Mapping organized interests across arenas in Australian climate policy

Why carbon leakage matters and what can be done against it

Association football is popular and influential globally. Interest in how football relates to climate change, and the climate policy required for football, is growing. Clubs, players and fans increasingly call for action to reduce football’s impact on the climate, and for plans to adapt to climate impacts on football. However, well-intentioned actions must be underpinned by robust evidence. This synthesis reviews research at the interface of football and climate change. After summarizing the main climate actions identified for fans, players, clubs and organizing bodies, the review looks in-depth at four areas: impacts of football on climate; impacts of climate on football; football as a driver for pro-climate actions; and the relationship between football and carbon-intensive industries. The review then outlines research gaps for an evidence-driven response to climate change in football: adaptation across different geographical contexts; understanding what climate change means for community-level football; understanding how carbon-intensive industries relate to sense of place identity in football under a just transition; developing principles for phasing-out fossil fuel financing; and considering how climate change relates to women’s football. Key policy insights Football is a forum for galvanizing societal action in support of climate policy. However, football also contributes to, and is impacted by, climate change, and hence requires policy support under a changing climate; Reducing transportation emissions, especially flying, is a key climate policy requirement for football. Institutional policy, with government support, may enable more efficient scheduling and use of surface transport; Institutional policies, and public health policies, should develop standards and guidelines for football under extreme heat. Football also ought to be integrated within local, regional and national climate adaptation policy to ensure climate resilience; Clubs and players can lead by example on climate-positive actions, and energize wider action through fan bases. Alignment of initiatives with national or international climate policy may raise public awareness of climate polices and targets; Institutional policies for clubs, tournaments and associations should regulate fossil fuel financing. Football also offers an avenue to understand relations between local identity and carbon-intensive industries, and thus to identify socio-cultural factors for regional just transition policies.

Coalitions that Clash: California's Climate Leadership and the Perpetuation of Environmental Inequality

This report describes an assessment of the co-benefits for air pollution of recently developed climate mitigation scenarios that inform the European Union policy making. The climate mitigation scenarios were obtained with the POLES equilibrium model for a business-as-usual and greenhouse gas reduction case. In the present work, these scenarios were expanded to air pollution emissions. The resulting set of global -spatially and sector disaggregated- air pollution emissions were evaluated with the global chemistry transport model TM5, to calculate levels of particulate matter and ozone. Subsequently, air pollution impacts on human health, ecosystems and climate were evaluated.\nThe resulting set of four scenarios thus reflect various combinations of worldwide air pollution and climate policies: BAU (¿no further climate and air pollution policies since the 2000 base-year¿); CARB (¿climate policy only¿), BAP (¿no further climate policy, but progressive air pollution policies, to address worldwide increasing levels of air pollution) and CAP (¿combination of ambitious climate and air pollution policies¿). \nThe implementation of a global climate policy (CARB) has substantial co-benefits for reducing air pollutant emissions. Compared to BAU, in 2050 global emissions of SO2 are reduced by ca. 75 %, NOx by 55 %, CO (40 %) and other pollutants VOC, OC and BC) about 25% %. These emission reductions result from cleaner technologies and decreased fuel demand, and correspond to a CO2 emission reduction of more than 60 %. Advanced air pollution abatement technologies can obtain similar air pollutant reductions ranging between 35 % (NOx), 45 % (OC, BC), 60 % (SO2) and 70% (CO), however in this case the CO2 emissions reach unabated levels of 55 Pg CO2/yr. The combined air pollution and climate policy case (CAP) further reduces BAP air pollution emissions by 10-30 %. Noticeable are the decreases of methane emissions by ca. 60 %, which have important impacts on ozone air quality and climate.\nThe environmental benefits of the emission reductions are substantial. In 2050, average global life expectancy increases by 3.2 months/person for BAP (compared to BAU) and further increases by 3.7 to 6.9 months/person if additionally climate policies are introduced (CAP). Compared to 2000, only the CAP scenario leads to global improvement of life-expectancy (by about 3 months/person), while all other scenarios lead to higher particulate concentration and lower life expectancies, mainly driven by pollution developments in South and East Asia. These improvements in CAP are due to decreasing concentrations of primary (OC, BC) and secondary (SO4, NO3) aerosol. This work shows that combining air pollution and climate policies is in some regions the only way to stabilize or decrease the levels of air pollution and reducing impacts on human health. The global average life expectancy, however, masks large regional differences: e.g. current and future levels of air pollution in Asia are much larger than in Europe or the United States. Crop losses due to ozone are reduced by 4.7 % by implementing progressive air pollution policies, and could be reduced by another 2 %, by introducing additional climate policies. \nClimate policies target at limiting long-term (2100) climate change. On the intermediate time-scales (2030-2050), however, there might be important trade-offs to be considered in climate and air pollution policies, since reducing particulate matter and precursor (especially sulfur) emissions, are likely to lead to a net positive radiative forcing and a warming of climate. Since reductions of particulate matter and ozone are necessary to protect human health and vegetation, combined air pollution and climate policies are more beneficial for both climate and air pollution than stand-alone policies. There is scope to preferentially mitigate emissions of Black Carbon and methane, which is beneficial for climate and human health.

How inequality fuels climate change: The climate case for a Green New Deal

Editorial: Governing the EU's climate and energy transition through the 2030 Framework

Climate change is a complex and contentious public issue, but the risk-management options available to us are straightforward and have well-characterized strengths and weaknesses.

Celebrating one year of Environmental Research Letters

Most climate change mitigation policies, including those of higher education institutions, do not include food system greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE). Yet the food system contributes ∼30% of anthropogenic GHGE, mostly from animal source foods. Food system changes are necessary to meet GHGE mitigation targets and could do so relatively inexpensively and rapidly with major health, social and environmental co-benefits. To estimate the potential impact of integrating higher education institution climate and food policies, we used the case of the University of California (UC), comprising 10 campuses with 280,000 students. The UC is a leader in climate and food research, and has major policy initiatives for mitigating climate change and for promoting healthy, sustainable food systems. Like most higher education institutions, the UC climate change mitigation target for 2025 covers only Scope 1 and 2 GHGE (campus-generated and purchased energy), yet Scope 3 GHGE (indirect, including food system) are often institutions’ largest. We created scenarios using results of studies of US dietary changes, and existing, planned or potential UC food system changes. These scenarios could reduce UC Scope 3 food emissions by 42–55%, equivalent to 8–9% of UC’s targeted energy GHGE reduction, and 19–22% of offsets need to reach that target. These results have implications for broader climate policy in terms of food systems’ high GHGE, the health, environmental, economic and social benefits of food system changes, and ways these changes could be implemented. To our knowledge this is one of the first empirical studies of the potential for integrating climate and food policy in HEIs. Key policy insights Most higher education institution climate policies, including those of the University of California (UC), do not include food system GHGE Research at higher education institutions makes major contributions to understanding the need to reduce food system GHGE to achieve Paris Agreement goals Higher education institutions, including UC, have made many food system changes, but their climate co-benefits are not optimized, documented or integrated with climate policies Our food system change scenarios show that UC’s food system could substantially reduce GHGE These changes can incentivize UC and other higher education institutions to integrate their climate and food policies.

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

I. THE ROLE OF CO-POLLUTANT CONSIDERATIONS IN CLIMATE POLICY A. The Value of a Comprehensive Approach B. The Benefits of Integrating Co-pollutant Considerations into Climate Policy 1. The Environmental Benefits of Integrating Co-pollutant Considerations a. Existing Air Pollution b. Do Climate Policies Reduce Co-pollutants? c. How Significant are Climate Policies' Co-pollutant Benefits in Light of Existing and Emerging Direct Co-pollutant Controls? 2. The Administrative and Technical Benefits of Taking a Multi-pollutant Approach C. Addressing the Potential Economic and Political Implications of Incorporating Co-pollutant Considerations D. How Co-pollutant Implications Could Influence Climate Policies II. REGULATION OF STATIONARY SOURCES UNDER THE CAA A. The Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program B. Section 111 Standards III. THE CO-POLLUTANT IMPLICATIONS OF REGULATORY VERSUS MARKET STRATEGIES A. Cap-and-Trade B. Integrating Co-pollutant and GHG Control Strategies C. Co-pollutant Distribution D. Impact on Stringency and Associated Co-pollutant Benefits E. Certainty of Reductions F. Offsets and In-sector Reductions G. Incentives for Technology Transformation H. Participatory Benefits I. Conclusion IV. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES: EXTENDING THE CAA's REACH A. Extending the CAA to Previously Unregulated Facilities B. The Nature of Section 111(d) Standards: Modest or Transformative? V. CONCLUSION This article, prepared for UCLA Law's spring 2011 symposium entitled Perspectives on Climate Change, Pollution, and the Clean Air Act, begins by addressing an interesting but narrow question: what are the implications of applying the Clean Air Act (CAA) to stationary source greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? That inquiry has led inexorably to deeper issues, including the appropriate role of consequences in developing climate policies, the benefits and drawbacks of traditional versus market-based regulation, and, more specifically, the value of using the CAA to reduce GHG emissions. The CAA's GHG provisions for industrial sources are controversial. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson, environmental organizations, and industry would prefer new climate legislation to implementing the CAA. (1) Further, numerous congressional bills and appropriations riders have sought--persistently but unsuccessfully--to strip EPA of its authority to regulate GHGs under the CAA. (2) An analysis of the CAA's implications can help inform the larger debate about the CAA as a climate policy tool. Given the strong correlation between GHGs and traditional pollutants, there is little question that regulating GHGs from stationary sources will have important consequences. Fossil fuel combustion to produce energy contributed eighty-seven percent of GHG emissions in the United States in 2009, (3) and stationary sources contributed over half of those emissions. (4) Climate policies addressing stationary sources will therefore significantly impact fossil fuel combustion. In most instances, as GHG emissions decrease, associated co-pollutants, like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and other hazardous components, are also likely to decrease. (5) Given the persistence of ongoing air pollution and its pervasive public health and environmental consequences, this co-pollutant benefit'.' is significant. Yet, for the most part, benefits have played little role in climate policy debates. A recent study on the role of benefits in climate policy analyses observed that decision-makers do not usually consider the full range of effects of actions to address climate change. …

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine how upstream social marketing can benefit from using social media commentary to identify cognitive biases. Using reactions to leading media/news publications/articles related to climate and energy policy in Australia, this paper aims to understand underlying community cognitive biases and their reasonings.Design/methodology/approachSocial listening was used to gather community commentary about climate and energy policy in Australia. This allowed the coding of natural language data to determine underlying cognitive biases inherent in the community. In all, 2,700 Facebook comments were collected from 27 news articles dated between January 2018 and March 2020 using exportcomments.com. Team coding was used to ensure consistency in interpretation.FindingsNine key cognitive bias were noted, including, pessimism, just-world, confirmation, optimum, curse of knowledge, Dunning–Kruger, self-serving, concision and converge biases. Additionally, the authors report on the interactive nature of these biases. Right-leaning audiences are perceived to be willfully uninformed and motivated by self-interest; centric audiences want solutions based on common-sense for the common good; and left-leaning supporters of progressive climate change policy are typically pessimistic about the future of climate and energy policy in Australia. Impacts of powerful media organization shaping biases are also explored.Research limitations/implicationsThrough a greater understanding of the types of cognitive biases, policy-makers are able to better design and execute influential upstream social marketing campaigns.Originality/valueThe study demonstrates that observing cognitive biases through social listening can assist upstream social marketing understand community biases and underlying reasonings towards climate and energy policy.

Preface Michael A. Toman 1. Climate Change Economics and Policies: An Overview Michael A. Toman Part One: Introduction 2. How the Kyoto Protocol Developed: A Brief History J. W. Anderson 3. The Energy-CO2 Connection: A Review of Trends and Challenges Joel Darmstadter 4. How Much Climate Change Is Too Much? An Economics Perspective Jason F. Shogren and Michael A. Toman Appendix A: The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol Sarah A. Cline Part Two: Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions 5. Agriculture and Climate Change Pierre Crosson 6. Water Resources and Climate Change Kenneth D. Frederick 7. Forests and Climate Change Roger A. Sedjo and Brent Sohngen 8. 'Ancillary Benefits' of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Policies Dallas Burtraw and Michael A. Toman Appendix B: Climate Change, Health Risks, and Economics Alan J. Krupnick Part Three: Policy Design and Implementation Issues 9. Choosing Price or Quantity Controls for Greenhouse Gases William A. Pizer 10. Using Emissions Trading to Regulate National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Carolyn Fischer, Suzi Kerr, and Michael A. Toman 11. Revenue Recycling and the Costs of Reducing Carbon Emissions Ian W.H. Parry 12. Confronting the Adverse Industry Impacts of CO2 Abatement Policies: What Does It Cost? Lawrence H. Goulder 13. Carbon Sinks in the Post-Kyoto World Roger A. Sedjo, Brent Sohngen, and Pamela Jagger 14. Environmentally and Economically Damaging Subsidies: Concepts and Illustrations Carolyn Fischer and Michael A. Toman 15. Electricity Restructuring: Shortcut or Detour on the Road to Achieving Greenhouse Gas Reductions? Karen L. Palmer 16. The Role of Renewable Resources in U.S. Electricity Generation: Experience and Prospects Joel Darmstadter 17. Energy-Efficient Technologies and Climate Change Policies: Issues and Evidence Adam B. Jaffe, Richard G. Newell, and Robert N. Stavins 18. Climate Change Policy Choices and Technical Innovation Carolyn Fischer 19. Greenhous Gas 'Early Reduction' Programs: A Critical Appraisal Ian W.H. Parry and Michael A. Toman Appendix C: Climate Policy and the Economics of Technical Advance: Drawing on Inventive Activity Raymond J. Kopp Part Four: International Considerations 20. Policy Design for International Greenhouse Gas Control Jonathan Baert Wiener 21. Establishing and Operating the Clean Development Mechanism Michael A. Toman 22. Allocating Liability in International Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading and the Clean Development Mechnism Suzi Kerr 23. International Equity and Climate Change Policy Marina V. Cazorla and Michael A. Toman 24. The Economics of Climate-Friendly Technology Diffusion in Developing Countries Allen Blackman 25. Including Developing Countries in Global Efforts for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Ram n L pez Conclusion 26. Moving Ahead with Climate Policy Michael A. Toman Glossary Index

Australia's political engagement on health and climate change: the MJA-Lancet Countdown indicator and implications for the future.

Australia has a history of ever-changing climate change-related initiatives and policies ever since the nation actively participated in the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, endorsing the Summit goals that were formed by the desire for sustainable development. Australia also joined the UNFCCC and later signed the Kyoto Protocol supporting greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction. However, even before the Rio Summit, climate change was on the agenda in Australia. In 1989, in the lead-up to the 1990 Australian federal election, both leading political parties discussed the introduction of GHG reduction policy. A range of measures aimed at reducing Australia’s GHG emissions have been on the federal- and state-level agendas for the last two decades. Successive Australian governments have been committed to the introduction of either a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme (ETS) designed to mitigate climate change. There has been some experience with the deployment of ETSs in Australia. Some of the Australian GHG mitigation policies were successfully implemented, some were introduced and then repealed and some never reached the implementation stage. This article examines the current Australian climate change regime including the Direct Action Plan, Emissions Reduction Fund and National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting policy. The Australian climate change initiatives are examined with reference to the forest policy to assess the most significant aspects of the current regime. The comparative perspective is necessary to identify effectiveness or otherwise of the Australian policy in GHG mitigation. Such critical examination of the Australian regime allows us to trace progression of the GHG mitigation efforts specifically in the light of the Paris agreement signed by Australia. However, the current state of Australian climate policy can only be described as regressive in nature rather than providing progression towards climate change mitigation.