to be undertaken in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner. Finally, the AWG-LCA negotiates ways to enhance adaptation efforts of developing countries, which are also to be financially and technologically supported by industrialised countries.