Energy Policy and Regional Cooperation: Australia’s Contribution to Low Carbon Green Growth Initiatives

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).

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. …

Climate Change (CC) paired with the rapidly growing world population call for new approaches to land management that are both sustainable and accommodate the complex interactions between social systems and environment. To this end, it is important not only to mitigate CC by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also to adapt to the changing environmental conditions Agriculture, forestry and other land uses are responsible for almost a quarter (24%) of global anthropogenic GHG emissions (IPCC, 2014) and hence have a high potential for both CC mitigation and adaptation. Additionally agriculture and forests coexist in the same landscape and are deeply interlinked. Agriculture is central in CC discourses not only because it`s the largest driver of deforestation and forest degradation (Hosonuma, 2012) but also because it`s the sector that is highly impacted by CC, which most often results in a decline in agriculture yield. This highlights the need of innovation towards adaptive agriculture, entailing higher production with fewer inputs. Forests are important because they play a major role in CC mitigation, via carbon storage in their biomass, and in providing ecosystem services that are crucial for agriculture, such as water, pollination and control of pests and diseases. The recognition of interlinkages amongst forests, agriculture and other land uses led to a new line of thinking: the "Climate--Smart Landscape" (CSL) approach (Scherr et al., 2012; CSL is an integrated, landscape--level approach that widens the scope from the farm level to the landscape level, allowing analyses of landscape dynamics that lead to deforestation and assess the trades--off between land uses "Landscape" is defined here in broad conceptual terms: rather than being simply a physical space, it represents a complex system with mutually interacting social, biophysical, human ecological and economic dimensions Additionally, CSL emphasizes stakeholder involvement and simultaneous achievement of multiple objectives (Sunderland, 2012) including food security, Ecosystem conservation, rural livelihoods, CC mitigation and adaptation. The transition to CSL relies upon effective policies and the involvement of stakeholders in different layers of governance, such as policy makers, local farmers, researchers, NGOs and agribusiness companies. Additionally, effective CSL rely upon communication and social learning among these stakeholders. It`s based upon national policies that take into account drivers of deforestation and forest degradation (DD) and upon regional policies that take into account how local stakeholders make land use decisions: without such understanding policies are unlikely to be effective. Moreover, a shift towards CSL relies upon the organization aspect of innovation: CSA adoption, as any other innovation is not only based upon technical knowledge, but also social learning and social organization. Such learning also contributes to promote adaptive capacity, which is based upon continuous learning by doing and trial and error. Additionally CSL can be supported by collective action: a shift towards CSL cannot be achieved by a single individual but it relies upon collaboration among different stakeholders. Despite the interlinkages of forests and agriculture and their role in CC mitigation and adaptation, these sectors have been managed by different initiatives in the policy arena. In particular, two initiatives gained attention to enable CC adaptation and mitigation. The first one is the United Nations Collaborative initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, conservation of forest carbon stocks, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of carbon stocks (REDD+). REDD+ is a potentially powerful vehicle for stimulating developing countries to practise mitigation by reducing GHG emissions and also to implement adaptation measures through sustainable forest management. REDD+ incorporates safeguards as well, such as requirements for transparency, participation, protection of biodiversity and the rights of local people (UNFCCC, 2011). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) emphasizes that co--benefits should be promoted while implementing REDD+ and that 'the needs of local and indigenous communities should be addressed' (UNFCCC, 2007: 8). Although REDD+ is increasingly acknowledging the importance to address drivers of DD, its emphasis is mainly on CC mitigation and forest preservation rather than CC adaptation. The second one is Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) initiative, initiated by FAO with the aim of achieving the triple wins of CC mitigation, adaptation and food security. CSA involves the use of 'climate--smart' farming techniques to produce crops or livestock, which could help lowering deforestation for agricultural use as well as enhancing productivity, build resilience to CC and mitigate the GHG emissions (Meybeck, 2013). Although CSA represents a step forward towards greater integration of adaptation and mitigation, its emphasis in practice is mainly on agricultural goals and CC adaptation (Graham, 2012) rather than on CC mitigation goals.

Climate change has emerged as a defining challenge of our times. It is truly global in dimension and is not amenable to national or regional solutions. Unless a global and coordinated response emerges at the Copenhagen meeting of the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in December 2009, we may soon be confronting an escalating crisis. Its success or failure will also determine the prospects for effective global governance because, in a globalized world, there already are and will be many more, cross-cutting issues that will require similar global action. What will be the architecture required to mobilize, sustain, and make effective a coordinated and collaborative response to climate change? Fortunately, in this case, we do not start from scratch. We have the legal basis, approved by international consensus for such an architecture, in the UNFCCC, which emerged from the historic Rio conference of 1992. The UNFCCC has identified the nature of the challenge we face as humanity, its various dimensions such as mitigation and adaptation, and the balance of responsibilities and obligations of parties to the convention. The fundamental principle underlying global action on climate change is common, but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. It is based on the acknowledgment of historical responsibility; that is, climate change is taking place as a result of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that have been accumulating in the earth's atmosphere as a result of over two centuries of fossil fuel-based industrial activity in developed countries. This implies that the lead with respect to climate change action must be taken by developed countries. In addition, the principle recognizes common responsibilities, namely, that developing countries also have an obligation, and that is to pursue a path of ecologically sustainable development consistent with their goals of economic and social development and poverty eradication. And finally, there is the concept of respective capabilities; that is, a recognition of the diverse levels of economic development and incomes among the parties, and, hence, a differentiated contribution to the global effort. The above elements can be summed up in one word: equity. The architecture that we build to tackle climate change must be equitable. Climate change manifests itself in two distinct, though interrelated phenomena: (1) adaptation and (2) mitigation. We need different tools to deal with them. Adaptation is recognition of the fact that countries already have to cope with the consequences of climate change. Extreme climatic events are causing immense disruptions. Agriculture is being impacted in several parts of the world as a result of shorter, but warmer, growing seasons. Sea-level rise in some areas is causing coastal erosion as well as increased salinity in coastal plains. There is evidence of the melting of glaciers in several parts of the world, with severe consequences for water security. In India alone, it is estimated that as much as 2 percent to 2.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) is currently being spent on adaptation programs. This figure is bound to rise because climate change will continue to take place even if, by some miracle, GHG emissions could be reduced to zero tomorrow. The impact is much more severe in the world's tropical zones--the Least Developed Countries and the Small Island Developing States. Therefore, what we need is a mechanism through which we can build up the coping capacities of developing countries, particularly those that are most vulnerable. This will require both financial resources and technology transfer. An Adaptation Fund has already been created under the UNFCCC. It is currently receiving funds from a percentage (2 percent) of the proceeds of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). However, this is barely enough to finance a small number of adaptation projects in developing countries. …

International concern is now focused on reducing green house gas (GHG) emissions which drive climate change. The use of fossil fuels, either flaring natural gas and burning fossil fuels, are predicted contributing GHG emissions. As a consequence, International cooperation through United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has pointed to increase policy interest in developing CO2 and GHG emission trading system. The system would allow the countries who have opportunities to reduce CO2 and GHG emission (generally developing countries) and sell or trade GHG emission reduction to the countries (generally developed countries). The second part of this paper will be emphasized on oil and gas reserves, production, refineries,and utilization. Indonesia oil resource as of January 1st, 2006 amounts to about 56.60 BBO, while gas resources as of January 1st, 2006 is about 334.5 TSCF. Indonesia has nine refineries owned by PT Pertamina (Persero) and six refineries owned by private. Indonesia has also voluntary participated in reducing GHG emissions by formulating energy policy, doing research on carbon capture and storage (CCS), and developing innovative projects. This paper will highlight the energy policy, research program and innovative projects for reducing GHG emission from oil and gas activities in Indonesia

Croatia as an Annex I country of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and a country that has pledged in the Annex of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce its greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions by 5% from the pre-transition level by the budget period 2008–12, will have to envisage a new energy strategy. Compared to the energy consumption collapse in some transitional countries like Russia and Ukraine, Croatia has passed through a relatively limited long term reduction of GHG emissions since 1990 because of higher efficiency of its pre-transition economy. It is expected that in case of business as usual scenario it will breach the Kyoto target in 2003 since the demand for energy will be high, especially as the income continues to rise, especially in domestic use for heating, for transport and for electricity generation. Several scenarios of developing energy system are compared from the point of view of GHG emissions. Business as usual scenario covers the planned gasification of coastal Croatia. In the transport sector no GHG reduction compared to the business as usual scenario is expected, unless there are technology innovations on global automotive industry level. The energy sector that will most probably be the most influenced by the UNFCCC objectives is electricity generation. Several scenarios are compared. The cost-effective scenario expects a mixture of coal and gas fired power plants to be built to satisfy the new demand and to replace the old power plants that are being decommissioned. More Kyoto friendly scenario envisages avoiding the construction of the most of the future fossil fuel power plants, while decommissioning the old ones as planned, and is compared to the others from the GHG emissions point of view. The conclusion is that by measures tackling only electricity generation it will not be possible to keep GHG emission under the Kyoto target level.

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

Since the 70s of the last century, the increasing attention of the international community has been paid to global climate change, but all the international obligations assumed by the countries were exclusively declarative. Only since the 90s of the last century, countries and international communities began to take concrete quantitative commitments to reduce emissions that directly affect climate change. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 [1], was ratified by the Russian Federation in 1994. To achieve the final goal of the said framework convention, a protocol was adopted in 1997 in Kyoto [2], signed by Russia in 1999 and ratified by it in 2004. According to Stage I of the Kyoto Protocol, the total average annual emissions of the Russian Federation must not exceed the average annual level of greenhouse gas emissions achieved in 1990. Penalties for withdrawal from the agreement and noncompliance were not provided. To achieve the final goal of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in connection with the end of the Kyoto Protocol in 2015, a climate agreement was adopted in Paris [3], signed by Russia in 2016 and ratified by it in 2019. According to the Paris Agreement, the volume of total average annual greenhouse gas emissions in the Russian Federation by 2030 should not exceed 75% of the 1990 baseline emissions. The so-called "carbon tax", which was repeatedly mentioned in the documents of the Paris Climate Conference, was not included in the decisions of the Paris Agreement on climate change, but at present, the WTO rules do not directly prohibit the introduction of such taxes. In this regard, the methodology for choosing the type of an isolated power supply system taking into account the "carbon footprint" becomes especially important. The article analyzes methodological approaches to the choice of the type of an isolated medium-power power system, taking into account greenhouse gas emissions.

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America : Ultrasonic relaxation in aqueous acetic acid solution Jackopin, L.G., Yeager, E., 52 (September 1972) 831

Thailand's long-term GHG emission reduction in 2050: the achievement of renewable energy and energy efficiency beyond the NDC

Climate change is a global collective action problem, which is primarily caused due to combination of the current Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and the historical cumulative GHG emissions, contributed mainly by the developed countries. Even though India’s per capita GHG emission is minimal, India is committed to addressing the challenge with firm adherence to multilateralism, keeping in mind the national circumstances and based on equity and the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC), as enshrined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Developed countries have to take lead in reducing their GHG emissions and by providing finance, technology and capacity building support to developing countries. The continuous increase in the global mean-surface temperature due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the noticeable adverse impact of global warming across the world, have resulted in high incidences of disasters and vulnerability of human beings. In this context, the manuscript describes India's updated Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) targets submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in August 2022, and provides a detailed analysis of the progress made so far to reduce global warming and the major concerning issues. It provides an in-depth analysis of the achievements vis-à-vis the more inclusive global Environmental Performance Index (EPI) ranking 2024 from the overall environmental scenario. The way forward has been suggested based on the policy analysis of climate change and personal opinion. It concludes that though India has done remarkably well in achieving its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) targets in containing and mitigating the rise of greenhouse gases, it also requires to address the root cause of the problem such as high population along with the other social issues such as lack of awareness, public participation, and environmental responsibility for improvement in global ranking from the overall environmental perspective.

Climate change is a security problem in as much as the kinds of environmental changes that may result pose risks to peace and development. However, responsibilities for the causes of climate change, vulnerability to its effects, and capacity to solve the problem, are not equally distributed between countries, classes and cultures. There is no uniformity in the geopolitics of climate change, and this impedes solutions.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol established reporting requirements for Parties. This has resulted in comprehensive and timely information on national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Annex I Parties, periodic reporting of other information from Annex I Parties and irregular provision of GHG emissions and other information from non-Annex I Parties. Thus, the current reporting framework does not enable a complete or up-to-date assessment of current global GHG emissions, goals, projected future emission trends or mitigation actions and their effects. This paper explores options for the functions, form, timing and content of future national reports under the UNFCCC, focusing on national communications. It suggests that reporting guidelines for future national communications could be “tiered”. This could allow countries to produce national communication “updates” on a frequent (e.g. biennial) basis – focusing the information in these updates on information of most relevance to the international community. “Full” national communications would also continue to be produced, but less frequently than “updates”. Different tiers could be established according to the type of country (e.g. Annex I or non-Annex I); type of mitigation pledge (e.g. nation-wide emissions limit, sectoral goal, mitigation action); and/or the frequency with which changes in particular parameters occur. Such a tiered approach could also provide flexibility for countries to improve the content and frequency of information that they report as their capacities allow. “Updates” to national communications, containing more targeted information on key elements, could be more user-friendly and could focus on the core elements in which national and international users are interested. Streamlined “updates” to national communications could therefore focus on parameters that either change frequently and/or are not currently reported or systematically included in national communications or other climate reports under the UNFCCC. This includes: regular information on historical GHG emissions (including calculation methodology and transfers of units) for many countries, as well as on financial support from Annex I countries; short or medium-term mitigation goals and strategies (e.g. to 2020); progress in implementing such goals and strategies; and improved information on financial needs in terms of GHG mitigation and adaptation activities (by non-Annex I countries).

The inclusion of Article 8 in the 2015 Paris Agreement was, in part, an achievement of the advocacy efforts of small island developing states (SIDS) that sought recognition of climate-related loss and damage (L&D) in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). However, when a decision of the Conference of the Parties established that Article 8 of the Agreement does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation, SIDS were left with limited options for financing L&D through the UNFCCC, delaying needed climate justice in view of their negligible contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Since then, several studies have evaluated a range of L&D financing options but without explicitly accounting for whether they can deliver justice for SIDS. In this article, we qualitatively analyze the appropriateness of five of the international financial mechanisms that scholars have argued should be urgently considered by the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism under the UNFCCC – levies on (1) airline travel, (2) fossil fuel extraction, (3) GHG emissions, (4) bunker fuel usage, and (5) financial transactions. Our results indicate that no single mechanism will deliver the justice that SIDS need but that, of the five mechanisms, airline travel levies and fossil fuel extraction levies are likely to be the most appropriate. Going forward, and as climate-related weather events intensify, a suite of fair, dependable, feasible, and suitable L&D financial mechanisms will be needed to better account for the special circumstances of SIDS. Key policy insights A specialized international L&D financing facility that is fair, dependable, feasible, and suitable for the special circumstances of SIDS is urgently needed. Inaction from establishing a specialized L&D financing facility will further burden particularly vulnerable countries, such as SIDS, that face the brunt of climate change impacts. Levies on airline travel and fossil fuel extraction would most appropriately account for and meet the needs of SIDS from a climate justice perspective. Any international financial facility should support strengthening governance, increasing compliance, and ensuring that flows are just.

DPR of Korea ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on 5 December 1994, the Kyoto Protocol on 27 April 2005 and the Paris Agreement on 1 August 2016. As a party of the convention on climate change, DPR of Korea submitted the national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventories to the UNFCCC secretariat, respectively. This study aimed at analysing the characterisation of national GHG emissions in DPR of Korea for a 12-year period (1990-2002), conducted according to 2006 IPCC guidelines. The results show that DPR of Korea accounted for 0.5% of the world GHG emissions in 1990, but only 0.2% of the emissions in 2002. The amount of cumulative GHG emissions was approximately 1,503,820 Gg CO2e (CO2 equivalent) in the period 1990-2002, which accounted for 0.3% of the world cumulative GHG emissions. This showed that DPR of Korea definitely contributed to global warming, although the emissions were negligible, compared to the world emissions.