Implications of global emission policy scenarios for domestic agriculture: a New Zealand case study

Agricultural GHG mitigation policies are important if ambitious climate change goals are to be achieved, and have the potential to significantly lower global mitigation costs [Reisinger, A., Havlik, P., Riahi, K., van Vliet, O., Obersteiner, M., & Herrero, M. (2013). Implications of alternative metrics for global mitigation costs and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Climatic Change, 117, 677–690]. In the post-Paris world of ‘nationally determined contributions’ to mitigation, the prospects for agricultural mitigation policies may rest on whether they are in the national economic interest of large agricultural producers. New Zealand is a major exporter of livestock products; this article uses New Zealand as a case study to consider the policy implications of three global policy scenarios at the global, national and farm levels. Building on global modelling, a model dairy farm and a model sheep and beef farm are used to estimate the changes in profit when agricultural emissions are priced and mitigated globally or not, and priced domestically or not, in 2020. Related to these scenarios is the metric or GHG exchange rate. Most livestock emissions are non-CO₂, with methane being particularly sensitive to the choice of metric. The results provide evidence that farm profitability is more sensitive to differing international policy scenarios than national economic welfare. The impact of the choice of metric is not as great as the impact of whether other countries mitigate agricultural emissions or not. Livestock farmers do best when agricultural emissions are not priced, as livestock commodity prices rise significantly due to competition for land from forestry. However, efficient farmers may still see a rise in profitability when agricultural emissions are fully priced worldwide.

Policy relevance

Exempting agricultural emissions from mitigation significantly increases the costs of limiting warming to 2 °C, placing the burden on other sectors. However, there may be a large impact on farmers if agricultural emissions are priced domestically when other countries are not doing the same. The impacts of global and national climate policies on farmers need to be better understood in order for climate policies to be politically sustainable. Transitional assistance that is not linked to emission levels could help, as long as the incentives to mitigate are maintained. In the long run, efficient farmers may benefit from climate policy; international efforts should focus on mitigation options and effective domestic policy development, rather than on metrics.     

IPCC特别报告SRCCL关于气候变化与粮食安全的新认知与启示

气候变化对粮食安全的影响是广泛的,不但影响粮食产量和品质,还会影响到农户的生计以及农业相关的产业发展等;而粮食系统在保障粮食安全的同时,又会产生一系列的环境问题,其中农业源温室气体（GHG）的排放加剧全球变暖。IPCC在2019年8月份发布的《气候变化与土地特别报告》（SRCCL）,从粮食生产、加工、储存、运输及消费的各个环节评估气候变化对粮食安全的影响及粮食系统的温室气体排放对气候系统的影响;系统梳理粮食系统供给侧和需求侧的适应与减缓措施、适应与减缓的协同和权衡问题,以及气候变化条件下保障粮食安全的政策环境等。SRCCL评估结论认为,由于大量施用氮肥和消耗水资源,目前粮食系统GHG排放占全球总排放的21%~37%;农业和粮食系统是全球应对气候变化的重要方面,供给侧和需求侧的综合措施可以减少食物浪费、减少GHG排放、增加粮食系统的恢复力。未来工作的重点应丰富和扩展气候变化影响评估内容,量化适应效果,加深对适应、减缓及其协同和权衡的科学认知,大力加强应对气候变化能力建设。     

GHG mitigation of agricultural peatlands requires coherent policies

As soon as peat soil is drained for agricultural production, the peat starts to degrade, which causes emissions to the atmosphere. In countries with large peatland areas, the GHG mitigation potential related to management of these soils is often estimated as the highest amongst the measures available in agriculture. Although the facts are well known, the policies leading to diminished emissions are often difficult to implement. We have analysed the reasons why the mitigation potential is not fully utilized and what could be done better in national implementation of climate policies. Four cases are used to illustrate the necessary steps to reach mitigation targets: determining the amount and properties of peat soils, estimating the potential, costs and feasibility of the mitigation measures, and selecting and implementing the best measures. A common feature for all of the cases was that national and international climate policies have increased the public interest in GHG emissions from peat soils and increased the pressure for mitigation. Basically the same factors restrict the implementation of mitigation measures in all countries with significant peat soil areas. The most important of these is lack of policy coherence, e.g. ignoring climate policies when planning land use or agricultural policies. We conclude that GHG mitigation is achieved only if other policies, especially national regulations and strategies, are in line with climate policies.

Policy relevance

Agricultural peat soils could be used to help reach GHG mitigation goals in many countries, but the full potential of mitigation of peat soils is not used. Although peatland cultivation inevitably leads to loss of the whole peat layer and high emissions, there are few incentives or regulation to effectively minimize these losses. This article discusses the possibilities to reduce GHG emissions from agricultural peat soils, with specific emphasis on the barriers of implementing mitigation measures nationally. The lessons learned from the selected cases emphasize the role of all policy makers and their cooperation in planning coherent policies for achieving the goals determined by climate policies.     

Corrigendum to: Incremental CH4 and N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the U.S. Government's SC-CO2 estimates

The light bulb ban introduced by the EU is used as an example to illustrate how to assess the climate impact of a policy that overlaps with a cap-and-trade scheme. The European Commission estimates that by 2020 the reduction in GHG emissions induced by banning incandescent light bulbs will reach 15 million tons annually. The number is a conservative estimate for the reduction in emissions from lighting if the total residential stock of incandescent light bulbs in 2008 is replaced by more efficient lighting sources. However, it ignores that use-phase and some non-use-phase emissions are covered by the EU Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS). This drastically reduces the amount of GHG emissions saved.

Policy relevance

Several policies such as the EU-wide ban on incandescent light bulbs, energy efficiency mandates and support mechanisms for renewable energy overlap with the EU ETS. While there are typically several justifications for these policies, a chief reason is the reduction of GHG emissions. However, given that the aggregate emissions of the industries covered are fixed by the EU ETS, the climate change mitigation aspect of these policies is not obvious. Using the light bulb ban as an example, this article illustrates how a focus on non-EU ETS emissions changes the assessment of an intervention in terms of GHG reductions.     

适应气候变化的国际行动和农业措施研究进展

针对气候变暖采取稳健的适应措施已成为国际社会共识。该文综合了当前适应气候变化的国际谈判进展及已有的农业适应气候变化措施,指出适应资金严重不足,技术研发、应用与转让难以实施,以及适应气候变化行动实施能力的不足严重制约着适应气候变化行动的有效实施;关于农业适应气候变化的技术措施仍缺乏系统的理论研究与应用示范。在此基础上,提出了未来中国农业适应气候变化需要重点开展的研究任务,即农业气象灾变过程的新特点及其风险管理, 农业适应气候变化的大数据决策管理系统研发及适应气候变化的农业气候区划与减灾保产技术研究,以切实推进农业适应气候变化,为确保国家粮食安全与农业可持续发展提供支撑。     

Russia's 2020 GHG emissions target: Emission trends and implementation

This article provides an overview of the recent modelling results on Russia's GHG emission trends, and reviews the success of mitigation policies in order to establish whether Russia's domestic target seems feasible. Various Russian GHG emission scenarios indicate that Russia's domestic target – emissions 25% below the 1990 level by 2020 – is not far from the business-as-usual emissions trajectory. In particular, two factors could deliver the required emissions reductions: the currently declining gross domestic product (GDP) growth and ongoing domestic mitigation policies. The former is more likely to secure the target level of emissions, because GDP growth has been contracting significantly in comparison to earlier forecasts of 3–5% annual growth, and this trend is expected to continue. The latter option – success with domestic mitigation measures – seems less likely, given the various meta-barriers to policy implementation, and the marginality of mitigation policies, problems with law-making processes, bureaucratic tradition, and informality of legislative and implementation systems.

Policy relevance

This article provides an assessment of the stringency of Russia's domestically set emissions limitation target by 2020 and the chances of Russia, the fourth largest GHG emitter in the world, achieving it. We base our assessment on a number of recent key sources that analyse Russia's GHG emission paths by applying socio-economic models, which have only been available in the Russian language prior to this publication. This knowledge is applicable for use by other negotiation parties to compare Russia's efforts to mitigate climate change to their own, and thus makes a contribution to facilitating a more equal burden-sharing of climate commitments under the future climate change agreement.     

Climate change and the agricultural sector in Ireland: examining farmer awareness and willingness to adopt new advisory mitigation tools

Agriculture is responsible for the bulk of Ireland’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, the potential to mitigate some of these emissions through the adoption of more efficient farm management practices may be hampered by farmers’ awareness and attitude towards climate change and agriculture’s role in contributing to GHG emissions. This paper presents results from a survey of 746 Irish farmers in 2014, with a view to understanding farmers’ awareness of, and attitudes to, climate change and GHG emissions. Survey results show that there was a general uncertainty towards a number of questions related to agricultural GHG emissions, e.g. if tilling of land causes GHG emissions, and that farmers were reluctant to take action to reduce GHG emissions on their farm. To further explore farmers’ attitudes towards climate change, a multinomial logit model was used to examine the socio-economic factors that affect farmers’ willingness to adopt an advisory tool that would show the potential reduction in GHG emissions from the adoption of new technologies. Results show that farmers’ awareness of human-induced global climate change was positively related to the tool’s adoption.

Key policy insights

• Irish farmers are generally not sufficiently aware of the impact of their activities on climate change.

• A quarter of farmers believed that climate change will only impact on their business in the long-term; such an attitude may lead to a reluctance amongst these farmers to adopt management practices that reduce GHG emissions.

• Awareness of climate change affects positively the adoption of new tools to reduce GHG emissions on farmers’ farms.

• IT literacy affects willingness to adopt new tools to address GHG emissions.

• Reception of agri-environmental advice can have a positive influence on farmers’ willingness to adopt new GHG emission abatement tools.

• Farmers in receipt of environmental subsidies are more likely to adopt new abatement tools, either because they are more environmentally conscious or because the subsidy raised their environmentally consciousness.

• Willingness to adopt differs between different farm enterprises; operating dairy enterprise increases the willingness to adopt new advisory mitigation tools.

     

Integrating agriculture and energy to assess GHG emissions reduction: a methodological approach

Agriculture is responsible for approximately 25% of anthropogenic global GHG emissions. This significant share highlights the fundamental importance of the agricultural sector in the global GHG emissions reduction challenge. This article develops and tests a methodology for the integration of agricultural and energy systems modelling. The goal of the research is to extend an energy systems modelling approach to agriculture in order to provide richer insights into the dynamics and interactions between the two (e.g. in competition for land-use). We build Agri-TIMES, an agricultural systems module using the TIMES energy systems modelling framework, to model the effect of livestock emissions and explore emissions reduction options. The research focuses on Ireland, which is an interesting test case for two reasons: first, agriculture currently accounts for about 30% of Ireland's GHG emissions, significantly higher than other industrialized countries yet comparable with global levels (here including emissions associated with other land-use change and forestation); second, Ireland is both a complete and reasonably sized agricultural system to act as a test case for this new approach. This article describes the methodology used, the data requirements, and technical assumptions made to facilitate the modelling. It also presents results to illustrate the approach and provide associated initial insights.

Policy relevance

Most of the policy focus with regard to climate mitigation targets has been on reducing energy-related CO₂ emissions, which is understandable as they represent by far the largest source of emissions. Non-energy-related GHG emissions – largely from agriculture, industrial processes, and waste – have received significantly less attention in policy discourse. Going forward, however, if significant cuts are made in energy-related CO₂ emissions, the role of non-energy-related GHG emissions will grow in importance. It is therefore crucial that climate mitigation analyses and strategies are not limited to the energy system. This article shows the value of using integrated energy and agriculture techno-economic modelling techniques to draw evidence for new comprehensive climate policy strategies able to discern between the full range of technical solutions available. It enables the production of economy-wide least-cost climate mitigation pathways.     

Greenhouse gas mitigation co-benefits across the global agricultural development programs

Global agricultural development programs aim to support smallholder farmers and farming communities by strengthening sustainable and resilient food production systems – which can also promote climate change mitigation as a co-benefit by reducing the emissions and enhancing removals of greenhouse gases (GHG). This study presents estimated GHG emissions reductions of almost 100 agricultural development projects over 51 low- and middle-income countries supported by the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD), USAID-Feed the Future (FTF) Initiative, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO, previously DfID). Together, these projects promoted a net GHG emissions reduction of 6.5 MtCO₂e per year. The forest management and promotion of improved agroforestry systems in the project areas contributed the most to the total mitigation co-benefits of the investment portfolios (∼3.9 MtCO₂e/y). Improved crop management with minimum tillage practices, residue incorporation, water management in paddy rice, and the use of organic fertilizers also made a large contribution to the GHG emissions reduction (∼1.5 MtCO₂e/y). Grass and pasture land management across the selected projects account for a net emission reduction of 0.2 MtCO₂e/y. The implementation of improved agricultural practices in combination proves more effective for improving productivity and generating mitigation co-benefits than used in isolation. However, the aggregate impacts of soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration should be interpreted carefully, which quickly can be lost quick. The interventions promoted by the global agricultural development programs have shown immense potential in reducing net GHG emissions or emission intensity in agriculture and allied sectors. For moving forward to achieve the net-zero and 1.5 °C goals including food security, the global agriculture development programs need to prioritize working on agriculture policy development and implementation so that agriculture expansion does not continue to drive land-use change. This needs to move from the traditional agriculture development programs to transformational changes.     

National contributions to climate change mitigation from agriculture: allocating a global target

Globally, agriculture and related land use change contributed about 17% of the world’s anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2010 (8.4 GtCO₂e yr^?1), making GHG mitigation in the agriculture sector critical to meeting the Paris Agreement’s 2°C goal. This article proposes a range of country-level targets for mitigation of agricultural emissions by allocating a global target according to five approaches to effort-sharing for climate change mitigation: responsibility, capability, equality, responsibility-capability-need and equal cumulative per capita emissions. Allocating mitigation targets according to responsibility for total historical emissions or capability to mitigate assigned large targets for agricultural emission reductions to North America, Europe and China. Targets based on responsibility for historical agricultural emissions resulted in a relatively even distribution of targets among countries and regions. Meanwhile, targets based on equal future agricultural emissions per capita or equal per capita cumulative emissions assigned very large mitigation targets to countries with large agricultural economies, while allowing some densely populated countries to increase agricultural emissions. There is no single ‘correct’ framework for allocating a global mitigation goal. Instead, using these approaches as a set provides a transparent, scientific basis for countries to inform and help assess the significance of their commitments to reducing emissions from the agriculture sector.

Key policy insights

• Meeting the Paris Agreement 2°C goal will require global mitigation of agricultural non-CO₂ emissions of approximately 1 GtCO₂e yr^?1 by 2030.

• Allocating this 1 GtCO₂e yr^?1 according to various effort-sharing approaches, it is found that countries will need to mitigate agricultural business-as-usual emissions in 2030 by a median of 10%. Targets vary widely with criteria used for allocation.

• The targets calculated here are in line with the ambition of the few countries (primarily in Africa) that included mitigation targets for the agriculture sector in their (Intended) Nationally Determined Contributions.

• For agriculture to contribute to meeting the 2°C or 1.5°C targets, countries will need to be ambitious in pursuing emission reductions. Technology development and transfer will be particularly important.

     

Piecemeal or combined? Assessing greenhouse gas mitigation spillovers in US forest and agriculture policy portfolios

ABSTRACT

Forest and agricultural sector response to comprehensive climate policy is well represented in the literature. Less analysis has been devoted to piecemeal solutions. We use the Forest and Agriculture Sector Optimization Model with Greenhouse Gases (FASOMGHG) to project the individual and combined effect of three existing U.S. Department of Agriculture programmes with potential to increase greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. We find that a combined policy scenario may achieve greater mitigation than individual constituent programmes, suggesting the possibility of complementary spillover effects in some periods. Mitigation varies over time, however, and some periods experience net emissions as markets and management practices respond to initial policy shocks. The regional distribution of GHG mitigation also varies between policy scenario. Differences in the magnitude and imputed cost of mitigation under each scenario, generating negative values for some programmes and time periods, reinforces the need to evaluate portfolio design to cost-effectively achieve near-term GHG mitigation.

Key policy insights

• Increased near-term GHG mitigation in the forest and agriculture sectors in the US may be possible by expanding or refocusing the emphasis of existing programmes.

• Implementing several such forest and agricultural programmes simultaneously may lead to greater GHG mitigation than when implemented separately, indicating the possibility of positive spillover effects.

• Programmes targeted to agricultural management may hold outsized potential to achieve near-term GHG mitigation; Policies aimed at influencing land use conversion appear to be more vulnerable to reversion and subject to larger inter-annual swings.

• The staged implementation of programmes could also be useful, helping to encourage increased mitigation (or the retention of already achieved mitigation) over time as markets re-equilibrate to initial shocks.

• Though the particular scenarios assessed here are unique to the US, our findings may be applicable to other locations outside the US where land management is influenced by individual market actors and there is competition between forest and agricultural land uses.

     

The interpretation and highlights on mitigation of climate change in IPCC AR6 WGIII report北大核心CSCD

2022年4月4日,IPCC第六次评估报告第三工作组《气候变化2022:减缓气候变化》报告和决策者摘要发布。报告全面评估了2010年以来减缓气候变化领域的最新科学进展,为国际社会深度认识和理解全球温室气体排放情况、不同温升水平下的减排路径以及可持续发展背景下的气候变化减缓和适应行动等提供了重要科学依据。基于报告主要结论,围绕温室气体排放的区域差异、减缓路径分类、与土地利用相关的排放评估及CO去除技术评估等方面的亮点,文中提出在应对气候变化减缓政策行动中,中国应坚定“双碳”战略目标,在综合考虑经济发展阶段和资源禀赋差异背景下,将可持续发展、公平和消除贫困植根于社会发展愿景中实施减缓路径,并加快提升气候变化综合评估核心科学技术的研发进度,以进一步提升国际影响力和话语权。     

National climate change mitigation legislation,strategy and targets: a global update

Global climate change governance has changed substantially in the last decade, with a shift in focus from negotiating globally agreed greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets to nationally determined contributions, as enshrined in the 2015 Paris Agreement. This paper analyses trends in adoption of national climate legislation and strategies, GHG targets, and renewable and energy efficiency targets in almost all UNFCCC Parties, focusing on the period from 2007 to 2017. The uniqueness and added value of this paper reside in its broad sweep of countries, the more than decade-long coverage and the use of objective metrics rather than normative judgements. Key results show that national climate legislation and strategies witnessed a strong increase in the first half of the assessed decade, likely due to the political lead up to the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009, but have somewhat stagnated in recent years, currently covering 70% of global GHG emissions (almost 50% of countries). In comparison, the coverage of GHG targets increased considerably in the run up to adoption of the Paris Agreement and 89% of global GHG emissions are currently covered by such targets. Renewable energy targets saw a steady spread, with 79% of the global GHG emissions covered in 2017 compared to 45% in 2007, with a steep increase in developing countries.

Key policy insights

• The number of countries that have national legislation and strategies in place increased strongly up to 2012, but the increase has levelled off in recent years, now covering 70% of global emissions by 2017 (48% of countries and 76% of global population).

• Economy-wide GHG reduction targets witnessed a strong increase in the build up to 2015 and are adopted by countries covering 89% of global GHG emissions (76% not counting USA) and 90% of global population (86% not counting USA) in 2017.

• Renewable energy targets saw a steady increase throughout the last decade with coverage of countries in 2017 comparable to that of GHG targets.

• Key shifts in national measures coincide with landmark international events – an increase in legislation and strategy in the build-up to the Copenhagen Climate Conference and an increase in targets around the Paris Agreement – emphasizing the importance of the international process to maintaining national momentum.

     

Climate change mitigation strategies for agriculture: an analysis of nationally determined contributions,biennial reports and biennial update reports

The role of agriculture in the context of climate change is a complex issue. On the one hand, concerns about food security highlight the need to prioritize adaptation; on the other hand, the target of the Paris Agreement (keeping global temperature rise well below 2°C) cannot be achieved without a significant decrease in agricultural emissions. Various analyses of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) submitted under the Paris Agreement show how countries intend to prioritize the needs for adaptation and mitigation in the agricultural sector. This paper focuses on 46 countries that contribute 90% of global agricultural emissions and asks how they are addressing the agricultural sector in their climate mitigation policies. It takes into account that conditions and circumstances in countries vary significantly but might also indicate similar patterns. The analysis is based on information provided by countries in their NDCs, as well as their Biennial Reports (BRs) or Biennial Update Reports (BURs) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It further includes data on national agricultural emissions. By applying a mixed methods approach, which combines qualitative content analysis and comparative cluster analysis, we find that countries vary in their progress on agriculture and climate mitigation for many different reasons. These reasons include the national perception of the problem, divergent starting points for climate policy, particularities of the agricultural sector and, correspondingly, the availability of cost-effective mitigation technologies.

Key policy insights

• While for many countries the NDCs signify the beginning of their climate policy, UNFCCC biennial reports can be used to learn more about the policies that countries have already implemented.

• Mitigation action in the agricultural sector is emphasized most prominently in cases where co-benefits are possible and production is not impacted negatively.

• Policies and measures in the agricultural sector often do not align with the UNFCCC system of monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV). In addition to improving MRV-systems, it seems equally important to exchange national experiences with implemented measures and policies.

• The Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture could take into account the problem of different definitions of sector boundaries and thus the importance of different mitigation measures.

     

Brazil beyond 2020: from deforestation to the energy challenge

The main assumptions and findings are presented on a comparative analysis of three GHG long-term emissions scenarios for Brazil. Since 1990, land-use change has been the most important source of GHG emissions in the country. The voluntary goals to limit Brazilian GHG emissions pledged a reduction in between 36.1% and 38.9% of GHG emissions projected to 2020, to be 6–10% lower than in 2005. Brazil is in a good position to meet the voluntary mitigation goals pledged to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) up to 2020: recent efforts to reduce deforestation have been successful and avoided deforestation will form the bulk of the emissions reduction commitment. In 2020, if governmental mitigation goals are met, then GHG emissions from the energy system would become the largest in the country. After 2020, if no additional mitigation actions are implemented, GHG emissions will increase again in the period 2020–2030, due to population and economic growth driving energy demand, supply and GHG emissions. However, Brazil is in a strong position to take a lead in low-carbon economic and social development due to its huge endowment of renewable energy resources allowing for additional mitigation actions to be adopted after 2020.

Policy relevance

The period beyond 2020 is now relevant in climate policy due to the Durban Platform agreeing a ‘protocol, legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force’ that will have effect from 2020. After 2020, Brazil will be in a situation more similar to other industrialized countries, faced with a new challenge of economic development with low GHG energy-related emissions, requiring the adoption of mitigation policies and measures targeted at the energy system. Unlike the mitigation actions in the land-use change sector, where most of the funding will come from the national budgets due to sovereignty concerns, the huge financial resources needed to develop low-carbon transport and energy infrastructure could benefit from soft loans channelled to the country through nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs).     

Options to overcome the barriers to pricing European agricultural emissions

Although agriculture could contribute substantially to European emission reductions, its mitigation potential lies untapped and dormant. Market-based instruments could be pivotal in incentivizing cost-effective abatement. However, sector specificities in transaction costs, leakage risks and distributional impacts impede its implementation. The significance of such barriers critically hinges on the dimensions of policy design. This article synthesizes the work on emissions pricing in agriculture together with the literature on the design of market-based instruments. To structure the discussion, an options space is suggested to map policy options, focusing on three key dimensions of policy design. More specifically, it examines the role of policy coverage, instruments and transfers to farmers in overcoming the barriers. First, the results show that a significant proportion of agricultural emissions and mitigation potential could be covered by a policy targeting large farms and few emission sources, thereby reducing transaction costs. Second, whether an instrument is voluntary or mandatory influences distributional outcomes and leakage. Voluntary instruments can mitigate distributional concerns and leakage risks but can lead to subsidy lock-in and carbon price distortion. Third, the impact on transfers resulting from the interaction of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) with emissions pricing will play a key role in shaping political feasibility and has so far been underappreciated.

POLICY RELEVANCE

Following the 2015 Paris Agreement, European climate policy is at a crossroads. Achieving cost-effectively the 2030 and 2050 European targets requires all sectors to reduce their emissions. Yet, the cornerstone of European climate policy, the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), covers only about half of European emissions. Major sectors have been so far largely exempted from carbon pricing, in particular transport and agriculture. While transport has been increasingly under the spotlight as a possible candidate for an EU ETS sectoral expansion, policy discussions on pricing agricultural emissions have been virtually absent. This article attempts to fill this gap by investigating options for market-based instruments to reduce agricultural emissions while taking barriers to implementation into account.     

Climate politics at a crossroad: views on building a consensus

The climate change issue faces a big challenge, perhaps the biggest challenge of all—politics. Pakistan has taken many noticeable steps in relation to climate change: (1) it is the only country in which the Prime Minister is heading an inter-ministerial task force on climate change, (2) it is the first developing country to establish a specialized, self-financed scientific centre to research the impact of climate change, and (3) it is the lead country to earmark budgetary funds for a national carbon sequestration programme. Pakistan, together with many developing countries, has much to offer the climate change issues. The author proposes five approaches to build consensus among climate policy negotiators: (1) reinforcing the polluter pays principle and ‘common but differentiated responsibility’, (2) active partnership by developing countries, (3) recognizing the voluntary actions taken by developing countries, (4) reinforcing the issue of adaptation, and (5) considering the option of equal per capita entitlements.     

Ocean acidification and climate change: synergies and challenges of addressing both under the UNFCCC

Ocean acidification and climate change are linked by their common driver: CO₂. Climate change is the consequence of a range of GHG emissions, but ocean acidification on a global scale is caused solely by increased concentrations of atmospheric CO₂. Reducing CO₂ emissions is therefore the most effective way to mitigate ocean acidification. Acting to prevent further ocean acidification by reducing CO₂ emissions will also provide simultaneous benefits by alleviating future climate change. Although it is possible that reducing CO₂ emissions to a level low enough to address ocean acidification will simultaneously address climate change, the reverse is unfortunately not necessarily true. Despite the ocean's integral role in the climate system and the potentially wide-ranging impacts on marine life and humans, the problem of ocean acidification is largely absent from most policy discussions pertaining to CO₂ emissions. The linkages between ocean acidification, climate change and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are identified and possible scenarios for developing common solutions to reduce and adapt to ocean acidification and climate change are offered. Areas where the UNFCCC is currently lacking capacity to effectively tackle rising ocean acidity are also highlighted.     

Consumption-based GHG emission accounting: a UK case study

Global GHG emissions continue to rise, with nearly a quarter of it due to trade that is not currently captured within global climate policy. In the context of current trade patterns and limited global cooperation on climate change, the feasibility of consumption-based emissions accounting to contribute to a more comprehensive (national) policy framework in the UK is investigated. Consumption-based emissions results for the UK from a range of models are presented, their technical robustness is assessed, and their potential application in national climate policy is examined using examples of policies designed to reduce carbon leakage and to address high levels of consumption. It is shown that there is a need to include consumption-based emissions as a complementary indicator to the current approach of measuring territorial emissions. Methods are shown to be robust enough to measure progress on climate change and develop and inform mitigation policy. Finally, some suggestions are made for future policy-oriented research in the area of consumption-based accounting that will facilitate its application to policy.

Policy relevance

Emissions embodied in trade are rapidly increasing and there is thus a growing gap between production emissions and the emissions associated with consumption. This is a growing concern due to the absence of a global cap and significant variation in country-level mitigation ambitions. Robust measurements of consumption-based emissions are possible and provide new insights into policy options. This includes trade-related policy (e.g. border carbon adjustments) and domestic policies (e.g. resource efficiency strategies). As climate policy targets deepen, there is a need for a broad range of policy options in addition to production and technological solutions. Consumption-based emissions are complementary to production-based emissions inventories, which are still the most accurate estimate for aggregated emissions at the global level. However, without consumption-based approaches, territorial emissions alone will not provide a complete picture of progress in regional and national emissions reduction.     

Carbon capture and storage policy in the United States: A new coalition endeavors to change existing policy

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is considered by some to be a promising technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and advocates are seeking policies to facilitate its deployment. Unlike many countries, which approach the development of policies for geologic storage (GS) of carbon dioxide (CO₂) with nearly a blank slate, the U.S. already has a mature policy regime devoted to the injection of CO₂ into deep geologic formations. However, the existing governance of CO₂ injection is designed to manage enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and policy changes would be needed to manage the risks and benefits of CO₂ injection for the purpose of avoiding GHG emissions. We review GS policy developments at both the U.S. federal and state levels, including original research on state GS policy development. By applying advocacy coalition framework theory, we identify two competing coalitions defined by their beliefs about the primary purpose of CO₂ injection: energy supply or greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions. The established energy coalition is the beneficiary of the current policy regime. Their vision of GS policy is protective: to minimize harm to fossil energy industries if climate policy were to be enacted. In contrast, the newly formed climate coalition seeks to change existing GS policy to support their proactive vision: to maximize GHG reductions using CCS when climate policy is enacted. We explore where and at what scale legislation emerges and examine which institutions gain prominence as drivers of policy change. Through a detailed textual analysis of the content of state GS legislation, we find that the energy coalition has had greater success than the climate coalition in shaping state laws to align with its policy preferences. It has enshrined its view of the purpose of CO₂ injection in state legislation, delegated authority for GS to state agencies aligned with the existing policy regime, and protected the EOR status quo, while creating new opportunities for EOR operators to profit from the storage of CO₂ The climate coalition's objective of proactively putting GS policy in place has been furthered, and important progress has been made on commonly held concerns, such as the resolution of property rights issues, but the net result is policy change that does not significantly revise the existing policy regime.