Climate change: the political situation.

Better information on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigation potential in the agricultural sector is necessary to manage these emissions and identify responses that are consistent with the food security and economic development priorities of countries. Critical activity data (what crops or livestock are managed in what way) are poor or lacking for many agricultural systems, especially in developing countries. In addition, the currently available methods for quantifying emissions and mitigation are often too expensive or complex or not sufficiently user friendly for widespread use.The purpose of this focus issue is to capture the state of the art in quantifying greenhouse gases from agricultural systems, with the goal of better understanding our current capabilities and near-term potential for improvement, with particular attention to quantification issues relevant to smallholders in developing countries. This work is timely in light of international discussions and negotiations around how agriculture should be included in efforts to reduce and adapt to climate change impacts, and considering that significant climate financing to developing countries in post-2012 agreements may be linked to their increased ability to identify and report GHG emissions (Murphy et al 2010, CCAFS 2011, FAO 2011).

Along with the industrial and commercial development, the seriousness of global warming has been paid attention.The United Nations Framework Convention on climate change (UNFCCC), regulate the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases in the control standard to prevent anthropogenic interference with the climate system.Each country which signed the agreement passed the Kyoto Protocol to control greenhouse gas emission actively. The Kyoto Protocol has been effective since February 16th, 2005 and expires in 2012. Policy development becomes the primary concern after the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol target.This article analyzes greenhouse gas emissions norms established by the international community, and economy in the face of international relations studies of greenhouse gas related specifications, respectively, comparing China and Taiwan policies and regulations on greenhouse gas emissions of two-oriented solution to the situation.Using SWOT analytical method in this article, for China and Taiwan's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis, description of greenhouse gas emission reduction cooperation between niche and became an important reference in policy development. China and Taiwan, more or less begin with the international trend of greenhouse gas legislation, the specification of a reference, the difference between China and Taiwan is also reflected in the system formulation design, China and Taiwan on greenhouse gas regulation Act gradually with on the international pace, but remain to improve the review space. Compared to developed countries, developing countries in pursuit of economic iii development and the preservation of the environment difficult to strike the right balance. China and Taiwan are actively involved in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; contribute to prevent worsening global warming. Discuss China and Taiwan difference in greenhouse gas rulemaking and for better or worse, to make recommendations. Hoping to create a win-win situation, the biggest beneficiaries not only for the people on both sides, but for global ecology, achieve the vision for the sustainable development of the Earth.

The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has ratified but the United States has not, imposes legally binding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction requirements only on developed countries, and only through 2012. Like most less developed countries, the PRC has insisted that only developed countries should be required to limit their GHG emissions as a matter of international law under any successor to the Kyoto Protocol. American traditional conservatives repeatedly have cited the lack of legally binding international limits on the PRC’s own emissions as a principal reason for not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol or binding the United States to any successor accord with similar terms. Many observers regard an accommodation between the United States and

Major US electric utility climate pledges have the potential to collectively reduce power sector emissions by one-third

Radley Horton,1,a Daniel Bader,1,a Yochanan Kushnir,2 Christopher Little,3 Reginald Blake,4 and Cynthia Rosenzweig5 1Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research, New York, NY. 2Ocean and Climate Physics Department, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY. 3Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Lexington, MA. 4Physics Department, New York City College of Technology, CUNY, Brooklyn, NY. 5Climate Impacts Group, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY

Taking Stock of Strategies on Climate Change and the Way Forward: A Strategic Climate Change Framework for Australia

The Negative Bidirectional Interaction Between Climate Change and the Prevalence and Care of Liver Disease: A Joint BSG, BASL, EASL, and AASLD Commentary

I. INTRODUCTION In June 1992, the world's nations met at the Rio Earth Summit Conference to discuss the various challenges facing the global environment.(1) One of the outcomes of the conference was the adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a global agreement addressing climate change.(2) The main objective of the UNFCCC is to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions, which are recognized as having a negative impact on climate change, and to prevent dangerous man-made interference with the climate system.(3) Under the UNFCCC, the Parties undertook general commitments to reach this stabilization objective and agreed to be guided by a number of principles, including equity, in fulfilling the terms of the Convention.(4) In December 1997, the Conference of the Parties, which is the Supreme Body under the UNFCCC, met in Kyoto, Japan to establish specific commitments.(5) Under the Kyoto Protocol, developed countries and countries with economies in transition(6) agreed to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by certain amounts, called assigned amounts. Emissions are to be reduced in reference to a particular year, called a base year. The first commitment period is between 2008 and 2012.(7) The assigned amounts of most developed countries entails a reduction of their emissions,(8) The assigned amounts of countries with economies in transition, like Russia and Ukraine, represents in theory, a stabilization at 1990 levels of emissions (i.e., zero growth from 1990 levels). However, such assigned amounts in fact may allow Russia and Ukraine to increase their emissions because, since 1990, their economic downfall has resulted in an approximately 30% reduction in their greenhouse gas emissions.(9) Therefore, while ostensibly assuming commitments to stabilize their level of greenhouse gas emissions, countries with economies in transition, like Russia and Ukraine, have effectively been given surplus emission allocations. This surplus allocation, which has come to be known as air, is defined here as the difference between the assigned amounts for the first commitment period and the lower emission levels that would exist during that period in the absence of climate related policies and measures.(10) There are two main reasons why hot air granted to countries with economies in transition could have serious implications on the achievement of the UNFCCC stabilization objective and might therefore slow down the process of combating climate change.(11) First, it could enable those countries to increase their emissions from current levels, instead of reducing them.(12) Second, once the negotiation process begins for developing countries,(13) developing countries could rely upon the granting of hot air to countries with economies in transition as a precedent.(14) While the total emissions in developing countries are still relatively low, their emissions are expected to surpass those of the developed world by 2020 under a normal growth scenario(15) Delaying or limiting developing countries' reduction commitments would cause an increase in greenhouse emissions, thereby seriously compromising the stabilization objective of the UNFCCC. The purpose of this article is to determine whether, on the basis of equity which is a guiding principle under the UNFCCC,(16) developing countries could claim surplus emission allocations by using the hot air obtained by countries with economies in transition as precedent. Section I examines the role of equity in relation to the UNFCCC and the negotiation process that preceded the adoption of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. Section II discusses the rationale behind granting hot air to countries with economies in transition and its possible implications. Section III analyzes whether hot air given to countries with economies in transition can be relied upon as a precedent by developing countries. The analysis examines the similarities and differences between countries with economies in transition and developing countries in the context of climate change, and the arguments that can be made in favor of, or against, developing countries obtaining their own hot air. …

CONTENTS I Introduction II Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events III Adaptation in the International Climate Regime IV Insurance and Adaptation in the International Climate Regime V Models for Climate Change Insurance VI Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility VII Climate Change Insurance and the Pacific Island States VIII Viability of Climate Insurance as a Long-Term Adaptation Strategy IX Conclusion I INTRODUCTION Many Small Island Developing States ('SIDS') lie only metres above sea level, making them particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change in both the shorter (eg storm surge during large tropical cyclones) and longer (eg sea level rise) terms. (1) The modest ambition for mitigation (ie reduction) (2) of greenhouse gas emissions in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ('UNFCCC'), (3) Kyoto Protocol (4) and Copenhagen Accord (5) means that the prospect of avoiding an increase in mean surface temperature of less than two degrees is now very low. (6) The latest climate science suggests the Earth is on a path that will lead to a rise in mean surface temperature of between three and six degrees by 2100. (7) Unless there is a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over coming decades, SIDS are likely to experience tropical cyclones of greater severity, disrupted rainfall patterns and sea level rise. (8) Recent extreme weather events in the Asia-Pacific region, such as Typhoon Haiyan (9) and Cyclone Ian, (10) demonstrate the significant impact of these events on SIDS. (11) The lack of success in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions has led to adaptation to climate change impacts gaining greater prominence within the United Nations climate negotiations. Adaptation to climate change has been defined as '[a]djustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities'. (12) Adaptation may take many forms, including pre-emptive action to limit damage from climate change-related events (eg implementing more ambitious building codes to make buildings more resilient to storms) and building institutions to aid recovery after a climate-related event (eg improving emergency services capacity to respond in the immediate aftermath of adverse weather events). Domestically, insurance is an established mechanism to spread financial risk of adverse events and build societal resilience. However, at an international level, the issue of climate change-related insurance has only proceeded in fits and starts. Proposals for an insurance mechanism to support the adaptation of SIDS to climate change date back to 1991. At that time, the Alliance of Small Island States ('AOSIS') proposed an international, state-based pool to provide insurance against the impacts of climate change-related sea-level rise. (13) Despite this early call by AOSIS, a climate change-related insurance mechanism was not included in either the UNFCCC or the Kyoto Protocol. In 2007 climate change-related insurance emerged again on the UNFCCC agenda as the Bali Action Plan launched international discussion on enhanced action on adaptation 'including risk sharing and transfer mechanisms such as insurance'. (14) In 2008 AOSIS made a submission under the Bali Action Plan to include an insurance mechanism as part of a broader response to climate-related loss and damage. (15) In a departure from its earlier proposal in 1991, the 2008 AOSIS submission called for insurance cover for climate change-related extreme weather events such as hurricanes, floods and droughts. (16) In 2010 the Cancun Agreements also invited submissions on the development of a climate risk insurance facility, as a part of an enhanced adaptation framework, to address impacts from extreme weather events. (17) The 2012 Conference of the Parties ('COP') 18 meeting in Doha appeared to be a breakthrough in the development of institutions to assist adaptation to climate change. …

For many developing countries, the land use sector, particularly agriculture and forestry, represents a large proportion of their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, making this sector a priority for GHG mitigation activities. Previous global surveys (e.g., IPCC 2000) as well as the most recent IPCC assessment report clearly indicate that the greatest technical potential for carbon sequestration and reductions of non-CO2 GHG emissions from the land use sector is in developing countries. Estimates that consider economic feasibility suggest that agriculture and forestry together provide among the greatest opportunities for short-term and low-cost mitigation measures across all sectors of the global economy1 (IPCC 2007). In addition, it is widely recognized that the ecosystem changes entailed by most mitigation practices, i.e., building soil organic matter, reducing losses and tightening nutrient cycles, more efficient production systems and preserving native vegetation, are well aligned with goals of increasing food security and rural development as well as buffering land use systems against climate change (Lal 2004). Hence, there is growing interest in jump-starting the capacity for broad-based engagement in agriculturally-based GHG mitigation projects in developing countries.

The policy of United States government toward climate change poses a puzzling paradox. U.S.-funded research has played a major role in identifying the threat of climate change and in developing climate models, and American scientists have been among the leading voices in drawing attention to the challenges it poses to the global community. Vice President Al Gore, who enjoyed unprecedented power and influence for a vice president in the Clinton administration, focused on climate change in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance, calling it the most important environmental problem we face. But U.S. policy commitments to addressing the threat of climate change have been quite weak. The United States will fall far short of its goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by the year 2000 to 1990 levels, as agreed to in the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), and it led the opposition, until recently, to binding commitments for reducing emissions. Even though the Clinton administration agreed to a seven percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 in the Kyoto Protocol, there has been great opposition to binding emission reductions in Congress.

Shogren is the Stroock Distinguished Professor of Natural Resource Conservation and Management at the University of Wyoming. In 1997, he served as the senior economist for environmental policy at the President's Council of Economic Advisers during the runup to Kyoto. In the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), most countries agreed to voluntarily reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by the turn of the 20th century (UNFCCC, 1999a). By the mid-1990s, policy makers and scientists realized that the majority of the voluntary pledges were not being met. The international community responded by increasing the pressure to formulate country-specific binding commitments to reduce emissions. The end result was the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC, 1999b). The protocol set targets and timetables for emission reductions; an Annex I Parties (industrialized and transition economies) is to reduce net GHG emissions by about 5% below 1990 levels by 2008–2012. Article 25 of the protocol says the agreement will enter into force 90 days after it has been ratified (or approved, accepted, or acceded to) by at least 55 parties to the convention, including Annex I Parties, accounting for 55% of the group's 1990 carbon dioxide emissions. As of May 2004, the Kyoto Protocol had not entered into force. The delay is caused in part by the lack of commitment by the United States, Australia, and Russia, and with the expected increase in GHG emissions growth driven by increasing economic growth in developing nations like China and India, the emission reductions needed to comply with Kyoto will be substantial. The Kyoto Protocol might go into force, and people still want to know for what benefit, at what cost, and who wins and who loses? Herein, we briefly review the past, present, and future of the Kyoto Protocol from an economist's benefit-cost perspective. To an …

The Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has introduced the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) as a scheme for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction through cooperation between Annex 1 Parties (investing countries), which are committed to certain GHG emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol, and non‐Annex 1 Parties (host countries), which do not have any commitments to reduce GHG emissions. The eligibility of forestry projects under the CDM is limited to afforestation/reforestation (A/R) projects. A/R CDM allows Certified Emissions Reduction Units (CERs) to be purchased through carbon sequestration by afforestation or reforestation projects in developing countries. A total of 17 methodologies have been approved by the Executive Board of the UNFCCC. Out of these, 11 approved methodologies are for large‐scale A/R CDM project activities and 6 are for small‐scale A/R CDM project activities. This study identifies some potential land use changes for the development of new and approved methodologies of A/R CDM project activities. These suggested land use changes with high potential are pasture lands, landfills, mountainous areas, and mined lands. The suggested future land uses in A/R CDM project activities are due to their good potential in sequestering carbon, success in the establishment of plantation, and unavailability of the approved methodologies of A/R CDM project activities that are applicable to these suggested land uses. A total of 8 project design documents (PDD) of A/R CDM project activities have been accepted by the Executive Board and registered under the Kyoto Protocol of the UNFCCC. Some of the problems with A/R CDM project activities include the planting of large scale monoculture plantations, the planting of exotic species, and impact on the hydrology of the project areas. Future directions of A/R CDM project activities are here suggested, which are implementing mixed species in a plantation, using native species during reforestation activities, and counting the soil organic carbon pools among the carbon pools measured for carbon sequestration.

Imposing versus Enacting Commitments for the Long‐Term Energy Transition: Perspectives from the Firm

Energy-related activities are a major contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A growing body of knowledge clearly depicts the links between human activities and climate change. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil and other human activities has released carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and other heat-trapping GHG emissions into the atmosphere and thus increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 emissions. The main human activities that emit CO2 emissions are (1) the combustion of fossil fuels to generate electricity, accounting for about 37% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 31% of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2013, (2) the combustion of fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel to transport people and goods, accounting for about 31% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 26% of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2013, and (3) industrial processes such as the production and consumption of minerals and chemicals, accounting for about 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 12% of total ...