Mitigating Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from International Shipping in Post-Kyoto Climate Policy: Legal Issues and Challenges

A Legal Obligation to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture: A Challenge to the European Union's Emissions Trading System and the EU Member States with the Largest Agricultural Impact

The complexity of climate change and its global nature as a problem affecting the international community necessitates a variety of measures deriving their authority from different international regimes. Acknowledging the global and complex nature of shipping activities, the Kyoto Protocol entrusted the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from marine bunker fuels to the International Maritime Organization (IMO). 1 Since 1997, the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) has been actively engaged in discussions concerning the reduction of GHG emissions from ships and the elaboration of a legal framework for energy efficiency in the shipping industry as a means of tackling climate change. In what was heralded as a historic decision, the MEPC adopted mandatory measures to reduce GHG emissions from ships at its sixty-second session in 2011. These measures form the first legally binding, multilateral climate change-related agreement since the Kyoto Protocol. Despite some progress in the recent MEPC and the adoption of a resolution on the promotion of technical co-operation and the transfer of technology, progress in the IMO is slow. In this framework, the European Union (EU) is considering a variety of options such as the inclusion of ships emissions in its GHG reduction commitment, the elaboration of a monitoring, reporting, and verification system based on fuel consumption, and market-based mechanisms with the view to contributing to global efforts and the IMO process. The negotiation process at the IMO for the adoption of measures to reduce GHG emissions from ships has demonstrated a number of challenges and uncertainties stemming from regime interaction between the IMO regime and the principles and institutional framework of the UN Framework Convention on

The Kyoto Protocol (KP) is a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC), and primary tool aimed at combating global warming and climate change. The KP does not cover emissions from international bunkers and in its paragraph 2.2 directs Annex I countries to pursue reduction of GHG emissions from marine and aviation bunker fuels by ‘working through’ IMO (International Maritime Organization) and ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) respectively. Getting the mandate from UNFCCC, IMO and ICAO have been leading the discussions on formulating a regime to address the GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions from shipping and aviation respectively. However, there are differences on the issue of coverage of emissions from international bunkers (aviation and shipping) and especially the scope of the application of market based measures. Some of the nations want the global application of measures based on the ‘no more favourable treatment principle‘ (which was adopted in 1982 in the Paris memorandum of understanding on port state control and proposes ‘flag neutrality’) in the case of shipping and Chicago Convention in the case of aviation. On the other hand, other nations want the adoption of CBDR (common but differentiated responsibility) principles in any proceeding on the matter. The debate has entered into a deadlock. The paper discusses this issue of the coverage of GHG emissions from international marine and aviation bunkers and brings to light the various discussions that have happened on the same. An attempt has been made to identify the problem associated with the issue and finally some recommendations have been made.

Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in pasture-based dairy-beef production systems

Estimating GHG emission mitigation supply curves of large-scale biomass use on a country level

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. …

Negotiating failure: understanding the geopolitics of climate change

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from post-consumer waste and wastewater are a small contributor (about 3%) to total global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Emissions for 2004-2005 totalled 1.4 Gt CO2-eq year(-1) relative to total emissions from all sectors of 49 Gt CO2-eq year(-1) [including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and F-gases normalized according to their 100-year global warming potentials (GWP)]. The CH4 from landfills and wastewater collectively accounted for about 90% of waste sector emissions, or about 18% of global anthropogenic methane emissions (which were about 14% of the global total in 2004). Wastewater N2O and CO2 from the incineration of waste containing fossil carbon (plastics; synthetic textiles) are minor sources. Due to the wide range of mature technologies that can mitigate GHG emissions from waste and provide public health, environmental protection, and sustainable development co-benefits, existing waste management practices can provide effective mitigation of GHG emissions from this sector. Current mitigation technologies include landfill gas recovery, improved landfill practices, and engineered wastewater management. In addition, significant GHG generation is avoided through controlled composting, state-of-the-art incineration, and expanded sanitation coverage. Reduced waste generation and the exploitation of energy from waste (landfill gas, incineration, anaerobic digester biogas) produce an indirect reduction of GHG emissions through the conservation of raw materials, improved energy and resource efficiency, and fossil fuel avoidance. Flexible strategies and financial incentives can expand waste management options to achieve GHG mitigation goals; local technology decisions are influenced by a variety of factors such as waste quantity and characteristics, cost and financing issues, infrastructure requirements including available land area, collection and transport considerations, and regulatory constraints. Existing studies on mitigation potentials and costs for the waste sector tend to focus on landfill CH4 as the baseline. The commercial recovery of landfill CH4 as a source of renewable energy has been practised at full scale since 1975 and currently exceeds 105 Mt CO2-eq year(-1). Although landfill CH4 emissions from developed countries have been largely stabilized, emissions from developing countries are increasing as more controlled (anaerobic) landfilling practices are implemented; these emissions could be reduced by accelerating the introduction of engineered gas recovery, increasing rates of waste minimization and recycling, and implementing alternative waste management strategies provided they are affordable, effective, and sustainable. Aided by Kyoto mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI), the total global economic mitigation potential for reducing waste sector emissions in 2030 is estimated to be > 1000 Mt CO2-eq (or 70% of estimated emissions) at costs below 100 US$ t(-1) CO2-eq year(-1). An estimated 20-30% of projected emissions for 2030 can be reduced at negative cost and 30-50% at costs < 20 US$ t(-) CO2-eq year(-1). As landfills produce CH4 for several decades, incineration and composting are complementary mitigation measures to landfill gas recovery in the short- to medium-term--at the present time, there are > 130 Mt waste year(-1) incinerated at more than 600 plants. Current uncertainties with respect to emissions and mitigation potentials could be reduced by more consistent national definitions, coordinated international data collection, standardized data analysis, field validation of models, and consistent application of life-cycle assessment tools inclusive of fossil fuel offsets.

Role of biochar amendment in mitigation of nitrogen loss and greenhouse gas emission during sewage sludge composting

Fuel conservation and GHG (Greenhouse gas) emissions mitigation scenarios for China’s passenger vehicle fleet

BackgroundThe key problem of non-grain energy plants’ scale development is how to estimate the potential of GHG emission reduction accurately and scientifically. This study presents a method coupled DSSAT (the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer) and the life cycle assessment (LCA) method to simulate the spatial distribution of sweet sorghum-based ethanol production potential on saline–alkali land. The GHG (greenhouse gas) emission mitigation and net energy gains of the whole life of sweet sorghum-based ethanol production were then analyzed.ResultsThe results of the case study in Dongying, Shandong Province, China showed that developing sweet sorghum-based ethanol on saline–alkali land had GHG emission mitigation and energy potentials. The LC-GHG emission mitigation potential of saline–alkali land in Dongying was estimated at 63.9 thousand t CO2 eq, equivalent to the carbon emission of 43.4 Kt gasoline. The LC-NEG potential was predicted at 5.02 PJ, equivalent to the caloric value of 109 Kt gasoline. On average, LC-GHG emission mitigation and LC-NEG were predicted at 55.09 kg CO2 eq/t ethanol and 4.33 MJ/kg ethanol, respectively.ConclusionsThe question of how to evaluate the potential of sweet sorghum-based ethanol development scientifically was solved primarily in this paper. The results will provide an important theoretical support for planning the bioenergy crops on saline–alkali land and develop the fuel ethanol industry.

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 ...

Legislation to cap and trade greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was approved by a 219-212 vote of the United States House of Representatives on June 26, 2009. Cap and trade policy articulated in the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) act of 2009 regulates GHGs including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and nitrogen trifluoride. Debate over the ACES act focused heavily on economic issues contrasted against concerns about climate change1. However, discussion largely ignored the potential for cap and trade legislation to contribute to reductions in levels of other harmful air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and ozone precursors that share emission sources with GHGs. Under the bill, domestic GHG emissions are to be capped at 2005 annual levels, and reduced to 17% of those marks by 20502. The bill provides for an initial round of pollution permits to be made available, some free, others at auction. Subsequently, these permits can be bought and sold in the open market by organizations such as utility companies and manufacturing firms. A key provision in the ACES act requires the president to impose tariffs on countries that do not implement similar regulations on GHG emissions. While other potentially viable legislation, such as a tax on carbon emissions, has been proposed3, the current cap and trade legislation is the first bill to pass in either the House or Senate. The greenhouse gases regulated under the ACES act do not generally pose serious direct health risks. For example, nitrous oxide is used in dental procedures, and carbon dioxide is an ingredient in carbonated beverages. Other GHGs, like nitrogen trifluoride and sulfur hexafluoride, are not harmful at their current concentration levels, but can be hazardous to persons working with them if safety precautions are not taken. Instead, substantial human health benefits from cap and trade legislation could potentially come from reductions in ambient levels of harmful pollutants, such as particulate matter and ozone, that share emissions sources with GHGs. For example, 94% of CO2 emissions in the US result from combustion of fossil fuels, with electricity generation and transportation alone comprising nearly 70%. These are also the leading source of sulfur dioxide, fine particles having diameter small than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), and precursors to ozone such as mono-nitrogen oxides (NOx)4. While the time scale for potential impacts of cap and trade legislation on climate change and related health benefits is likely decades or centuries, ancillary air pollution mitigation could have immediate health benefits. In two nationwide epidemiological studies, daily levels of ambient ozone and PM2.5 have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular and respiratory mortality5 and to increased risk of emergency hospital admissions, especially for heart failure6, respectively. Estimates of the potential health benefits attributable to reductions in harmful air pollutants resulting from mitigation of GHG emissions, at the city, region and national, have been substantial7. While US cap and trade legislation would likely reduce domestic air pollution levels, two caveats deserve consideration. First, methods for reducing GHG emissions typically reduce air pollution levels, but not always. This problem can be highlighted using airplanes as an example8. Two methods to reduce CO2 emissions from airplanes are to decrease aircraft weight or increase engine combustion temperatures. The former reduces both GHG and air pollution emissions, whereas the later reduces GHG emissions at the cost of increasing precursors to ozone. In the broader context of energy production, it is likely cap and trade legislation would drive a shift away from fossil fuel combustion to sources such as solar technology that produce much less air pollution. However, the exact technology development path is still uncertain. A second problem is the potential for domestic cap and trade legislation to transfer US emissions to newly industrialized nations. Countries facing lower production costs associated with looser regulations on GHG emissions would have an economic advantage over manufacturing industries in the US. However, increased air pollution from new manufacturing could be a key public health issue for developing regions, such as China's Pearl River delta, where air pollution levels are already much higher than standards in the US9. The economic and physical systems that would be affected by cap and trade legislation are extremely complex, and impacts on air pollution will have to be considered in a broad context. For example, while the absence of tariffs would likely push manufacturing, air pollution and related negative health effects to developing regions, those regions might experience health benefits associated with increased per capita income. The discussion is similarly complex in the physical domain. For example, some air pollutants, such as sulfate particulate matter, can contribute to short term climate cooling. Though still somewhat unclear, there is an emerging debate over the possibility that air pollution mitigation could actually exacerbate global warming in the short term10. While it faces potentially significant opposition and alteration in the Senate, the cap and trade bill recently passed in the House has progressed further through Congress than any other similar legislation. There is tremendous potential for legislation regulating GHG emissions, via cap and trade or other strategies, to simultaneously decrease emissions of harmful air pollutants and reduce morbidity and mortality attributable to cardiovascular and respiratory illness. Such improvements in public health have been linked to economic benefits from recovered workforce productivity8, and add important support for progress on cap and trade legislation versus delayed action.

Roadmapping green economic restructuring: A Ricardian gradient approach

Preface Field Study of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Mitigation in Cropping Systems 1. Quantifying Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Agricultural Soils and Management Impacts S. J. Del Grosso and W. J. Parton 2. Nitrogen Source Effects on Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Irrigated Cropping Systems in Colorado A. D. Halvorson and S. J. Del Grosso 3. Nitrous Oxide Emissions at the Surface of Agricultural Soils in the Red River Valley of the North, U.S.A. Rebecca L. Phillips and Cari D. Ficken 4. Exchange Fluxes of NOX, NH3, and N2O from Typical Wheat, Paddy, and Maize Fields in the Yangtze River Delta and North China Plain Yuanyuan Zhang, Shuangxi Fang, Junfeng Liu, and Yujing Mu 5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Rice Cropping Systems W. R. Horwath 6. Understanding Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Croplands in China Zucong Cai and Xiaoyuan Yan 7. Redox Potential Control on Cumulative Global Warming Potentials from Irrigated Rice Fields Kewei Yu 8. Fertilizer Nitrogen Management To Reduce Nitrous Oxide Emissions in the U.S. Robert L. Mikkelsen and Clifford S. Snyder 9. Physical and Chemical Manipulation of Urea Fertilizer To Limit the Emission of Reactive Nitrogen Species M. I. Khalil 10. Mitigation Options for Methane and Nitrous Oxide from Agricultural Soil: From Field Measurement to Evaluation of Overall Effectiveness Hiroko Akiyama, Yoshitaka Uchida, and Akinori Yamamoto 11. Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer Types on Nitrous Oxide Emissions Martin Burger and Rodney T. Venterea 12. Discerning Agricultural Management Effects on Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Conventional and Alternative Cropping Systems: A California Case Study E. C. Suddick, K. Steenwerth, G. M. Garland, D. R. Smart, and J. Six 13. N2O Emissions and Water Management in California Perennial Crops David R. Smart, M. Mar Alsina, Michael W. Wolff, Michael G. Matiasek, Daniel L. Schellenberg, John P. Edstrom, Patrick H. Brown, and Kate M. Scow 14. Global Nitrous Oxide Emissions: Sources and Opportunities for Mitigation R. M. Rees 15. Climate Impacts from Agricultural Emissions: Greenhouse Species and Aerosols Jeffrey S. Gaffney, Nancy A. Marley, and John E. Frederick Modeling of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Mitigation in Cropping Systems 16. Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agroecosystems: Scientific Basis and Modeling Approach Changsheng Li 17. Soil Organic Matter Cycling and Greenhouse Gas Accounting Methodologies S. J. Del Grosso, S. M. Ogle, and W. J. Parton 18. Emissions of Nitrous Oxide from Agriculture: Responses to Management and Climate Change M. Abdalla, P. Smith, and M. Williams 19. Assessing the Environmental Impact of Agriculture in Europe: The Indicator Database for European Agriculture Adrian Leip 20. Development of Spatial Inventory of Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Agricultural Land Uses in California Using Biogeochemical Modeling Lei Guo, Dongmin Luo, Changsheng Li, and Michael FitzGibbon Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Mitigation in Animal Systems 21. Greenhouse Gas Emission Sources from Beef and Dairy Production Systems in the United States Kimberly R. Stackhouse, Sara E. Place, Michelle S. Calvo, Qian Wang, and Frank M. Mitloehner 22. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Cattle Feedlot Manure Composting and Anaerobic Digestion as a Potential Mitigation Strategy Brandon Gilroyed, Xiying Hao, Francis J. Larney, and Tim A. McAllister 23. Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Beef and Dairy Production Systems Sara E. Place, Kim R. Stackhouse, Qian Wang, and Frank M. Mitloehner 24. Improved Productivity Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Animal Agriculture Judith L. Capper 25. Evaluation of Poultry Litter Fertilization Practices on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Dexter B. Watts, H. Allen Torbert, and Thomas R. Way 26. Quantification and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Dairy Farms Hamed M. El-Mashad and Ruihong Zhang Editors' Biographies Indexes Author Index Subject Index