CCLR 1/2014 var cart_title = "Warenkorb";var ok_lbl="Weiter";var cancel_lbl="Abbrechen";var notice_lbl="Mitteilung";var live_site="";   ImpressumMediadatenAGBKontakt Verlagsprogramm & ShopHerausgeber & AutorenÜber uns   Warenkorb Online-ZugängeNewsletter {source}Follow @lexxion

CCLR 1/2014

You can order any of the articles listed below for €35,00; case notes are available for each €20,00; all current developments for together €20,00, and features (book reviews, conference reports or "in the market") for €8,00. EU Member States: VAT will be added if applicable.

Issue 1/2014

Table of Contents

Sortieren nach:
Michael Mehling and Joëlle de Sépibus
Editorial: Design Elements of the Post-2020 Climate Regime
Carbon and Climate Law Review 1/2014: pp. 1-2
[Click here to show Abstract]

After the previous issue of the Carbon & Climate afforded valuable insights into the process, principles and architecture of the climate regime beyond 2020, this issue turns our attention to likely and potential design elements of the regime under negotiation.

Erik Haites, Farhana Yamin and Niklas Höhne
Possible Elements of a 2015 Agreement to Address Climate Change
Carbon and Climate Law Review 1/2014: pp. 3-12 [Article]
[Click here to show Abstract]

We propose that parties commit, jointly and individually, to a goal of phasing out anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Each party proposes a national emissions limitation commitment for 2020-2023 it believes is a fair contribution to the global phase out effort. Proposed commitments are subject to an independent technical review and comments by other parties. Each commitment is automatically followed by a more ambitious four year commitment until the phase out goal has been achieved. Proposed approaches to adaptation; finance; technology; capacity building; a market mechanism; monitoring, reporting and verification; and compliance are also provided.

Lena Donat and Ralph Bodle
A Dynamic Adjustment Mechanism for the 2015 Climate Agreement
Carbon and Climate Law Review 1/2014: pp. 23-34 [Article]
[Click here to show Abstract]

To provide an effective response to climate change over time, the 2015 Agreement needs to incorporate dynamic elements, including a possibility for adjusting Parties‘ commitments over time. A dynamic adjustment mechanism could help to adjust commitments to the necessary ambition level and to changing circumstances. The challenge is to design such amechanism in a way that would make it objective and stringent while being agreeable for Parties. This article provides a structured approach for developing and evaluating options for a dynamic adjustment mechanism in the 2015 Agreement, drawing from previous experience in the climate regime, other multilateral environmental agreements, and from literature. We explore possible design elements of a mechanism, namely triggers, process, consequences, and derogations, assessing their assets and drawbacks.We argue that an automatic ratchet-upmechanismdoes not appear to be a viable option, and that an adjustmentmechanism based on a procedural approach negotiations currently seems more realistic. However, in order to ensure a certain degree of objectivity in the process, it is essential that commitments in the 2015 agreement are quantifiable and comparable in their mitigation impact across countries and commitment types.

Joëlle de Sépibus and Kateryna Holzer
The UNFCCC at a Crossroads
Carbon and Climate Law Review 1/2014: pp. 13-22 [Article]
[Click here to show Abstract]

Can Increased Involvement of Business and Industry Help Rescue the Multilateral Climate Regime?

Significant progress in the multilateral negotiations on climate change will only be made if civil society and in particular business and industry stakeholders actively contribute to shaping it. Admitted to the international negotiations through participation in non-governmental organisations (NGOs), business and industry entities continue however to be far more active at the national than at the international level. Their pro-active involvement in new international policy spaces is hence highly warranted. The enhanced participation of the private sector in the multilateral climate regime, however, faces many challenges that will have to be overcome. Lessons on how to achieve an effective involvement may be drawn in particular from the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances, the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the EU and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP). A preliminary condition for an effective dialogue with business and industry stakeholders is a transparent process. Moreover, systematic consultations with stakeholders should be held, allowing a regular exchange of information and the effective channelling of the expertise of the private sector into the negotiation process.

Meinhard Doelle
The Birth of the Warsaw Loss & Damage Mechanism
Carbon and Climate Law Review 1/2014: pp. 35-45 [Article]
[Click here to show Abstract]

Planting a Seed to Grow Ambition?

This article starts with an update on the UN climate negotiations with respect to loss & damage. It then explores two approaches to loss & damage that are substantially different form the current path of the negotiations. Both approaches seek to utilize the concern over loss & damage to improvemotivation for an adequate and fair global effort tomitigation and adapt to climate change. The approaches differ mainly in the extent they can be integrated into the current UN climate regime. The first approach would create a loss & damage liability fund that seeks to ensure adequate resources to cover the projected cost of loss and damage of business as usual. The funds collected would then be made available for mitigation and adaptation efforts based on their ability to reduce the future cost of loss & damage. This approach is based on an idealized set of assumptions about what is achievable in the climate negotiations, and would require a completely new structure to the UN climate regime. The second approach would limit the fund to loss and damage that is projected to be already locked in based on past and current emissions. It seeks to take into account the current state of the negotiations and the expressed or likely positions of key negotiating blocks, while seeking to preserve some opportunity tomotivate Parties to contribute fairly to an adequate global effort. Either approach will be difficult to implement given the current state of the negotiations. However, given the global cost of inaction, if the current approach continues to yield inadequate results, the pressure to find alternative ways of moving forward will inevitably increase. The two approaches explored in this article are offered in the spirit of encouraging academics and negotiators to consider alternative ways forward if efforts under the current approach continue to be woefully inadequate.

Ritika Tewari
Examining the Developments in the International Registry for NAMAs and Channels of Support
Carbon and Climate Law Review 1/2014: pp. 46-54 [Article]
[Click here to show Abstract]

Conceptually, nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) provided a framework for mitigation in developing countries. Since COP 13 in Bali, discussions on the structural elements of NAMAs have taken a central place. One of these elements is an international registry. Recognizing the centrality of support for actions, the registry was envisioned to carry out two functions: act as a tool for registering actions; and serve as an avenue for matchmaking of actions with support. Hopes were high that the matchmaking provision will make access to support easy for developing countries and might also assist funding channels of the financialmechanism, especially theGreenClimate Fund.Recent developments, however, seem to signal a dilution of this function. This commentary traces developments relating to NAMA support and the aforesaid registry, building on developments in the negotiations and anecdotal evidence on the evolution of NAMA support from ongoing activities. It highlights a harmonization deficit in the way international support mechanisms for NAMAs are developing.

Michel Köhler and Axel Michaelowa
Limiting Climate Change by Fostering Net Avoided Emissions
Carbon and Climate Law Review 1/2014: pp. 55-64 [Article]
[Click here to show Abstract]

Reducing Fossil Fuel Supply and Emissions from Fuel Exploitation

With the gap to the emissions path required to reach the 2°C target growing steadily as well as the need for substantial mitigation from 2020 onwards under the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action,1 efforts to reduce greenhouse gases must be scaled up. Unless low-carbon technologies are universally available and environmentally reliable, mitigation can only be successful if emission of greenhouse gases, in particular burning of fossil fuels, is reduced. This requires a voluntary limitation of economic activities that lead to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The concept of Net Avoided Emissions (NAE) has been proposed to effectively incentivize avoidance of GHG intensive activities. Emission credits would be granted for the cessation of fossil fuel exploitation. However, the mechanism also faces critical elements that might jeopardize environmental integrity, additionality and permanence. This article identifies key challenges and provides recommendations on how to overcome these hurdles in order to increase international acceptability of NAE. We propose that credits should be discounted depending on the price elasticity of fuel demand. Classical emission reductions e.g. linked to the protection of vegetation on the surface above the fuel reservoir would be fully credited. In order to ensure environmental integrity by reducing the incentive to exploit the fossil fuel, credit revenues would be administered by a trust fund and have to be invested into activities that promote sustainable development, i.e. renewable energy and energy efficiency. Physical adulteration of the fuel in the reservoir could also be considered.

Benedikt Günter
In the Market: Reforming the EU ETS Revisited
Carbon and Climate Law Review 1/2014: pp. 65-68 [Feature]
[Click here to show Abstract]

On 22 January 2014, the European Commission published its proposals for the EU 2030 Energy and Climate Framework.1 This package contained, among other aspects, twomajor proposals to reform the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). In this Installment of In the Market, we address the question why a reform of the EU ETS is currently needed, what has been achieved so far, and what the Commission has now proposed to solve existing problems.

Ilan Gutherz
Current Developments in Carbon & Climate Law
Carbon and Climate Law Review 1/2014: pp. 69-71
[Click here to show Abstract]

North America: United States

TheU.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) has proposed revised greenhouse gas (GHG) emission limits for new fossil-fueled power plants in the U.S.1 The newproposal replaces a proposal the EPA issued in 2012, which the agency has now withdrawn.

compiled by Harro van Asselt
Book Reviews & New Publications
Carbon and Climate Law Review 1/2014: pp. 72-79
[Click here to show Abstract]

The New Climate Policies of the European Union:

Internal Legislation and Climate Diplomacy, edited by Sebastian Oberthür and Marc Pallemaerts, with Claire Roche Kelly. Brussels: VUB Press, 2010. 340 pp., € 40.00, paperback.

Redeeming REDD: Policies, Incentives and Social Feasibility for Avoided Deforestation, by Michael I. Brown. London: Earthscan/Routledge, 2013. 344 pp., £95.00, hardback.

  • «« Anfang
  • « vorherige
  • 1
  • nächste »
  • Ende »»

Resultate pro Seite #  
Ergebnisse 1 - 10 von 10


Preis Delete
Ihr Warenkorb ist leer.
*zzgl. Versandkosten Jetzt kaufen

Publication frequency: quarterly
Subscription: € 442,-
ISSN 16 19-52 72

Further information


Cliff Wirajendi
Product Manager

Tel.: +49 30-81 45 06-17

Author Guidelines