应对气候变化的国际技术协议评述

国际技术协议通过促进技术的转让与升级,在发展中解决气候变化问题,因此受到越来越多的关注。根据"巴厘路线图"中的重要议题,在对国际技术协议进行简要介绍的基础上,评价了国际技术协议内在的价值与局限性。最后对国际技术协议的前景进行了展望,指出国际技术协议应当着眼于通过促进环境友好的先进技术由发达国家向发展中国家的转让,推动在应对气候变化领域内更深层次的南北合作,实现发展中国家的可持续发展,逐步解决气候变化问题。同时,为中国如何参与国际技术协议给出了建议。     

《巴厘行动计划》以来适应气候变化谈判进展及未来需求分析

回顾了《巴厘行动计划》以来形成的与适应气候变化议题相关的国际决议及谈判进展,分析了这些决议对推动发展中国家适应气候变化进程的可能作用和面临的障碍,综述了发展中国家和发达国家对“2015气候协议”的利益诉求和建议。作者认为：《巴厘行动计划》以来,《联合国气候变化框架公约》下适应气候变化方面的谈判取得了较明显的进展,建立了适应委员会、国家适应计划进程和应对损失与危害的国际机制等;资金、技术研发、推广和使用、政策法规、机构设置与能力、信息等是提高发展中国家适应气候变化的限制因素;资金、技术转让和能力建设仍是“2015气候协议”谈判的重点和难点。针对非洲集团和小岛屿国家联盟全球适应目标和应对气候变化造成的损失与危害的补偿的提议,作者建议加强科学研究,开发评估方法和工具,探讨气候自然变率和人类活动导致的气候变化影响的归因;同时建议中国进一步加强适应气候变化的南南合作。     

碳捕获与封存技术潜在的环境影响及对策建议

作为减缓气候变化行动的选择方案之一,碳捕获与封存（CCS）技术受到国际社会特别是发达国家的格外关注,但是能否得到广泛应用,除了要取决于其技术成熟度、成本,在发展中国家的技术普及和转让及其应用技术的能力,政策法规等因素外,其潜在的环境影响及其管理也是目前备受关注的一个问题。因此,针对CCS技术潜在的环境影响以及目前发达国家关于CCS技术环境影响的管理进行了分析,并对我国未来CCS技术的环境管理提出了一些对策建议。     

对IPCC第五次评估报告减缓气候变化国际合作评估结果的解读

IPCC第五次评估报告第三工作组报告首次对减缓气候变化国际合作进行了独立成章的评估。主要结论认为,《联合国气候变化框架公约》依然是国际合作主要多边论坛,但对该《公约》基本原则的理解出现分歧,《京都议定书》的表现不尽如人意;目前国际合作机制在架构和参与主体方面日趋多元化;国际合作所面临的主要问题是参与度不够、遵约机制不健全。一个“自下而上”的全球协议、资金和技术激励可以促进广泛参与,贸易措施的介入可以完善气候政策、促进参与和遵约,《公约》外的各种小多边主义通过对接可对《公约》机制起到良好的补充作用。这些评估结论可能对2020年后应对气候变化国际合作产生重要影响。     

《巴黎协定》与国际减缓气候变化合作模式的变迁

由于温室气体排放的全球外部性属性,减缓气候变化必须通过国际合作实现,必须体现一定程度的中央集权,考虑参与主体广泛性、减缓行动的范围和行动力度三大要素。《联合国气候变化框架公约》《京都议定书》及其“多哈修正案”“坎昆协议”等方案,对中央集权程度和三大要素各有取舍,构建了不同的国际减缓气候变化合作模式,但从实践看都未能解决国际减缓合作的问题。《巴黎协定》构建了“承诺+审评”的新模式,有望实现参与主体和行动范围的全覆盖,并通过透明度、遵约和全球盘点机制鼓励各参与方提高行动力度。然而要实现公约目标和科学应对气候变化的要求,《巴黎协定》下的国际减缓合作必须通过强化资金、技术、能力建设机制来保障,并通过进一步明确中长期量化目标来促进各方提高行动力度。     

“可测量、可报告、可核实”方法的框架及在中国的适用性分析

《联合国气候变化框架公约》第13次缔约方会议通过的《巴厘行动计划》中,提出了"可测量、可报告、可核实(MRV)"的国家行动的概念,包括在下一个国际协议中。但目前对哪些内容要进行MRV,范围是什么,发达国家和发展中国家都要如何进行MRV还不是很清晰,也存在不少争议。本文提供了作者的研究认识,就MRV的框架进行描述,并结合一些政策制定中的核心问题进行了分析。同时在中国背景下分析了如何进行已有国家行动和政策的MRV,以及未来的方向。     

《巴黎协定》适应和损失损害内容的解读和对策

《巴黎协定》基本照顾了各缔约方的核心关切,坚持了《联合国气候变化框架公约》（以下简称《公约》）的原则,基本体现了发达国家和发展中国家的区分。在适应部分,《巴黎协定》设立了与全球温升目标相联系的全球适应目标,明确了对发展中国家的适应支持,并确定了具有一定法律约束力的全球适应信息通报和5年周期的全球盘点。在损失损害部分,《巴黎协定》锁定了《公约》下的华沙损失损害国际机制,并基本确定了一个各国通过可持续发展和国际合作共同解决损失损害问题的框架。但是,《巴黎协定》仍然没有解决很多技术性问题和缔约方之间关键性和实质性的分歧。中国作为发展中大国将继续在适应和损失损害问题中面临着出资压力,应通过增强国内适应行动、强化适应和损失损害相关研究和高效利用气候变化南南合作基金3个方面,为谈判争取主动并为推动全球适应气候变化减少损失损害做出贡献。     

未来联合国气候变化谈判的核心内容及前景展望——“巴厘路线图”解读

详细介绍了《联合国气候变化框架公约》缔约方会议第13次会议通过的"巴厘路线图"的具体内容。"巴厘路线图"规划了未来两年将要谈判的重要议题,包括发达国家在2012年后减排温室气体义务;发展中国家未来温室气体减排行动;适应气候变化;发达国家未来向发展中国家提供技术转让、资金支持和能力建设等。这些议题谈判的成败,将对未来保护气候的国际努力、对未来全球的气候环境产生决定性影响,从而对谈判前景做了分析     

未来联合国气候变化谈判的核心内容及前景展望——“巴厘路线图”解读

 详细介绍了《联合国气候变化框架公约》缔约方会议第13次会议通过的"巴厘路线图"的具体内容。"巴厘路线图"规划了未来两年将要谈判的重要议题,包括发达国家在2012年后减排温室气体义务;发展中国家未来温室气体减排行动;适应气候变化;发达国家未来向发展中国家提供技术转让、资金支持和能力建设等。这些议题谈判的成败,将对未来保护气候的国际努力、对未来全球的气候环境产生决定性影响,从而对谈判前景做了分析     

英国新联合政府气候变化政策最新走向及其对中国的影响

2010年5月英国保守党和自由民主党组成联合政府执政,其气候变化政策也相应发生了一些变化。根据7月27日英国政府公布的首份《年度能源报告》、卡梅伦首相的文章及能源与气候变化大臣休恩的演讲,可粗线条勾勒出其气候变化政策的一些基本走向。在国际框架上,新政府把积极推动国际减排,维护英国低碳技术的国际商业利益作为其未来施政的一个重要方向,更加坚持发展中国家承担减排任务及"三可"机制。在英国本土,气候变化的重点则由原来的"减排"转而强调"适应"。英国新政府十分重视与中国在低碳领域的合作。对于中国而言,机遇与挑战并存,需要尽快尽早制定国家级的低碳发展战略。     

Climate change technology transfer: a new paradigm and policy agenda

This article proposes a shift to a paradigm that is more extensive than the current narrow focus on North—South climate change technology transfers, towards a more inclusive ‘global’ paradigm. An implication of the paradigm shift is that there should be a concomitant expansion of the policy agendas of the international climate and trade regimes. The traditional North—South paradigm of technology transfer ignores the increasing importance of developing countries as sources of advanced climate-friendly technologies, and therefore ignores South—North and South—South transfers. Further, whereas the North—South paradigm has emphasized developing countries' intellectual property rights policies as barriers to technology transfers, the ‘global’ paradigm focuses attention on trade and investment policy barriers, including developed countries' policies that inhibit technology transfer from developing countries. The analysis is relevant to international negotiations in the post-2012 climate regime, and is also relevant to the future development of the trade regime—not only at the multilateral level in the WTO, but also at the regional and bilateral levels.     

Governance and technology transfer in the Clean Development Mechanism in India

Despite significant technological advances in emerging economies, the further development of clean energy technologies in developing countries remains crucial to reducing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with economic development. In this paper we address two significant gaps in the growing body of literature that has assessed the role of the Clean Development Mechanism in promoting the transfer of clean technologies to developing countries. First, we present a qualitative analysis of the governance of the Clean Development Mechanism in India. This provides a basis for understanding the extent to which and the ways in which governance may impact upon the likelihood that projects promote technology transfer. Second, we provide a novel quantification of the level and nature of technology transfer that has occurred in Indian Clean Development Mechanism projects, based on insights from literature on technological capability building. We find that the Clean Development Mechanism in India has produced a negligible number of projects that promote technology transfer if technology transfer is understood as a process of learning about technology. Together these qualitative and quantitative analyses show how politics and governance have contributed to the current form of the Clean Development Mechanism market in India, in which processes of building indigenous technological capabilities have been neglected.     

National policy and SMEs in technology transfer: the case of Israel

Increasing the rate of climate technology transfer is a critical concern. The international community facilitates the development and deployment of climate technologies for the needs of the South in two primary ways: first, through the use of multilateral frameworks for technology transfer and, second, through in-country capacity building for research, development, and deployment in developing countries. However, scant attention is given to whether national-level frameworks in industrialized countries can support technology transfer. This issue may be of particular relevance to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in developed countries, due to their relative lack of experience in international markets. The barriers that prevent SMEs from developing and exporting more technologies to the South are identified, by using Israel as a case study. Although Israel is an important global source of climate technology innovation, it currently does not engage much with the developing world. Four principle barriers to greater involvement of OECD SMEs in technology transfer for climate mitigation in developing countries are: (1) lack of knowledge of market needs in developing economies, (2) lack of financial mechanisms to support R&D, (3) lack of opportunities for partnership building, and (4) lack of support for demonstration sites in developing countries.     

Technology transfer in the clean development mechanism: Insights from wind power

International technology transfer is a key element in efforts to ensure low carbon growth in developing countries. A growing body of literature has sought to assess the extent of technology transfer in the clean development mechanism (CDM). In this paper we use the case of wind power CDM to expand the focus to how technology transfer occurs. We seek insights from the technology and CDM literatures to develop a framework with multiple technology transfer mechanisms. We then show empirically that technology transfer in CDM wind projects occurs through a greater variety of mechanism than is commonly assumed. The evidence suggests that the strengthening of host country capabilities changes the nature of technology transfer. The cases of China and India indicate that diversity in transfer mechanisms is an effect of the pre-existing industrial and technological capabilities. We show that CDM projects in China and India tend to utilise transfer mechanisms opened up prior to and independent of CDM projects, not the other way around. Our findings suggest that research and policy should pay more careful attention to the relationship between international low carbon technology transfer mechanisms and local technological capabilities.     

Sector-based approach to the post-2012 climate change policy architecture

A sectoral approach to GHG emissions reductions in developing countries is proposed as a key component of the post-2012 climate change mitigation framework. In this approach, the ten highest-emitting developing countries in the electricity and other major industrial sectors pledge to meet voluntary, ‘no-lose’ GHG emissions targets in these sectors. No penalties are incurred for failing to meet a target, but emissions reductions achieved beyond the target level earn emissions reduction credits (ERCs) that can be sold to industrialized nations. Participating developing countries establish initial ‘no-lose’ emissions targets, based upon their national circumstances, from sector-specific energyintensity benchmarks that have been developed by independent experts. Industrialized nations then offer incentives for the developing countries to adopt more stringent emissions targets through a ‘Technology Finance and Assistance Package’, which helps to overcome financial and other barriers to technology transfer and deployment. These sectorspecific energy-intensity benchmarks could also serve as a means for establishing national economy-wide targets in developed countries in the post-2012 regime. Preliminary modelling of a hybrid scenario, in which Annex I countries adopt economy-wide absolute GHG emissions targets and high-emitting developing countries adopt ‘no-lose’ sectoral targets, indicates that such an approach significantly improves the likelihood that atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ can be stabilized at 450 ppmv by the end of the century.     

Technology transfer under the CDM: Materializing the myth in the Japanese context?

The paper investigates the role that the clean development mechanism (CDM) could play in enhancing the effectiveness of north–south technology transfer. This is done by first exploring the issue of technology transfer in the context of existing north–south experiences to bring out the basis for the poor and unsatisfactory performance. This is followed by bringing out the intrinsic relevance of appropriate technology transfer for combating the global climate change issue.The paper then analyses the potential for such an appropriate and sustainable transfer, as well as effective diffusion and deployment of technologies under the CDM. Various aspects of the evolving design of the CDM are investigated to analyze the potential for overcoming the historical barriers across the north–south divide.Any potential for technology transfer under the CDM would need to be supported by an effective framework in the developed countries as well as a conducive environment in developing countries. In searching for such a cooperative and complementary model, the paper analyses the current Dutch strategy to bringforth certain salient features that could be applicable for other countries.Finally, a Japanese model for technology transfer is developed which can build upon domestic strengths as adopt applicable features of the Dutch strategy in order to capitalize any latent potential under the CDM. This is done by first investigating the effectiveness of the existing Japanese technology transfer framework and then extending recommendations for adapting it to reflect the shifting resource flow paradigms under the climate change regime.     

The role of international business in clean technology transfer and development

While research has generated very useful insights, usually at the macro level, regarding the multifaceted nature of environmental innovation and regulation, the characteristics and drivers peculiar to international companies have remained underexposed in the policy-related literature on clean technology transfer and development. This article aims to help open the ‘black box’ of business, also as input for future policy making, by discussing aspects that influence corporate responses: sector-specific and company-specific peculiarities as well as those related to country contexts (both origin countries and host countries for companies). Most of the climate-related investments in ‘developing’ countries turn out to have been geared to a few emerging economies, generally involving established technologies with limited transfer, and a major role for developed-country utilities, particularly from Europe. Despite these limitations, there is a base with experience being built up, and a potential for extension to lesser-developed areas, but that requires market co-creation by joint business and governmental efforts. As viable business models are largely lacking, the article suggests three main modalities, ranging from fully commercial to primarily publicly funded, involving different types of actors and countries. Gearing policies more towards corporate realities and reaping the international momentum of sustainable energy might also further climate goals.     

Technology transfer in the CDM: the role of host-country characteristics

Technology transfer is not an explicit objective of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). However, it constitutes a potential co-benefit by helping to improve living conditions in developing countries. Understanding the drivers and barriers of technology transfer in CDM projects is therefore essential to direct investment flows in host countries and enhance the current CDM framework. In this respect, the contribution of this article is twofold. First, it identifies stepping stones and stumbling blocks to technology transfer in the CDM. Higher applied tariff rates on environmental goods and services as well as burdensome administrative procedures to start a new business are found to be negatively associated with the likelihood of a technology transfer. The results are robust to the exclusion of large host countries such as China and India from the sample. Second, as an extension, the article analyses the correspondence of these supporting factors and barriers with the likelihood of a transfer of the different types of technology (equipment, knowledge, or both). The article concludes with policy recommendations for non-Annex I governments, and suggestions for improvements to the CDM to better assess technology transfer in offsetting projects.