For instructors looking to expand the ambit of their discussion of cap and trade systems beyond the EU-ETS, the centerpiece of Australia’s Clean Energy Future Package, its carbon pricing mechanism, is poised to begin operation on July 1, 2012. The legislation, passed in 2011, will establish a carbon price for approximately 60% of Australia’s emissions, including fuel use associated with electricity generation and industry, fugitive emissions from mines and waste, and household emissions via upstream liability for fuel distributors. The scheme will initially launch with a de facto carbon tax of AID $23. with a transition in three years to an emissions trading system.

The next few entries of this blog will summarize some good potential readings for students in this context, beginning with a two-page article (open access) in the most recent issue of Nature Climate Change. Among the take-aways from this article:

1. Efforts to compensate households for price increases associated with the scheme include income-tax cuts for lower income groups, an approach that hasn’t been implemented often in carbon pricing schemes; however, the government has struggled to effectively communicate the impacts of this approach;
2. While emissions-intensive industries will receive free permits valued at over AUD $3 billion, there’s very little evidence to justify shield trade-exposed companies from competition; there’s no real economic justification for payments to emissions-intensive coal-fired power plants These payments smack of the fruits of lobbying by industry;
3. The Liberal opposition party has expressed a desire to repeal the carbon pricing scheme, and while this would likely prove to be a daunting political task, it could transpire after the next election in 2013.

The piece also includes a concise history of the development of the carbon pricing mechanism, as well as excellent discussion of the difficult politics in Australia that may imperil the scheme’s future.

From where I sit, Climate Action Tracker, a project of several organizations including Ecofys, PIK and Climate Analytics,  is a “must see” site for climate change instructors, providing a regular updated snapshot of the climatic implications of commitments made by the parties to the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol and potential successor instruments. The Tracker’s latest report assesses the implications of State GHG reduction pledge after the Durban (17th COP). Among the conclusions of the report:

1. While the agreements reached at Durban include a work plan to enhance mitigation ambitions to close the “ambition gap” between current pledges by the Parties and what’s necessary to avoid passing the 2C threshold, there’s no assurances these ambitions will be raised; indeed, developed countries have not increased the ambition of their pledges despite such a call in the Cancun Agreement of 16COP;
2. Current international reduction targets and national pledges put global emissions on track for a total of 66 GtCO2e/yr. in 2020, assuming confirmed unconditional pledges and lenient accounting rules. There is a substantial gap from the 44GtGtCO2e/yr. that would put us on track to keep temperature increases to below 2C vis-a-vis pre-industrial levels;
• Should governments implement the most stringent reductions proposed to date, coupled with the most stringent accounting measures for developed States, the gap would drop, but only to 9 GtCO2e/yr.
3. If we are to achieve emissions at a level consistent with the below 2C pathway, assuming we can achieve an emissions rate of  44GtGtCO2e/yr.  by 2020, emissions will have to decline by 2% annually to 2050. However, if 2020 emissions are in line with current pledges, then the reduction rate will have to be 3.8% per year, with huge implications in terms of societal costs and technological feasibility;
4. Current pledges put us on track for warming of 3.5C, with a range of 2.9-4.4C, and an atmospheric concentration of 690 ppmv.

The report also provides a good analysis of the implications of temperature increases of 2C, 3C and 4C. Moreover, it outlines several options to close the “ambition gap,” including improved accounting procedures, moving to the top of their conditional pledges and reducing fossil fuel subsidies. This section could provide a good jumping off point to discuss  issues e.g. the political viability of such proposals and the assumptions that underlie them.

The International Institute for Environment and Development produces some excellent brief reports suitable for student readings. If you’re looking for some readings for the Durban COP, there are a number of new reports, including one that caught my eye, on adaptation financing, Ciplet, et al.,, Adaptation Finance: How Can Durban Deliver on Past Promises?, Briefing (Nov. 2011).  Among the chief take-aways from the report:

1. When developed countries agreed to provide $30 billion in “fast-start” financing by 2012, scaling up to $100 billion a year, part of the agreement was that it would be balanced between mitigation and adaptation initiatives; however to date, only 19-25% of fast-start finance ($4.8-6.3 billion) has been allocated to adaptation efforts, up slightly from 11-15% pledged a year ago;
2. It is uncertain what proportion of adaptation funding will be in the form of pure grants, concessionary loans, or market-rate loans; vulnerable countries are ill-equipped to repay loans, nor should they be required to;
3. Wealthy countries have failed to “scale up” their funding in anticipation of the post-212 era when fast-start financing ends, nor did the agreements in Copenhagen or Cancun provide a roadmap for doing so;
4. There is a serious lack of transparency with fast-start financing, including a failure on most contributors to report their fast-start activities to the UNFCCC; moreover, the vast majority of fast-start funds have not flowed to UNFCCC-controlled funding mechanisms;
5. The UNFCCC has failed to develop effective guidelines for identifying vulnerability, obviating efforts to target funding to those most vulnerable to climate impacts, as outlined in several recent agreements, including Cancun;
6. Among the recommendations offered by the writers for Durban and beyond:

• Develop other sources of funding beyond national revenue sources, e.g. a small level on international airline travel, bunker transport fuel or international financial transactions;
• Develop defined targets for adaptation funding in the “hole” between when fast-start financing ceases in 2012 and the $100 billion annual pledge begins in 2020;
• Develop a central account framework and registry to ensure transparency in financing, as well as provide guidelines for assessing whether pledges constitute “new and additional:” adaptation finance

This brief could generate some lively discussion on some core issues in climate policy making, including the following:

• Should fast-start and long-term financing be equally balanced between mitigation and adaptation initiatives in developing countries?
• Are developing countries entitled, as the authors argue, to outright grants for adaptation and mitigation financing initiatives?
• Do developing countries have any recourse under international law should developed countries fail to meet their financing pledges?
• Why is it important that financial flows primarily go through UNFCCC institutions?

Arizona State University’s Dan Bodansky recently published an excellent analysis of where we may be heading after 2012, Bodansky, [W]hither the Kyoto Protocol? Durban and Beyond!, Harvard Project on Climate Agreements (Aug. 2011).

Among the take-aways from the article are the following:

• There are various factions in UN climate change negotiations, including: a. the European Union, which might embrace a new commitment period under Kyoto if part of a comprehenisve framework engaging all major economies, including the United States and China; b. Japan, Canada and Russia, which wish to replace Kyoto with a new comprehensive agreement with commitments by both developed and developing countries, and c. large developing countries, such as China and India, which desire for the Protocol to continue, with quantiative limits only on the emissions of developing countries; and d. The United States, which is willing to negotiate a legally-binding agreement if the mandate applies with equal legal force to all major emitters;
• Bodansky sets forth 3 potential post 2012 scenarios:
• Scenario 1: denominated as the “most likely scenario for Durban and beyond,” envisions that negotiations for a second commitment period come to naught by the end of 2012. As a consequence, the only limits to emissions would consist of the  political commitments made at Copenhagen and Cancun. Some parts of the Kyoto Protocol, such as “assigned amount units” would no longer be operational;  however, other provisions not tied to emissions limits would continue in force, such as the CDM, though it is unclear how much impetus there would be for projects, well as reporting requirements and major institutions, e.g. the Meeting of the Parties and the Secretariat. Bodansky also notes that failure to reach an agreement on a second commitment period might further discourage developing countries from engaging in the negotiation process;
•  Scenario 2: Adoption of an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol establishing a second commitment period. Bodansky argues that the opposition of several Annex I States, including Russia, Canada and Japan, to a second commitment period, would likely result in only a rump of original Kyoto parties, with the EU playing a decisive role. It would be virtually impossible for a second commitment period amendment to be adopted in time to prevent a gap in legally binding commitments; however, an amendment could avoid this by providing for “provisional application” pending entry into force.
• Scenario 3: Political agreement on a second commitment period. An intermediate outcome would be a transition regime that established a political second commitment period rather than legally binding commitments. It’s unclear what the effectiveness of such an agreement would be. Bodansky argues that some political agreements are strongly adhered to by States, while others are not. It’s also possible that States will view such an agreement as affording them greater flexibility, and thus will be more amenable to accept more ambitious commitments.  Such commitments could extend the Kyoto Protocol in an unchanged fashion, or a different approach might be taken, e.g. establishing economy-wide targets that would generate assigned amount units (AAUs) that could be traded, or a less ambitious approach could be taken, such as conditional targets or targets specified in a range.

FYI. Note: even if you can’t attend, a podcast will be available for this conference. The conference’s organizer, Jane McAdam, has done some very interesting work on the legal implications of actors being rendered stateless by climate change.

Climate Change and Migration in the Asia-Pacific: Legal and Policy Responses
NSW Parliament House, Sydney, 10-11 November 2011

This two-day conference will bring together leading international experts, policymakers, and government officials from affected countries to discuss:

•  Conceptualizing climate change-related movement
•  The nature of movement: what does the evidence tell us?
•  International legal frameworks
•  International governance
•  Adaptation and ‘migration with dignity’
•  Relocation and land tenure
•  Climate change migration and (human) security
•  Institutional responses: where to from here?

Places are limited, so register now!  A draft program is attached and also available on the website below.

Register online: http://www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/events/climate-change-and-migration-asia-pacific-legal-and-policy-responses

Cost: $150 for both days (including lunch, morning tea & afternoon tea).  Single day registration is not possible.

Contact: gtcentre@unsw.edu.au

A podcast of the proceedings will be made available online.

Professor Jane McAdam • Director of Research • School of Law • Faculty of Law • The University of New South Wales • UNSW Sydney NSW 2052, Australia • Phone: +61 (2) 9385 2210 • Fax: +61 (2) 9385 1175 • Website: http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/staff/McAdamJ/ Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=579709

EDITOR’S NOTE: We are being spammed by articles from a source called “E-zine,” including this piece. We’re trying to figure out how to stop it.

The people who are the most vocal about man-made global warming are the very same people who cannot elaborate on the scanty evidence produced so far. These Alarmists are not prepared to give their opinions on climate change events that have happened in the past. All they seem to be interested in is spreading mass hysteria.

It’s unanimously agreed by the scientific community that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and during that time, it’s undergone at least 12, and possibly 14 major periods of climate change. In addition to this there has been numerous minor changes to the earth’s climate.

Past periods of climate change

Whilst most of this information has come from sophisticated scientific investigation involving many branches of science, some of the minor climatic changes have occurred within the life-time of man on earth and have been recorded during history.

The existence of these periods of climate change is not in doubt; what is open to conjecture are the causes.

On this, the Alarmists remain mute: they are sure that mans’ industrial activity is the cause of any climate change taking place at the moment, but would have to concede that power stations and motor cars could not have caused the start of a period of climate change 5,000 years ago.

In 1991 the body of a man was found in the European Alps in the border regions of Austria and Italy. He was determined to have died about 5,000 years ago whilst crossing the Alps. Now for a person to have attempted to cross the Alps would indicate that firstly crossing the mountain range was a possibility and known to man at that time, and secondly that the feat was made possible by the absence of snow and glaciers.

Now move forward 2800 years to about 200BCE and the first recorded history of an event involving crossing the Alps took place. That was Hannibal’s crossing of the Alps with an army, including elephants, to wage war on the Roman Empire. This event was clearly documented at the time and is acknowledged to have taken place.

At the time of Hannibal’s efforts, the snowline of the Alps was thought to be in the region of 1,800 meters to 2,000 meters. Until recently the Alpine snowline was approximately 1,500 meters. What this means is that in modern times the level above the sea at which snow falls and lies on the ground is about 300 to 500 meters lower than when Hannibal achieved his feat. The reason for this is clear – in Hannibal’s time and the centuries earlier going back to 3,000 BCE the air temperature was considerably warmer that it is today.

The world’s climate has changed over the past 5,000 years. What’s caused this change? Is it the result of Mother Nature or God?

Recent periods of climate change

Let’s now move to more recent times and look at the recorded history of events that took place in London.

Between 1660 and 1820 is was quite a common occurrence for the river Thames to freeze over. Not every year perhaps, but certainly enough for people at that time to make comments. Since then the Thames has rarely been frozen, certainly never in recent memory. So the question is: what caused the warming of the air from 1820 onwards?

At the same period of time from 1660, the Great Barrier Reef in Australia was subject to stress caused by a drought that lasted 20 years from 1660. Coral has characteristics not unlike that of trees. Rings in a piece of sliced coral tell the story of events long ago. A piece of coral collected off the coast of northern Australia has recently been examined and it shows the effects of drought in the region. Lack of fresh water, and therefore the absences of nutrients, coming from the nearby rivers would affect the growth of the coral and would be noticed in examining the rings.

In the years since then the reef has made a full recovery, although it may be suffering now.

The Alarmists point to the decline in coral reefs as an example of global warming, but ignore the fact that Mother Nature has the remarkable capacity to overcome its setbacks.

The history of the world has countless stories of events that happened long ago that could not happen now.

The original inhabitants of Australia came from SE Asia via a continuous land mass leading from the Malay peninsula, through Indonesia, New Guinea, and into northern Australia.

The original inhabitants of north America are thought to have entered the area about 10,000 years ago via the then ice-free Bering Straits. That feat couldn’t be achieved today. Likewise the original inhabitants of the UK are thought to have come from Europe via the land mass that is now covered by the English Channel.

So in relation to these events, it would seem that global warming took place and that the world-wide sea level rose covering these routes.

And the most likely causes of these major changes are the Almighty, or Mother Nature.

That being the case in ages gone by, how could today’s global warming (if indeed it’s taking place) be caused by man?

This is an attempt to put some balance into the ongoing international controversy that is the theory of man-made climate change.

Like most people, the author takes a keen interest in the world-wide controversy of climate change and global warming, and the alleged effect this will have on life on earth. He also takes an interest in more mundane issues such as hoodia diet pills and the increasing popularity of Dish Network satellite TV

Author: Gareth Black
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Home care

Call for Papers: Renewable Energy Promotion in non-OECD countries

The Journal of Renewable Energy Law & Policy is welcoming abstracts for its upcoming issue scheduled for publication in June 2011.

The issue will feature a special section on Renewable Energy Promotion in non-OECD countries – abstracts on legal and policy aspects on this topic are especially welcome. The issue will be edited by the new Editor, Dominic Marcellino.

The Journal of Renewable Energy Law and Policy provides a platform for review and discussion, both in Europe and internationally, of the legal and policy issues surrounding renewable energy. The journal reports on the dynamic and quickly changing developments taking place in Europe and around the world in the renewable energy sector, from bio-energy, solar and wind power to developing technologies like fuel cells and nuclear fusion.

Contributions should address regulatory and policy aspects relating to renewable energy, including, but not limited to:

1.     Promotion of renewables: e.g. financial, tax, and other incentives to encourage renewables; the evolving relationship of policies, programmes and projects;

2.     Challenges: e.g. technical, economic, policy, legal, and other (NIMBY, etc.) issues impeding the installation of renewable energy;

3.     Cross-cutting issues: e.g. the interplay of renewable and climate policies; development policy and renewables; energy security and renewables; and consumer issues, like electricity prices and renewables.

4.     Case Studies: role of national legal frameworks, international comparative studies, successful contractual arrangements, etc.

Abstracts should be sent to relpjournal@gmail.com by 14 January 2011. Authors will be informed by 28 January 2011 on the outcome of the initial review process. Final manuscripts will be due by 4 March 2011.

In order to ensure quick turnaround and policy relevance, articles should be concise, ranging from 2.500-4.500 words in length. Commentaries on recent judicial decisions, new legislation, and other developments can range from 1.500 to 2.500 words.

The Journal of Renewable Energy Law & Policy is published on a quarterly basis under the guidance of a distinguished editorial board. The journal brings together representatives from the legal discipline and other stakeholders in one specialized journal, allowing them to engage in a dynamic debate on the policies and laws of climate change. For further details on the journal and an archive of past issues, please visit the website at: www.lexxion.eu/relp.

For further information on the editorial process, submissions on other topics or general questions relating to the journal, kindly contact the editor at relpjournal@gmail.com. Please feel free to forward this call for papers to interested colleagues.

Apologies for cross-posting.

With sincere regards,

Dominic Marcellino
on behalf of the editorial board

Another good summary of the progress made at COP16-Cancún is the World Resource’s Institute’s Reflections on the Cancún Agreements (7 pages).

Instructors looking for an excellent summary of COP16/KP MOP6 in Cancun should check out the Pew Center on Global Climate Change’s six-page report.