Refine
Year of Publication
- 2016 (15) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (15) (remove)
Language
- English (15) (remove)
This Policy Brief outlines the "identity crisis" in which voluntary carbon standards find themselves after the adoption of the Paris Agreement. It describes how the new international legal framework threatens to undermine the legitimation and credibility of voluntary carbon standards and discusses first ideas how the arising challenges could be dealt with.
On 8 November 2016, Donald Trump was elected to become the 45th President of the United States of America. In his campaign, he repeatedly expressed his intention to "cancel the Paris Agreement". How can the course set with the adoption of the Paris Agreement be continued independently of the developments in the US? The authors sketch possible consequences of the sea change of US climate policy for the international negotiation process and identify options for a "Trump-resilient" way forward.
Carbon markets in a <2 °C world : will there be room for international carbon trading in 2050?
(2016)
This JIKO Policy Paper analyses a series of very ambitious mitigation scenarios and complements this analysis with a review of several sectoral technology roadmaps. The results are quite clear: there is no reason to believe that international carbon trading will become obsolete any time soon. Whether or not international carbon trading is to play a role in international climate protection efforts is in the end not a physical or economic question, but a political one.
Article 6 of the Paris Agreement established three approaches for countries to cooperate with each other: cooperative approaches, a new mechanism to promote mitigation and sustainable development ("sustainable development mechanism"), and a framework for non-market approaches. However, while the "sustainable development mechanism" seems familiar as its principles strongly resemble the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the other two approaches have so far not been clearly defined conceptually. This JIKO Policy Paper summarizes the views by Parties and observes that were submitted at the end of September and reveals some sharp differences in opinions on how Art. 6 should work.
This paper analyses the risks to environmental integrity associated to the transfers of mitigation outcomes in the context of Art. 6 of the Paris Agreement and provides an overview on approaches and tools that could be used for addressing them. The analysis shows that some of the environmental integrity risks can be dealt with at the technical level. This relates, inter alia, to the risks of mitigation outcomes being unreal or non-permanent as well as to carbon leakage and rebound effects. Here, robust MRV provisions should be established. Other risks will be difficult to address without touching the new and open structure of the Paris Agreement. This applies, for example, to risks associated to the diverse nature of NDCs, and requires further investigation.
"Transformative science" is a concept that delineates the new role of science for knowledge societies in the age of reflexive modernity. The paper develops the program of a transformative science, which goes beyond observing and analyzing societal transformations, but rather takes an active role in initiating and catalyzing change processes. The aim of transformative science is to achieve a deeper understanding of ongoing transformations and increased societal capacity for reflexivity with regard to these fundamental change processes. The concept of transformative science is grounded in an experimental paradigm, which has implications for (1) research, (2) education and learning, and (3) institutional structures and change in the science system. The article develops the theoretical foundations of the concept of transformative science and spells out the concrete implications in these three dimensions.
Offsetting for international aviation : the state of play of market-based measures under ICAO
(2016)
This JIKO Policy Brief summarizes the state of play of the negotiations on a global market-based mechanism (global MBM) under ICAO. It specifies the respective responsibilities and different approaches of ICAO and the UNFCCC. It traces the historic activities in regard of climate protection under ICAO and provides an overview of the current negotiation process that is to culminate at the upcoming ICAO General Assembly in autumn 2016. Furthermore, the Policy Brief reflects on the CDM experience and derives recommendations.
Will climate change stay below the 2 degree target in the 21st century on the basis of the COP 21 results? Looking into challenges and opportunities, this paper answers: To stay below the global 2dt is neither a real choice for the world society nor for businesses and civil societies in specific countries. It is a global guideline, scientifically developed for global negotiations, which should be broken down to national interests and actors. Key questions concerning the energy sector from the perspective of national interests are how to create and sustain a momentum for the inevitable energy transition, how to encourage disruptive innovations, avoid lock in effects, enable rapid deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energies etc. Or in other words: how to get to a competitive, economically benign, inclusive, low carbon and risk minimising energy system. With this background the paper argues that "burden sharing" is a misleading perception of strong climate mitigation strategies. It is more realistic to talk about "benefit sharing", using the monetary benefits and co-benefits of climate mitigation (e.g. energy cost savings, revenues from CO2-tax or emission trading systems) to help vulnerable national and international actors to adapt to the unavoidable climate risks. It has to be demonstrated on country level that the technologies and policy mix of strong climate mitigation and risk-minimising actions are indeed "benefit sharing" strategies which should be chosen anyhow, even if there was no climate change. For China and Germany this paper includes basic findings supporting this view.
The Paris Agreement adopted in December 2015 provides the basis for future international cooperation on the field of climate change mitigation. While truly global in reach, the agreement will however result in an increasingly complex new climate regime: Instead of using a uniform formula, Parties are allowed to autonomously define their NDCs (nationally determined contributions), resulting in a large diversity of contributions. This poses significant challenges for emissions accounting and the transfer of emission units.
This Policy Paper explores how these challenges can be addressed by analysing different types of NDCs and assessing their compatibility with the export and use of emission units. On that basis, the authors develop opt-in provisions for Parties willing to participate in unit transfers under the new climate regime and illustrate how potential risks to environmental integrity can be addressed.